Quote

The 3 points come off automatically after 3 years from the offence date but they remain on your driving history record between 4-11 years depending on severity.

They remain active for “totting up” purposes for three years, they are removed from your driving record after four years and you must declare them to most insurers for five years. Only offences involving driving under the influence of drink or drugs remain on your record for eleven years.

Quote

There was a £90 victim surcharge?  there was no victim involved?

It is officially simply a “surcharge”. It is popularly known as a “Victim Surcharge” because it was introduced to fund organisations which provide help for victims (such as Victim Support, the Witness Service, domestic violence charities, etc.). It is imposed on all defendants subject to a fine regardless of the offence and it is set at 40% of the fine (and of the highest fine only if the defendant has more than one fine imposed at a single hearing). The Magistrates must impose it and have no discretion over the amount. As an aside, your figures do not add up and I suspect the £90 you mention was prosecution costs, but no matter.  

Quote

Dealing with a social worker to decide their opinion what to write on the judges report.

What? For a minor, non-imprisonable traffic offence which can only be dealt with by way of a fine? There must be something we don’t know about.

Quote

I'm going to claim hardship on the fine I will be dealing with an algorithm.

Good luck to you with that (and to the court that has to deal with your claim). 

Quote

Been advised on here and elsewhere of prison sentence, community service, £100,000 fines, court appearence in the dock with the traffic commissioner grilling you about what you done,  for being 2.71 ton over 77%. overloaded

Not on here you haven't (and nor elsewhere that I've seen). Those notions came from your vivid imagination and were dismissed on here (which you chose not to believe).

Quote

They slapped me with 3 points and £245 fine.

Which was in line with most suggestions, though the fine is a bit generous for such serious overloading.

Quote

 just my geuine reasons which lawyers/public ridiculed me...

That's principally because, from your description, they were ridiculous.

Quote

Main reason I plead guilty was £2000-4000 plus lawyer fees to pay 

You don't need a lawyer to plead Not Guilty. I would suggest your guilty plea was very wise since, again from your description of events, you clearly were guilty.

Thanks for letting us know the outcome.

You do not need legal advice and you will not need to attend court unless you specifically want to.

The more serious offence will be dealt with under the "Single Justice" Procedure. This involves a single Magistrate sitting in an office with a Legal Advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend.

The sentencing guidelines for 68mph in a 40mph limit suggest a fine of a week's net income (which includes a discount of one third if you plead guilty) and either a ban of between 7 and 56 days or six points. The overwhelming likelihood is six points. You will also pay a "victim surcharge" of 40% of the fine and prosecution costs of around £90.

You will learn when court proceedings have begun by way of a "Single Justice Procedure Notice." The police have six months from the date of the offence to bring proceedings and in many areas they take all of that, so you may not hear until a week or two after the deadline. You will have 21 days to enter a plea and you will also be asked to provide details of your income. You will be advised of the outcome of your case by post.

In the (very unlikely) event that the Single Justice believes a ban should be considered your case will be listed for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court and you will be invited to attend to make representations. A Single Justice will not disqualify you in your absence.

Let me know if I can help further.

Thanks for the cut & paste from the solicitor's site.

What intrigues me is that at least two County Court judges have disagreed with your contention. Now of course, judges are not always correct. But it does seem odd that two cases, hinging on the same issue, but judged by different judges in different parts of the country, have turned out the same way. Of course there may be more.

I wish you well with your crusade.

Thanks for the solicitor's explanation of the Burden of Proof. Unfortunately it doesn't explain how your understanding of the overriding principle of the Civil Procedure Rules differs from the aim stated in those rules themselves. 

Quote

If you build a house without it, they will make you knock it down.

Indeed. But you can live in it until they do.

From your claim document:

Quote

8. Finally, as the overriding principle of the CPR Rules demands that the Claimant must prove their Claim,...

Where did you get that from? Here's the opening provision of the Civil Procedure Rules:

The overriding objective
1.1—(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly. [my emphasis]

Could there possibly be any more misunderstandings where your grasp of the law and procedures may be a little less complete than that of the judge?

Since it seems we're not likely to see the statements I'll go on what the Site Team has said about them.

If you have statements from two police officers (who have nothing to gain and everything to lose by committing perjury) that say they saw you handling your phone, you will have to ask them both to attend court and give evidence in person. After they have done so (with their "live" evidence almost certainly agreeing with their written statements) you will have the opportunity to question them. What will you ask them? SImply calling them liars will end badly. Suggesting they were "mistaken" is the way to go, so why were they mistaken? Do you suggest they couldn't see you?

