Speeding doesn't pay !!

[Willzzz]

I've been on one too, it's not too bad. The people running it don't want any grief so they don't give any.
Dinner was not provided!

It is not however an acceptance of guilt.

[wasabi]

The course is booked for Feb 13th.

At £85 per head, and class sizes no greater than 24, with 4 classes a day (speed awareness & another course for people caught using mobiles etc but NOT speeding) someone is raking it in.

The private company running the course will get a slice of the action but the rest goes to government or local council I guess? Wonder how they justify the price of the course unless dinner is provided :-)

For a laugh, when the questions come up, ask their opinion on the regression to mean fallacy, justifying most of their stupid wildly exaggerated figures about the number of lives saved by speed cameras.

[Willzzz]

The people running the course don't really care, the last thing they want is an argument.
They just tick the box and take their share of the money.

[Spud1]

It is not however an acceptance of guilt.

With respect - it is...if you didn't want to accept the guilt you would surely tick the "it wasn't me" option and reject their claim?

[Willzzz]

If you want to spend years arguing over a matter of principle then that's up to you.

[Saracen]

I've been on one too, it's not too bad. The people running it don't want any grief so they don't give any.
Dinner was not provided!

It is not however an acceptance of guilt.

It is an admission of guilt. It's a conditional offer, as an alternative to a court hearing, and COFPs are ONLY able to be offered where either the loluce or CPS (depending on the offence) consider the evidence sufficient for a realistic prospect of conviction. It is part of the process of administering justice for offenders, and relates to a limited range of relatively minor offences, in this case, speeding.

It doesn't result in a conviction. In the case of the SAC as opposed to FPN, it doesn't result in fine or points. It is recorded, because on a repeat offence, you cannot be offered a second SAC within 3 years, but it's a separate database not a criminal one.

And, you can certainly consider that you didn't actually speed, and in pretty rare cases might be right, but you're still admitting the offence by accepting the course. If the letter you got follows ACPO example and guidelines, the offer letter should have made that clear.

It might be that some people accept on a pragmatic basis, of either the FPN or SAC being worth it to avoid the cost and protracted hassle of a court appearance, and a significantly increased cost it's likely to be if you go to court and lose. It might be worth the FPN or even the time on the SAC to get it all to just go away, but it's still an admission, because it's a penalty for an offence you've admitted to.

[Willzzz]

it doesn't result in fine or points

it's a penalty for an offence you've admitted to.

So what is the penalty if there is no fine or points?

I made it absolutely clear that I would not accept guilt and was not challenged on this.
The letter states that if you are not guilty you should "consider" taking it to court instead, this implies that those who are not guilty can still take up the offer.

You are innocent until proven guilty, with no proof you cannot be guilty.

[Saracen]

So what is the penalty if there is no fine or points?

I made it absolutely clear that I would not accept guilt and was not challenged on this.
The letter states that if you are not guilty you should "consider" taking it to court instead, this implies that those who are not guilty can still take up the offer.

You are innocent until proven guilty, with no proof you cannot be guilty.

Several points, so I'll try to take them separately.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a statement of a legal position, not of fact. So, in fact, it isn't about the facts, but about the burden of proof being met. You can be innocent of having actually committed an offence, yet get convicted. Or, guilty of having actually committed an offence, but be judged innocent because the burden of proof isn't met.

So, in terms of whether you did it or not, it says nothing.

So, legal position.

Suppose you commit murder. You are careless enough to do it in front of dozens of witnesses, and on national TV.

When you go to trial, your counsel tells you you can plead not guilty, but are extremely likely to be convicted, and the sentence (well, tariff, but you know what I mean) will be higher. Or, you can plead guilty, admit the offence, offer mitigation and are likely to receive credit for that in sentencing.

You will then be found guilty, sentenced and spend quite a few years in jail. But you haven't been proven guilty, because you never had a trial. Why? Because you admitted it.

Okay, next, what's the punishment?

Well, it isn't exactly punishment. Read the NDORS guidelines. The logic is that paramount is road safety, and that driver education is a highly effective way of achieving that. So .... for minor offences, that is, the lower part of the range of speeding, the aim is to keep people likely to have made a mistake, rather than a deliberate intent to break the law, out of the criminal justice system. It's one of the few exceptions to the "punish, rehabilitate and protect the public" ethos, effectively foregoing the first two, for the sake of the third.

