Free Traffic Legal Advice

The evidence provided by the prosecution (Met Police) is the older TMO issued on November 2023.  This talks of the whole of kingston hill, not just the part at the top.
The other main points are that the terminal sign of the new speed limit is positioned behind a large obstruction of the driver's line of vision ( a bus stop shelter and bus stop sign).  They should have positioned it where its visibility is not obscured.
They did not stamp the roundels on the road tarmac from the start of the change of speed.  Whilst this is not a legal requirement, it was a minuted undertaking by the council that they would do this before the cameras were switched on.  To date, they have still not done this.  The minutes of the committee meeting when the speed limit change was finally approved for kingston hill are : The minutes are held on public record and are available here: https://moderngov.kingston.gov.uk/documents/g10011/Printed%20minutes%20Thursday%2011-Jul-2024%2019.30%20Kingston%20and%20North%20Kingston%20Neighbourhood%20Committee.pdf?T=1

So because the council didn’t do something they’re not required to do by law, the police can’t enforce the criminal law? It’s not the best argument ever, is it?

Lots of irrelevant noise about optional signage, not so much noise about the TRO the police are relying on apparently being outdated (revoked).

I don’t think you will get very far with an argument about inadequate signage. As well as that, you really need to concentrate on a single aspect of your defence rather than have a “shopping basket” of deficiencies that you will be asking the court to consider.

I think you need to investigate the history behind the two Traffic Orders.

The one cited by PC Wilson in his evidence pack (The Kingston upon Thames (20 mph Speed Limit) (No. 5) Traffic Order 2023) seems to include Kingston Hill in its entirety.

However, the one I found (The Kingston upon Thames (20mph Speed Limit) No. 1) Traffic Order 2024) mentions a specific section of that road, namely “Kingston Hill between its junction with Queens Road and a point 150 metres east of its junction with Warren Road”.

It seems from “tittle tattle” that Kingston Hill was omitted from the earlier Order. According to the tittle tattle, there was debate surrounding where a 20mph limit should commence (in the direction towards Kingston town centre) and so Kingston Hill was left out of the otherwise almost blanket 20mph imposition whilst a study could be undertaken. My suspicion that Kingston Hill was left out of the earlier order may well be true because otherwise there would be no point in making the later, more specific order.

I think you should contact Kingston Council (020 8547 5000 between 9am and 5pm Mondays to Fridays, according to their website) to gain sight of both these orders.

If the earlier order excludes Kingston Hill then the evidence provided by PC Wilson does not support the charge but I would imagine that error could be rectified in court.

If so, that leaves the question of where the limit actually begins and how that ties in with the placement of the terminal signs. The difficulty with that, as I mentioned earlier, is that the point that is 150 metres east of Kingston Hill’s junction with Warren Road is not on Kingston Hill at all, but probably somewhere in the gardens towards the end of nearby Eastcotte Close.

If Mr Plod makes a statement, what has a TMO or certificates got to do with it anyway?

Because - in this case anyway - there is a possibility that the TMO, which Mr Plod relies on to show that the offence was committed, might be deficient.

Have you actually seen the TMO itself?

What you have linked to (and what I found as well) is not the TMO. It is a publication on a media portal provided for public notices.

You need to look at the TMO itself. The notice provides a link to view it but it doesn't work. I suggest you contact Kingston Council via one of the other methods shown in section 3 of the notice.

As you realise (and as I pointed out earlier) 150 metres east of Kingston Hill's junction with Warren Road is not on the highway at all and it is impossible from that description to determine where the limit actually begins. You need to know where it does so as to compare it with where the terminal "20" sign is located and where the camera that detected you is.

At its junction with Warren Road, Kingston Hill runs at a heading of almost precisely North-North-East (+/- a degree or two). I'm wondering if he actual TMO says "North East" (which would probably suffice) rather than East.

You also need to find out what happened about Kingston Hill in the earlier "blanket" TMO. What PC Wilson has provided seems to suggest it remained in the Schedule when the order was made (which, if it was, raises the question of why the second TMO was necessary).

Here is the link to the RBK Moving Traffic Restrictions Order 2024  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VH0h-JkSu_5okGFuF0hcgwco-eFnkXIO/view?usp=drive_link. I've asked a friend to find the specific TMO this afternoon. 
It is a very big document with all new traffic restrictions from August 2024 where everything is deeply embedded in various layers - probably in the hope that no one can find what they are looking for.   However, I have found gross inaccuracies regarding Kingston Vale which is my neck of the woods. 
They put a link on their website to this app which has maps of all the streets and they have indicated in red line that Kingston Vale is 20mph on that map.  However, There are clearly positioned terminal signs of 30mph as you go out of the Kingston Vale estate streets onto the main Kingston Vale road.  I don't know what the heck they are playing at.  Is it 20mph or 30mph?  Why have they recently put new 30mph signs at the junctions of Kingston Vale with Derwent Avenue and Robin Hood Lane as you exit those two roads if the speed limit is 20mph?  I am seriously confused.  https://streets.appyway.com/kingston-upon-thames

And here is a link to a chocolate teapot.

My brain feels like it's turning into one.