After that, you will have the opportunity to give evidence in your defence (though you don't have to). What will you say? You've told us on here that you picked up your phone cradle, with the phone attached to it, after it had fallen.Will you tell the court that? Bear in mind that after you have given your evidence you can be questioned (by the prosecutor). 

Quote

But if there is no photographic evidence and the phone holder wasnt my phone..

But you said the phone was attached to the holder. The officers' evidence is what the prosecution will rely on to convict you. 

I wish you every success with your defence. Do let us know how it goes.

Quote

...and the car didnt lose control

That is irrelevant as the issue of control oft the vehicle is not an element of the offence.

Quote

...and both hands were on there.

Then how did you pick it up? How many hands do you have?

Quote

If you read the officers statement its so unreal.

Would you care to post it up here (suitably redacted) so we can comment.

If you plead Not Guilty you will have to ask for the officer who made the statement to attend so that you can cross-examine him to cast doubt on his evidence (unless, as it stands, it does not support the charge).

Do you feel able to do that?

My view is that if there is evidence that you picked up the phone (and you don't seem to dispute that you did) then the court will find that you were using it.

It doesn't matter what else you were or were not doing with it. The principal point of the law is to prevent people faffing about with hand-held phones whilst driving. As soon as it leaves its secure place your phone becomes "hand held" and you were faffing about with it.

If I see the officer's statement I'll reconsider. But purely on your version of events I stand by my earlier comment.

Quote

…and now thinking to take the police to court because of the false accusation,

You won’t need to do that. You will probably be offered a fixed penalty  (£200 and six points) for the offence. If you decline that offer you will face prosecution in court.

If you plead not guilty it will be for the court to decide whether or not you were “using” your phone whilst driving and they will do this based on the evidence from the police officers and you. The mobile phone legislation was changed in March 2022 and now doing just about anything with a mobile phone is considered to be “using” it. From your description I believe the court will find you guilty.

If you are convicted you will face a fine of half a weeks net income, a surcharge of 40% of that fine, prosecution costs which will be a minimum of £620 and six points.
 

Thanks for letting us know. It seems they thought better of it, but it would have been nice of them to have let you know.

Just as an aside, the police no longer have to prove a mobile phone is being used for "interactive communication." The law was changed in March 2022 following the failure to convict Ramsey Barreto (a case which I mentioned). Now, doing just about anything with a mobile phone whilst driving will amount to "using" it and see a successful prosecution.

That's a very good result! Did you pay prosecution costs as well (usually around £90)? If not, it was better than the fixed penalty(£200). Thanks for letting us know.

The position you are in at the moment is what you need to concentrate on.

You need to respond to the "Request for Driver's details" within the time allowed (28 days). If you fail to do that you will be charged with that offence and a conviction carries six points, a hefty fine and an endorsement code (MS90) which will see your insurance premiums rocket.

Once you've done that you will almost certainly be offered a course for that speed, provided you have not done one for an offence that occurred within three years of this one. If you are not eligible or don't fancy that, a fixed penalty of £100 and 3 points is the alternative. If you decline or ignore that you will be prosecuted in court. Before you enter a plea you will not be served with all the evidence the police have, but only that which they intend to rely on to convict you. It is at that point that you can begin your challenges. 

The "Equity at Arms" (or perhaps "Equality of Arms") which you mention is provided by the Criminal Procedure Rules and the Rules of Evidence to which your trial (should you plead Not Guilty) will be subject. I'm really not sure what "dynamic risk assessment" you suggest should be undertaken, or by whom (or why).

In general, an approved mechanical device is assumed to be working correctly unless the contrary can be proved. If you take your case to trial, the police will probably show that your speed was detected by an approved device operated correctly. The burden then shifts to you to show that it cannot be relied upon. The cost of failure is high - you will pay a fine of half a week's net income and a surcharge of 40% of that fine. You will also pay prosecution costs. These will begin at £620 and may go considerably higher than that if the prosecution has to enlist the help of an expert to counter your challenge.

Best of luck.

When you say your licence had expired, what do you mean? Do you mean that your photocard was more than ten years old?

6 hours ago, Ged millington said:

I believe that the cameras are not operational when there are no reduced speed limits.

Wherever you gained that belief you are wrong and you have no basis to challenge the charges on that basis. 

The only avenue for consideration is whether or not the two instances constituted one single offence. At 80mph in four minutes you will cover a little over five miles. Was there any change of speed limit in that time? You could try a begging letter to the police asking them to consider the offences to be one continuing offence. If they refuse your only other option would be to decline any out-of-court disposals and have the matters heard in court (making the same request). Here's the likely outcomes:

If the police accept your "one offence" argument you should be offered a course (provided you have not done one in the last three years - with the offence dates being used to calculate that period). If they do not accept your argument you should be offered a course for one offence and a fixed penalty (£100 and 3 points) for the other.

