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: Traffic Law
Satisfied Customers: 71132
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice.
Type Your Traffic Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

I did not receive a NIP for a speeding fine sent on 4/4/16.

This answer was rated:

I did not receive a NIP for a speeding fine sent on 4/4/16. I received a SJP notice from Avon and Somerset Constabulary posted 27/9/16 for a speeding offence of 82mph in a 70mph zone, duration of time "seconds" time of offence 27/3/16 00:39. The camera used was a REDFLEX HADECS 3.
I was given 21 days to plead regarding two offences:
1. Failure to supply Drivers details
2. Speeding (82mph in a 70mph zone)I have submitted a not guilty plea by mail using the SJP. But I have not submitted a plea regarding the speeding fine, pending further information from the Speed Enforcement unit. I requested photographic evidence from them, and was sent 2 of the three photographs that they had taken. One photograph shows my car, and the other two don't show my car. I therefore don't have visual evidence of the speed my car was travelling.Should I plead guilty to the speeding fine without seeing proof that my car has been timed over a measurable distance? I'm not sure if using this camera, photographs are required to enforce a speeding fine. Or whether one photo, with the camera speed recorded is sufficient.I would also wish to know what the punishments would be (financial, and points on licence) to:
1. plead guilty to 82mph
2. plead not guilty to 82mph, and lose caseMany thanks,

Were you speeding?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I usually drive at 75 so it's probable I was doing 82mph as it was midnight, but there were other cars in the picture, so I thought maybe the camera was picking them up.

It is possible that another vehicle could have set off the device.

What you have to do really is decide how much risk you want to take. The reality is that although it is possible, it is quite unlikely that that would be the case. If you do fight this and lose then there would be a cost implication. If you need to avoid points to keep your licence then it may be worth putting them to proof as you need to avoid your licence at any cost.

If this is 82 miles an hour in a 70 miles an hour zone then you would only be facing three points and a fine-the fixed penalty.

If you thought this and lost then you would only be facing three points but the costs order could be a nasty shock.

That said, it might well be that they decide this is not in the public interest to prosecute. That does happen sometimes. People do get lucky but you are obviously taking a risk.

Can I clarify anything for you?


Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Thank you for your reply and clarification regarding the penalties involved. The magistrates court and S.E.U. staff have been hopeless. The S.E.U. only sent me two out of three photographs they have, and have been very vague about the content of the third photograph.
If they don't have two photographs showing my vehicle at point A, and then point B showing travel over a distance, and timing of the photographs, can they still submit as proof that one image is sufficient because of the software capability of the REDFLEX HADECS camera to determine the speed? I'm not sure how a camera can pick up the speed when three cars have passed within 6 car lengths of each other.I will probably plead guilty given the hassle of defending the case. I have no points on my licence. Thanks for your comment regarding the last point.

Just because they haven't sent them doesn't mean they don't exist. CPS is in chaos especially in the lower courts.

Truth is, they probably do because GATSOs work on that basis. They might lose them and you might be lucky but you should understand you are taking a risk.

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Redflex HADECS3 is not a GATSO manufactured camera to my knowledge. I'm not wanting for them to be lost. I want to see the evidence against me, and understand the legal justification for enforcing fines. The SEU have told me they only have one photograph of my car. My question was, is it possible for them to prosecute using just one photograph, and relying on the software from the camera to determine the speed?My understanding for GATSO prosecutions is that:
"If the camera is set to take two photographs, with a known time interval between them, this time interval will be 0.5 or 0.7 seconds - 0.5 is better for high speed roads and 0.7 better for low speed roads. The vehicle's position, relative to the white road markings in the two photographs, can be used to calculate the vehicle speed. In the UK, the evidence is only admissible in court if the speed measured by the radar and the speed calculated from the distance travelled between the photographs agrees within 10%. The speed indicated by the radar unit is too unreliable to be used as the sole means of evidence as it is prone to error due to multiple reflections etc. Further, it does not distinguish between multiple vehicles in shot.

They have to take two pictures because that is how a GATSO determines speed.

They do distinguish between vehicles though. Not vehicles per se but the spaces between them. They can tell which vehicle has set the device off although that is a matter for expert evidence.

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Sorry if I'm being pedantic, but I just want to know if it is possible for them to prosecute using just one image of the car and relying on the computer software for the REDFLEX HADECS 3 camera?Redflex hadecs 3 doesn't take two pictures, it takes three pictures. The intervals quoted to me by the prosecution team at S.E.U. stated interval 0.00 (showing my car) interval 0.21 (showing no cars clearly) and 0.35 (not submitted to me, and reportedly showing just dark road).If you're not sure, then that's ok. Just let me know, I'll still credit you for the information you have helped me with :)

It seems to me they could in theory. There is no law preventing them from relying on it. But it would be open to you to challenge it as unreliable which is the current test.

Jo C. and other Traffic Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Thanks for your help. I shall do some research. It seems intuitive that if a camera has been programmed to take three photographs, and that two of the images don't show any useful information, then that system in this instance is falling short of it's responsibility.

Well, that might well be right.

They can present any evidence but it may not succeed,