Free Traffic Legal Advice

Right, so you've read the sticky, which clearly sets out our opinions on AI, and decided to ask us whether you should follow AI's advice?

<deleted>

I’ve just received a NIP, 5 days after alleged offence of 35 in a 30.
I’ve looked through sticky and still wonder about whether to request images to identify driver and calibration certificates as my Waze always keeps me under limits so I’m surprised, if it was me, that I was over 30.
Before accepting 3 points or otherwise, is it worth as AI suggests, demanding images to identify driver and calibration certificates and maintenance records, operator logs, citing RTA (1998) - requirement to provide sufficient info, HRA Art 6 (1998) -right to fair trial and CPIA (1996) duty on prosecution to disclose all material evidence?
Thanks in advance.

I shall try to explain some of the reasons why we advise against AI.

It suggests "demanding". If you ask nicely, the police may provide some of these things, although they don't have to. If you "demand", they probably won't. In any case, it's very unlikely that any of that information will help you.

At that speed, you will normally be offered a fixed penalty, and - if appropriate - a speed awareness course. If you decline or ignore those offers, you will automatically be referred to court for a fair trial - there is no need to demand it. At that stage, the prosecution should disclose the evidence upon which they will rely": they are not obliged to do so earlier, and again you don't normally need to demand it.

To be fair to your AI, at least it hasn't cited Magna Carta.

…images to identify driver

It is your job to identify the driver. The police have no obligation to help you with that whether you “demand” anything from them or not.

… and calibration certificates and maintenance records, operator logs,

If you defend the matter in court, it is unlikely that the police will rely on any of those to convict you. Mechanical devices are presumed to be working correctly unless the contrary can be proved. The burden of that proof will rest with you and if you are not provided with those documents, you can ask the court to order their disclosure. You will have to tell them why you want them and simply saying “Waze always keeps me under limits” is unlikely to be a sufficient reason.

citing RTA (1998) - requirement to provide sufficient info,

I’m not sure that the Road traffic Act does make such a requirement, though I could be wrong.

...HRA Art 6 (1998) -right to fair trial

Do you believe you will not get a fair trial without all those things?

...and CPIA (1996) duty on prosecution to disclose all material evidence?

That duty is not absolute and is tempered by the word “material.” The prosecution is obliged to disclose, initially, the evidence it intends to rely on to convict you. As well as that it might be ordered by the court to disclose any evidence it has which might assist you or undermine their prosecution (as I explained above).

If you follow the advice offered in the "Read This First" article, you will realise that AI presents a grave threat to your safety:

"If your source is AI - we will look for you, we will find you and we will kill you"

I think the advice is fairly clear and quite relevant.

BTW – the “armchair warrior” you refer to is the Global Moderator for this site who was largely responsible for the “Read This First” advice.