Hi
Probably should have read some information on this site before going ahead with my situation .
Anyway just seeing if this is the norm in this type of speeding offence.
I received a Notice of Intended Prosecution for speeding offence captured on a fixed camera 35mph in a 30. Various factors meant I was feeling particularly hard done by. I am not eligible for a Speed awareness course, this was on Christmas Day and I was on the way to hospital for a believed family emergency.
Therefore I requested a court appearance and after reading the SJP paperwork I pleaded guilty/mitigation and submitted my account detailing time after speeding offence that the family member was seen by Doctor at A+E. Also stating I have written evidence of this and Doctor who saw us.
A very quick turnaround to my online response.Result of court case I have ended up with 3 points(expected) and then £231 fine plus £90 costs and £92 victim surcharge.
So I have managed to turn what would have been 3 points and £100 into 3 points and £413 fine.Jackpot.
There is no rationale or explanation shown on the court letter received. Does this outcome sound about right still? Not very happy and looks an expensive lesson. The courts are not easy to contact for any explanation .
Appreciate any opinions or Told you so responses either way.
Sounds about right.
Fine is a multiple of your Relevant Weekly Income.
Don't expect SJ to expend much of his rubber stamping time on giving consideration to mitigation.
The fact that a family member went to A+E is not in and of itself relevant. If they were potentially about to shuffle off their mortal coil, and you were rushing to see them, then that might be mitigation - albeit that if you were only doing 35 on pretty much deserted roads, you obviously weren't in that much of a hurry.
The guideline fine for that speed and limit is 50% of your relevant weekly income, with a range of 25% to 75%. The surcharge is set at 40% of the fine.
Did you submit the form with your earnings? If not, the court would use an assumed amount (c. £450 from memory).
The prosecution costs also follow the guideline for a guilty plea.
So, nothing obviously wrong. Expensive lesson.
If you quoted your weekly income at about £700 it is about right. The fine would be £350 (half a week's net income) reduced by a third for your guilty plea (so £233).
There is rarely anything that will mitigate a speeding offence to any significant degree and certainly nothing that will see the fine/costs/surcharge reduced to below the fixed penalty level. As you can see, prosecution costs alone are almost that sum.
Thanks for the replies.
Just out of interest if I had gone all the way to court "Not guilty" what would have been my potential worse case scenario costs wise if then found guilty?
My personal perception it seems there are guilty offenders getting a lot less costs in comparison for much worse driving/speeding offences.Maybe for another discussion!
Lesson learnt I will take the loss on this one. Well until the wife reminds me about it again!
IIRC, CPS costs start at about £600 following a trial.
"...what would have been my potential worse case scenario costs wise if then found guilty?"
£350 fine; £140 "Victim Surcharge"; £620 costs = £1,110 + 3 points.
My personal perception it seems there are guilty offenders getting a lot less costs in comparison for much worse driving/speeding offences.
I'm unsure what you mean.
Fines are in "bands" according to the seriousness of the offence (i.e the speed/limit for speeding offences) and calculated as a multiple of weekly income.
Costs are generally £90=ish for an early guilty plea and £620-ish for conviction following a trial. There are occasions where sums other than that are claimed. For example, the prosecution may ask for more than £90 where a guilty plea is entered late and they have undertaken work to prepare for a trial. They may also ask for more than £620 if they have to enlist expert witnesses in the case of defences which challenge the reliability of the technology used. But they are fairly rare exceptions.
Of course the court always has the discretion to order a lower amount than the costs claimed if it believes the defendant's means warrant that discretion.