How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jo C. Your Own Question
Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 32086
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

I am to attend court accused ,via a manned camera, of 53 mph

Customer Question

I am to attend court accused ,via a manned camera , of 53 mph on a*****
The date of the alleged offence is the 26th March 2016 The callibration certificate shows calibration on the 31st March 2015 with the date of the next calibration to be the 30th March 2016. I contacted the operations director of Truvelo ,the manufacturer of the camera to ask when ,in fact ,it was calibrated and the answer is May 9th ,when it was also fitted with a new lens
Do I have a defence of possible measurement inaccuracy (361 days } and when was the lens replaced faulty?
Also, the photograph shows another car just behind and on the inside of my car .It seems possible that the radar beam hit the other car ,then mine before returning to the camera .Thus the speed of the other car could have been added to mine.
The photograph should have been taken at anyother point on the half mile stretch of
road written on the allegation.- a point where my car only would show .
Does not all this introduce the probability of reasonable doubt ?
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.

Were you speeding?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.

Ok. What speed were you doing?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
51mph on one photograph and 53 mph on another . I am sure the extra £44 pounds for the phone call is reasonable but at this stage I would simply like to know if you think I am kidding myself with my defence approach as explained
If there is a chance of success I will go along with the phone callI will have to represent myself in court because financially I am at rock bottom
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I am at a library computer and will be timed out 10 .30 in which case I will pick up your response this afternoon
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.

Ok. Sorry if I am missing the point but surely that would, either way, knock you over the 40 mph limit?

Do you know what speed you were doing?

Don't worry about the length of time it takes to respond. I can pick up whenever you are ready.

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I would have to prove reasonable doubt on the accuracy of the camera .I was not in a hurry on that morning ( Easter Sunday at 8.20 am } on a leisurely drive to see my grandchildren at my daughters house > I have travelled around 7000 miles on that road,know it well and know it as a 40 mph zone. I was not driving at more than 40 mph .I carry a post it note on the top of my dashboard with the words "GO SLOW " clearly written to stop me losing concentration by common mind wandering Iwas already on 13 points and was allowed to keep my licence last December due to a successful plea of extreme financial hardship without a car .
I claim inaccuracy of the camera on two grounds
1. The alleged offence is measured between two points half mile apart .The photographs could have been taken at any point within that half mile but the operator chose to take it with another car at the side of mine , thus giving rise to a suspicion of speed manipulation because the speed of that other car could have been added to mine. The
51-53 mph measurement could have been 20 mph of that car and only 31-33 mph of my car because the laser/radar beam will definitely have struck both cars2. The calibration was only 5 days from being out of daet and the new calibration was't until May 9th when a faulty lens was replaced. Aother reasonable doubt
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I hope this clarifies the issues
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Am I still waiting for a response to the above.? I hope so because as things stand there isn't £47-50 worth
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.

So, in short, you don't know what speed you were doing?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Under 40 mph .We are not on the same wave length on this . I am asking if my defences of a malfunctioning,inaccurate camera are workable and you are on about my knowing what speed I was doing
I have to invoke your promise to refund the £47-50 "if not totally satisfied "
I am surprised and disappointedMichael Leigh
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.

Ok. Good luck.