If you decide to take the matter to court and the court accepts your "one offence" argument you should be sentenced in accordance with the normal sentencing guidelines (but see below). These suggest a fine of half a week's net income (reduced by a third for your guilty plea) plus around £90 prosecution costs and a "Victim Surcharge" of 40% of the fine. If they do not accept your argument, you face two fines at that level, but only one lot of costs and one Victim Surcharge. Three points  (for each offence, whether one or two) will also be imposed.

In the event the court accepts your argument you might ask them to sentence you at the fixed penalty level. The court has guidance which says this:

"Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances."

Whilst you being unable to accept a FP was not due to administrative difficulties, that reason is not exclusive and if you could persuade the court that you would have accepted a fixed penalty for the single offence had it been offered, you may be successful.

The court has no power to order a course and the fixed penalty is the best offer you will get.

Are you sure it was 23mph? Enforcement normally begins at 24mph.

1 hour ago, Moseet said:

...so he nominates his dad then his dad renominates him.

That's not a good idea.

At least one of them (and possibly both) will be prosecuted for "Failing to provide driver's details" (FtP). Upon conviction the offence carries six points, a hefty fine and an endorsement code (MS90) which insurers really hate. An MS90 endorsement will see the premiums at least double (and probably more than that) in the first year and will see considerably increased premiums for up to five years.

Quote

...a friend who cannot decide who was driving at time of offence

The required process is not to "decide" who was driving but to identify who was. There is a defence to the  FtP charge if the recipient can show that "...he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.". It is a tough hurdle to clear and will involve convincing a court that all reasonable steps have been taken to establish who the driver was. So what have they done, so far, to establish that?

Prosecution for the underlying offence (e.g. speeding) cannot take place. However, the offence of "failing to provide driver's details" does not occur until 28 days after the request is served. There are some exceptions to this. As above, tell us what happened (with dates) and we can advise properly.

I'm not so sure that it makes any difference.

Since the OP was stopped at the time of the offence he knew that enforcement was very likely. He either spoke to a solicitor between being stopped and receiving the FP offer or he spoke to one after receiving it. I'm inclined to think it was after he received it, as his description (of his interaction with the solicitor) was this:

"...I had been advised by a solicitor to write to Sussex Safer Roads immediately requesting disclosure of all evidence involved in the case within 28 days upon which I could then make a decision on what path to take."

This seems to indicate to me that he had been advised to ask for evidence in order to decide whether to accept the FP or not and the "within 28 days" seems to suggest that the solicitor was (at least) aware that the FP must be taken up within that period.  

In either event, to advise him to seek evidence, whether he had already received a FP offer or not, was clearly very poor advice. Any half decent solicitor advising on motoring matters should know that the police have no obligation to provide evidence at that stage and if they don't know they should not offer advice at all. Unless he intended to plead Not Guilty (which would have been even poorer advice on the face of it) allowing the FP to lapse has almost certainly cost him a tidy sum. Of course the OP has not said whether he paid for this poor advice or whether anything else accompanied it (e.g. "...and if you don't get the evidence you will have to decide whether to accept the FP or not without it.") 

25 minutes ago, Dom69 said:

...but had been advised by a solicitor to write to Sussex Safer Roads immediately requesting disclosure of all evidence involved in the case within 28 days upon which I could then make a decision on what path to take.

Then you were badly advised, I'm afraid.

You are not entitled to any evidence before deciding whether or not to accept a fixed penalty and the solicitor should have known that. The idea of a fixed penalty offer is that you accept the allegation as it stands and are willing to dispose of the matter without it going to court.

The police are under no obligation to provide you with anything until they begin court proceedings and then you are only entitled to the "Initial Details of the Prosecution Case" (IDPC). This, roughly speaking is the evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you, to enable you to enter an informed plea. You are not entitled to see "all evidence involved with the case" unless the court agrees to anything over and above the IDPC before your trial.

This is something else the solicitor should have known I hope you didn't pay him or her any money. If you did I would seek a refund.

My advice would be to simply plead guilty in response to the SJPN. You can mention the precise circumstances and request some leniency.

A kindly Single Justice may reduce the fine a little, especially as you seem to have been badly misled. You might even be lucky and be sentenced at the fixed penalty level, though I would be surprised. But six points is the inevitable outcome unless something spectacularly unexpected happens.

Whatever "mitigating circumstances" you put forward, the court must impose six points as that is what the statute demands.

There is one exception to this:

if the court finds there are "Special Reasons Not to Endorse" then they may record a conviction but impose no points.

