Free Traffic Legal Advice

I'm in Kent, England and received a SJPN in the post for doing 70 in a (temporary) 40. The section of the A20 between Sidcup and Swanley which is catching a lot of people. I previously admitted to being the driver and plan to plead guilty.

I understand that this level of speed is going to attract at least 6 points

I also plan to plead for mercy based on exceptional hardship.

1 - I am representing myself, am I better to go to court or make my argument by post?

2 - Will the in-person court procedure take much longer? longer is potentially better for me.

3 - I am a Private Hire driver, licensed by TFL according to TFL's new licensing policy any offence resulting in 6 or more points will result in license revocation. Is this a good argument for exceptional hardship as it will basically cost me my income?

4 - I have one or two circumstantial arguments (eg 5am clear road, conflicting information on my cars sat nav showing 70) that probably won't have any legal weight but might be considered mitigating factors are these worth talking about also or just the disproportionate effect of the 6 points?

Thank you

Firstly, assuming that you are convicted of speeding, the court is required by law to order your licence endorsed with either 3-6 points or ban you from driving for any period of time, unless they find that there are special reasons not to endorse (which is compelling mitigation regarding the commission of the offence - any argument regarding whether or not the restriction was pointless at 5am isn't going to cut in for SRNtE).

The magistrates have guidance on sentencing within those parameters which they are permitted to deviate from but are required to justify doing so, and are often reluctant to do so. 66+ in a 40 limit is sentencing band C in the guidelines which you are presumably aware is 6 points or a 7-56 day ban.

Many people, including some magistrates, think that "exceptional hardship" is restricted to avoiding a totting-up ban - but exceptional hardship is simply the only ground on which a court can avoid ordering a totting-up ban if the offender tots up to 12 points. A court is entitled to consider any relevant mitigation in other cases. Whether they will be inclined to do so is another matter.

To "argue" for less than 6 points, you would need to request a court hearing (or hope that the SJ reads your mitigation and decides that the case is not appropriate for the SJ process), and present your argument in person. Technically you could present your case by post - you will not be required to attend unless the court is considering a ban - but technically you could also try to win the lottery by weighing half a bag of cake-mix.

Stepping outside of the streamlined process by requesting a court hearing will delay matters. You could delay them further by pleading not guilty, but any sympathy that you might be hoping to engender within the bench would tend to evaporate quite quickly.

In the past, I have had some vicarious "success" with mitigation where the "paint-by-numbers" perceived seriousness of the offence is greater than the actual seriousness.

On the face of it, you were doing 30mph over the speed limit, which is a significant amount. Assuming that the limit was signed correctly, logically you were either not paying attention (which would tend to make the offence more serious), or you deliberately broke the law by some margin.

The law is the law. Other than variable speed limits, speed limits apply 24 hours a day, regardless of traffic, etc.. If there was little to no traffic and the rationale behind the reduced limit was not present at that particular time, the speed limit still applies and you had no excuse for exceeding it.

However,  having fallen on your sword regarding the above, the bench might be amenable to considering whether the public safety aspect of the seriousness of the offence, having already fallen on your sword regarding the blatant criminality for which you have no excuse, is reflected in the sentencing guidelines, and whether the wider effect of the guideline sentence matches the seriousness of the offence.

What won't help you is that being a professional driver will itself be an aggravating factor for driving offences.

Im happy to supply the source of my information(if the admin allows) as it may help others in this position too??

Authorities and sources are everything.

"I've heard that some people have gotten off" is of little assistance other than possibly alerting the OP to the possibility that they might be able to find a useful strategy if the go digging.

"I've heard that some people have gotten off, and here is the source" enables the OP to find the information that is out there, and potentially allows us to rationalise that information.

FFS link the source!

It's a private page, so cannot be viewed without joining.

This page has kept me really intringued for the past 4 months


Facebook Page ....Support for the a20 speed fines......

That FB group is not really of any great help to the OP.

