Just thought I'd add my experiences to this thread.
In December last year, my car was photographed by a camera van, allegedly doing 40mph in a 30mph area.
There ensued an exchange of correspondence, based around the identification of the driver - the photograph provided by the SCP failed to provide any kind of conclusive evidence as to whether it was my partner or me driving, and I was told by the SCP in correspondence that it was up to me to "nominate a driver". In the end, this is what I did, and I sent in the form, completed with my details, and endorsed "Nominated Driver".
That was the last I heard from them until a summons appeared, calling me to appear at Carmarthen Magistrates' Court, to answer two charges, viz. one of speeding, and one of failing to provide the details of the driver at the time, per S.172 of the Road Traffic Act.
Feeling somewhat bloody-minded about the whole business, I decided to contest both charges: the speeding one on the basis that a) I didn't know who was actually driving when the offence was committed, and b) that I doubted very much that either of us had at any point passed that point at a speed of 40mph (though I will accept, privately, that there is a possibility, certainly on one of the occasions when I was driving, that it may have been in excess of 30mph). My reason for b) was ostensibly in order that if at some subsequent point, it is shown in court that these cameras
are unreliable, I would not have been able to appeal any conviction if I had pleaded guilty.
My response to the S.172 charge was, naturally, that I felt I had not only exercised due diligence in attempting to identify the driver, but had in any case finally nominated myself, thereby providing them with someone whom they could have prosecuted or given a fixed penalty to. It appears, at the pre-trial hearing, that the basis of their prosecution for this offence was that they claimed not to have received my "Nominated Driver" form.
So that was that. My solicitor though I was taking a bit of a risk, but took the case.
On Friday, I was due to appear for trial at the same magistrates' court. I wrote a witness statement, as did my partner, and we attended at court. I had not requested that the police witnesses attend, since I was not disputing the facts as they had claimed them in their written submissions. Quite frankly, I think I was flying a kite, and didn't seriously expect to come out of court with an acquittal: my best guess was that they'd drop the S.172 and hit me with the speeding. My solicitor was not so optimistic - based on the wording of some of the letters I had written, he thought they had a pretty good case for arguing that I
had failed to honour my S.172 obligations in a timely manner.
We were both rather surprised when the prosecutor announced that they wouldn't be pursuing the speeding charge, but would be going forward with the S.172. This was good, because it meant my partner would not be put through the ordeal of giving evidence.
The prosecution case opened with a brief summary of the exchange of correspondence. Most notable was a factually incorrect claim that the SCP had had to send me some kind of reminder following the initial Notice of Intended Prosecution, and - amazingly - a tacit assumption that they
had received my final completed form identifying ("nominating") me as the driver.
I was called to give evidence, and found myself on the receiving end of a very aggressive cross-examination by the prosecution. However, she failed to pick up on the errors I'd made in my early correspondence (which could have, at the very least, been used to claim that I had acted in bad faith), and persisted in the view that they had received my form (which, as far as I could see, rather undermined the whole idea that I had committed an offence under S.172). She seemed very keen to have me read out most of the correspondence, which suited me just fine: I don't have a problem with reading out loud (though many people do, and it was my solicitor's and partner's views that this was probably just another attempt at intimidation, which backfired), and read out my correspondence in a clear and assertive voice; the SCP's I read in something of a monotone
At one point, when she was for some reason under the misapprehension that she was suddenly in the business of trying to prove the speeding offence (which, dear reader, you will recall had been dropped), she asked me "Is your partner a big woman?" (in reference, I presume, to a vague silhouette in the photograph taken by the camera van). I addressed the magistrates and said "I don't think that she would particularly appreciate being described like that". Two of them cracked their faces a bit at that: I got the impression that the prosecutor's manner was earning me a fair amount of sympathy: she was giving it large with the "I put it to you, Mister Pembroke Stephen that..."
Somewhat later, she "put it to me" that, as an (honorary) employee of the NHS, I could have photocopied a form that they had on the back of a letter I wished to keep, rather than sending in my details in another letter. I expressed the obvious level of appalledness at the idea that a lawyer was, in open court, advising me to commit an offence of fraud against our nation's beloved health service. I don't think that hurt my case, either.
So, after a messy and bruising, not to mention rather offensive cross-examination, during which my solicitor told me he was inclined to intervene on a number of occasions, but felt that I was holding up just fine, and that she was probably doing her case no good, the case finished, the magistrates retired, and we all wandered off for 5 minutes to chill out. Our friend Perry Maisonette was busy looking daggers all round and generally not looking like a happy bunny.
Back came the magistrates, and announced that they felt I had exercised due diligence, and were acquitting me on the S.172.
Yay.
Perry Maisonette, meanwhile, wants a written copy of the beaks' decision, and hinted that she might appeal. My solicitor then hit the magistrates with a request for full costs. Which was granted, so I get back the £164 I already paid him.
Sometimes, just sometimes, it's nice to kick back. It's even nicer when you win.
)
