Info: Getting off Speeding tickets

**XP@** · 23rd May 2005, 12:56

This is from a post in the Fast And Safe mail list, may be interesting, if you have need...
http://www.fastandsafe.org

Modified/simplified description of a speed camera defence - all comments welcome.
Suggested defence to speed cameras, it may require modification if the photograph actually identifies the driver.

1. Get the photograph - write to Freepost 3979, PO Box 6641, Wellington.
State all the details as requested on the form and write one further
sentence only:
"A photograph is requested to assist in identifying the driver."
2. A few days before the 28 days and 28 days allowed by the notice plus
reminder, (using a signed for delivery service, evidence of this being sent
must be retained) write again to the Freepost address - again with all the
details as the form requests plus the following..... "2. You should write to
the enforcement authority if you wish to do any of the following things: (a)
Raise a matter concerning the circumstances of the offence for consideration
by the enforcement authority;" The photographic evidence is inconclusive,
accordingly the allegation is denied.
3. One of three things will now happen:
(a) the case will be dropped
(b)a notice of fine will be sent. In this case a Form 57 must be filled
in and lodged with the court (big pad of forms behind the counter!) just
before the payment date for the notice of fine. Tick the box for 3, Other
Irregularity. Write in the space provided "Courtesy reminder, photographic
evidence inconclusive, the allegation is denied". If this is rejected fill
another one in, writing " courtesy final reminder, photographic evidence
inconclusive, the allegation is denied". If this is rejected ask the court
what the hell you are supposed to do, fill it all in again and write in the
space " see attached sheets... and attach copies of the all the
correspondence sent (including two previous Form 57s) plus the proof of
delivery of the 'allegation denied' letter. It should do the trick.
(c)notified of hearing date. AFAIK this must be within six months of the
date of offence. This will be the most interesting one - I cannot work out
how the prosecution can make anything stick with no evidence, as the
registered owner of the vehicle does not have to answer any questions until
they have been read their rights - the one about not having to say anything
but if you do it may be used in evidence against you. Reply to all questions
with a request for you to be informed of the rights, then exercise them! In
court state there is no case to answer. Possibly it will all get thrown out
at a pre trial interview, I don't know enough about the courts system here.
If there is ever an actual trial there will be a huge amount of paperwork to
request which must be delivered to you within seven days of a trial, plenty
of opportunities for the prosecution to make a cock up.

I'm helping a local person out with an alleged offence dated 08/04/05 and
infringement notice dated 23/04/05 so it will be some time before anything
much happens. My own case allegedly happened on 30/10/03 - the due date of
the Final Notice of Fine was 2/02/04, I have just requested 'full
disclosure' to see exactly why it wasn't pursued, I filled in a Form 57 on
29/01/04
John Kipping

**bugjuice** · 23rd May 2005, 13:01

interesting read *ducks for cover behind bins*..
wonder how long it'll stick around here.. or how many views/replies it'll get..

**John** · 23rd May 2005, 13:01

Thats some pretty cool stuff, thanks alot - just wait for some pro-nationals to come bitch about us trying to get out of it though *sigh*..

**Pwalo** · 23rd May 2005, 13:04

Now remember James that you are speeding and therefore a worse criminal than most others.

I'm sure that such obtuse behaviour from one so wicked will not be tolerated.

Would be interesting to see how long this little charade could be played out for though.

**Biff** · 23rd May 2005, 13:09

There's a vaguely similar 'get out' in the UK as well. When you're initially sent a letter by the police informing you that you've been caught, on camera, speeding you are legally obliged to fill out the form either confirming that you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence, or if it wasn't you, you must state who was. However, the get out is that you do not, legally, have to sign the form.

So, you can claim that it was indeed you, but not sign the form, then refuse to pay the fine. The police will then issue you with a court summons, you attend, but tell the clark of the court, before your case is heard, that you didn't sign the form therefore it cannot be admitted as evidence against you.

I know three people who have done exactly this, and walked free.

I’m not sure whether this has any relevance here, or that this loop hole still exists in the UK. But ya never know.....

**XP@** · 23rd May 2005, 13:09

Originally Posted by Pwalo

Now remember James that you are speeding and therefore a worse criminal than most others.

I'm sure that such obtuse behaviour from one so wicked will not be tolerated.

Would be interesting to see how long this little charade could be played out for though.

I am sat at my desk... therefore yes I am speeding but not of my own free will the earth keeps moving.

I am just passing information on as a pubic service.

**John** · 23rd May 2005, 13:10

Originally Posted by Pwalo

Now remember James that you are speeding and therefore a worse criminal than most others.
I'm sure that such obtuse behaviour from one so wicked will not be tolerated.

thats just so funny, yet true...

I wont state my reasoning because I dont want some to get their arches up, but yea it is a cool method, wonder when they are going to kill it...

**bugjuice** · 23rd May 2005, 13:12

I think the UK one changed, cos too many people were using that clause.
Their [the police] arguement became that if the owner of the vehicle denies driving at the time and refuses to release the name of the person who was, then it comes back to the owner for obstruction of justice as the owner has to know who has their car if it's not them driving. The sam laws can be applied here. If you own the vehicle in question, and it's flashed, and you don't say who the driver was, then you are obstructing the court, of which they can do you for. So either way, taxes will be collected

**Lou Girardin** · 23rd May 2005, 13:19

The only problem with this idea is that speeding is an owner offence now. If the driver is not identified, the owner gets the fine. The requirement to identify the driver is under the Traffic Act. It is not an arrest, so you do not have to be read your rights, just informed of the penalty for not complying.
A little knowledge is amusing in this case.

**jaykay** · 23rd May 2005, 13:39

I have extensively researched the best UK website (www.pepipoo.com), the NZ and UK systems are totally different with the NZ being far less professional. The Police Infringement Bureau like you to think the owner has to pay, the reality is somewhat different, and even at the very worst you can pay the fine before a court date with only an extra $30, it's well worth all the fun you can have. The whole "speed camera" thing is an abuse of process motivated entirely by profit, speed camera policy kills so kill speed cameras.

**XP@** · 23rd May 2005, 13:57

Originally Posted by jaykay

The whole "speed camera" thing is an abuse of process motivated entirely by profit, speed camera policy kills so kill speed cameras.

With an attitude like that you will go a long way (not sure exactly where though)

Welcome to the site :-)

**Coldkiwi** · 23rd May 2005, 18:04

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

The only problem with this idea is that speeding is an owner offence now. If the driver is not identified, the owner gets the fine. The requirement to identify the driver is under the Traffic Act. It is not an arrest, so you do not have to be read your rights, just informed of the penalty for not complying.
A little knowledge is amusing in this case.

ahhh... so the owner gets the fine... but what about the demerit points??