Apart from a very brief period (of less than a week in January) when a "rogue" 50 repeater sized sign appeared towards the end of the stretch, there has been nothing to warrant the description of this temporary limit as a "debacle." It was well publicised by matrix signs and yellow notices before the average speed system went live and the yellow notices are still in place. it is perfectly adequately signed. There is actually no justification for assuming it is subject to NSL as the preceding stretch is a 50mph limit and if a driver misses the "40" signs (which would be difficult) he should still assume he is in a 50mph limit.

When concerns were first raised about this limit in the early part of this year, a FOI request was submitted posing various questions. Some of these were complied with, others denied:

https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclosure-2024/july-2024/information-relating-average-speed-cameras-a20/

The most important response as far as this OP goes is this:

The Metropolitan Police were informed by TfL that the camera and signage had been installed showing a speed change for the new average speed link on the A20 Eastbound. As a result, the MPS carried out a vigorous commissioning process to establish if signage met the guidance and legal perspective, which included police officers carrying out several video run-throughs using a Dashcam to record the site. This allowed the officers the chance to review and identify the signs that had been installed and to consequently ascertain if the site met the guidance set out in the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 2016.

Please note, enforcement is not carried out at any site until the MPS are satisfied that it meets the requirements or indeed exceeds the required standard/guidance.

In addition, in relation to the dates the signage was erected, we can today inform you of the following:

“The signage was changed to 40mph over a three-night period of closures from 26 September 2023, but did not come into force until 18 October 2023.”

“The adjustment to the new slower speed limit was reinforced with illuminated matrix signs (VMS) staggered along the route for a period of time, starting 4th October 2023 to the 21 November 2023. Again these signs are not a legal requirement nor are they referred to by any guidance given for signage, they were just an extra, temporary informative measure that TFL used to assist drivers with the change.

A three-night closure of the A20 was put in place from 11 and 13 December 2023 where the signage was improved and the changes were confirmed by TFL on the 14 December.”

Improvements:

TFL replaced small repeater signs with larger signs, which they did not need to do in relation to the guidance given due to the continuation of the speed limit, and they also made several additions/changes to make sure that the signage was made adequate and brought in line with the guidelines set by TRSGD (chapter three) (removed one inconspicuous sign and replaced with two new signs on two new poles).”


One of our regular contributors reported last week that some drivers who had pleaded not guilty were acquitted due to police witnesses not attending. I hadn't heard anything about that but what would help the OP with his mitigation would be to learn on what basis they made their pleas. One thing is fairly certain: based on the above from the MPS and my own knowledge of the stretch in question, any mitigation based on inadequate signage is likely to fall on deaf ears.

The carriageway was closed over August Bank Holiday to improve the drainage (the reason for the lower limit). It is due to close overnight for a couple of nights next week, presumably to reinstate the NSL signage.

Hi New Judge.

I am not sure if you are a member of the group and can see what it is going on??

No I’m not, ziggy. I don’t use FB but have seen contributions to other more local community sites expressing views which I assume the FB group  reflects. Those views, in the main, seem to be “It’s always been 70. I didn’t notice it had changed. It’s all so unfair” (or similar).

I can categorically state that I have seen at least a dozen occasions where Motorists Cases have been discharged after pleading not guilty in this area.

When you say "seen", do you mean you have seen reports of these cases? If so, why was the defendant "discharged"? Was he found not guilty following a trial or did the prosecution offer no evidence (perhaps because of non-attendance of witnesses)?

I wanted to give the OP a possible option in his situation.Once more I would encourage him to look at the page before he commits himself.I suspect he is from the A20 area so will have no problem being accepted into the group. 

What is needed before advising anybody to plead not guilty to an offence on that stretch is some idea of the basis on which these other cases resulted in acquittals. I think basing a NG plea (which, in the event of failure, would cost the defendant many hundreds of pounds) on the fact that some cases have seen acquittals because police witnesses had not materialised, is not very wise.