In the circumstances you describe the chance of success with this lies somewhere between nought and zero, but it will cost you nothing so worth a try. Quite how you would make such an argument is difficult to imagine; you were driving and you did use a hand held phone. It's not even as if you were "sort of parked but not quite." You were in a queue waiting for traffic lights to change.

I don't know where you got the £200 from. That is the amount payable when a fixed penalty is offered and for some reason you were not offered one.

As above, the guidelines suggest a fine of half a week's net income (reduced by a third for a guilty plea).

You will also pay a surcharge (known commonly as a "Victim Surcharge") of 40% of the fine and around £90 prosecution costs. So if you take home £600 pw it will cost you £200 fine, £80 surcharge and £90 costs = £370. The fine is capped at £1,000, so whatever your income, the maximum you will pay by way of a fine is £667.

One avenue worth exploring is the fixed penalty (or lack of it). From your description there are no aggravating circumstances and it is hard to understand why you were not offered one unless it is this:

Quote

Upon receiving an email from Sussex Police later that evening I requested any evidence be forwarded to myself so I can make a judgement on what to do next.

Whilst it would be unusual, the police may have assumed that you were going to challenge the charge and so did not bother to offer you a FP. This is only a guess and if you want to minimise the financial penalty (though it will not effect the points) you need to find out why no FP was offered.

If you agree to the matter being dealt with under the "Single Justice" procedure you cannot attend your hearing so you must ask, as part of your response to the SJPN, if the court would consider sentencing you at the FP level. The SIngle Justice hearing your case would probably be unlikely to do this as he or she will have no information from the prosecutor regarding the lack of a FP offer (prosecutors do not attend SJ hearings either). To be sure of having this matter addressed you would have to ask for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court where you can attend and ask the prosecutor why no FP was offered. 

Regarding your request at the roadside to see some leniency exercised, unless they decide to make no report, individual officers do not decide what action will be taken. They simply file a report and the "back office" makes that decision.

Unfortunately the process the police employ to treat red light offences is a bit of a blunt instrument. As you seem to have discovered, it is based solely on the "time into red". It does not discriminate between somebody who simply continues driving across a red light 60 seconds after they turned red, and somebody like you who stopped and mistakenly pulled away. You will almost certainly see your matter dealt with in court. If it is, the first you will hear will be by way of a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" (SJPN). You will be asked to respond to the notice by choosing one of three options:

1. Plead guilty and have the case dealt with under the Single Justice Procedure (a hearing you cannot attend)

2. Plead guilty but request a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court.

3. Plead Not Guilty.

I would not recommend Option 3. If you want the court to hear your mitigation you can either provide it in writing by choosing Option 1 or explain it in person to the court by choosing Option 2. The police have six months from the date of the offence to begin court proceedings and in many areas take all of that, so you may not receive your SJPN for some time.

The offence carries three points or a disqualification. A disqualification is unlikely in the circumstances you describe.

thanks for letting us know. A decent result. The figures don't quite make sense, especially the Victim Surcharge, but no matter. A bit heavier than it might have been, but considerably less than if he'd attended court still steaming!  

You may be interested to learn that for offences committed after last November (the 30th, if I remember correctly) it is no longer necessary to submit one's licence when accepting a Fixed Penalty).

1 hour ago, niknoo8 said:

i have received the n172  (or the letter in the post) but not replied yet. I have a few weeks to reply .

You won't have more than four weeks but if you know who was driving (and it seems you do) there is no point in delaying your reply.

That's all you are being asked to do at the moment and, as I mentioned above, failing to do so is a more serious offence (certainly as far as the penalty goes) than the one you are suspected of committing. If you have any issues with the signature offence itself these can still be raised after you have responded to the request.

You don't have anything to appeal as you have not been convicted of anything. This is not like a parking ticket where you appeal to an adjudicator. This is a criminal offence and you may be offered either a course or a fixed penalty (£100 and three points) at the discretion of the police. If you are and you decline or ignore the offer you will be prosecuted. There the police will have to prove you committed the offence (which should not be too difficult for them) and if you are convicted you will be sentenced under the normal sentencing guidelines.

As above, if you have received a "request for driver's details" you must respond naming yourself within the 28 days allowed. If you fail to do so you will face prosecution for that offence. A conviction carries six points, a hefty fine and an endorsement code which will see your insurance premiums rocket (probably double in the first year) for upt to five years.

3 hours ago, free1 said:

I did check this out, but the police stated that they will never instigate proceedings, because they have no evidence that a law has been broken

Of course they haven't got any evidence because they haven't set out to find it. It's their job to gather it. But of course, as I intimated in my earlier post, they're most unlikely to investigate it.