Mind you, you could argue that course fees, and course attendance (and co-operative attendance at that) at the course is a penalty too. But that's not the principle, as per NDORS.

Now, guilt.

Let's try to reframe the terms.

What you are doing, at least according to ACPO guidance, is accepting the veracity of the EVIDENCE put to you. Your offer letter, if it followed ACPO guidance should have stated that, following a NIP if you got one, you have confirmed that you were the driver of a vehicle at the relevant time for which they have evidence of x mph, in a y mph limit (x > y, but not by much).

You then have three options :-

1) SAC, or
2) FPN, or
3) If you do not accept the evidence, prosecution, and Court.

Two of those accept the evidence. The third, court, does not.

Are you guilty of an offence? Yes, if the evixence is correct. Are you convicted of one? No, because the whole point of NDORS is satefy awareness, and avoiding the criminal justice system.

By accepting, therefore, you aren't pleading guilty to an offence, because you aren't being prosecuted for one, BECAUSE you accepted.

You are, however, accepting the evidence. And as a strict liability offence (with a very few exceptions, like emergency service vehicles, etc) implicit in having accepted the evidence that you were going faster that the posted limit is that you have comitted the offence, but aren't guilty of it in that you aren't being charged.

You have, if you like, admitted the facts of the case, but not admitted legal guilt because you aren't being asked, one way of the other.

I hope I've made a better job this time of clarifying what you're accepting, and admitting or not admitting, by accepting the course.

I do, however, take your point, which I assume is .... you admit you were the driver, utterly deny you were actually speeding, but taking the course is a simpler and easier option than fighting the case.

And, of course, mistakes happen. For instance, an officer didn't follow proper zstup procedures for a gun, or it was out of calibration, etc.

It's possible, and acquittals do happen in magistrates court. But I will also say, having discussed this with a relative that's a magistrate, that it's a tiny, TINY proportion of cases where that happens. Rightly or not, if the police present speed gun evidence, you are going to need a very good argument as to why it's unreliable, or it's likely to be accepted at face value.

So, rather annoyingly, even if you are absolutely sure you weren't speeding, you're pretty much going to have to prove the prosecution evidence to be flawed in some material way. And if you can't, you're likely to end up "proven guilty" of speeding, even if you weren't. Nasty situation, innit?

[Willzzz]

I was talking about legal guilt.
Clearly the choice whether to accept the course or not has no bearing on actual guilt.

Are you guilty of an offence? Yes, if the evixence is correct.

If the evidence is never tested then you cannot say whether it is correct or not.

My case was rather unusual in that I did deny the evidence and went to court and only after several hearings did they decide to offer me a course instead.
My position from the start to the end was that their evidence was incorrect.

It became clear to both sides that the dispute was going to be lengthy and as such a compromise was preferable.
I didn't want to waste even more of my time and they didn't want to risk being proved wrong.

[Zypher20]

At first I thought it said seeding doesn't pay...

As most speedos read higher than the actual speed of the vehicle and if you were recorded at 33 MPH in a 30 then its highly likely that your car would have displayed more like 35. Any claim that you were only going a few MPH above the speed limit if you were to take to court is a admission of guilt in the first place, and depending on the magistrate could be more likely to get you disqualified and have to resit your test.

After all its a total disregard of road safety to speed, know about it and to then try to justify it by saying it wasn't much over the limit.

I would say the police guildines are for traffic cars where they can see your driving and then make a judgement on your road safety based on the circumstances. ie. going 45 on a empty road on a clear day that's 40mph is completely different to 45 on a busy road in bad weather. However speed cameras cannot make judgement calls and I personally don't think they improve road safety as most people will stop watching the road to make sure they are not over the limit as they pass one which defeats the object if you ask me. (I do think the ones that display your speed are much more effective as they don't take your eyes off the road and also make you aware of your speed.)

In this case unless you can prove that you weren't speeding its probably best to take the course and avoid the points (and therefore possible increased insurance premiums).

[Lucio]

Out of pure curiousity, does anyone know if English law allows the "No Contest" plea? I.e. you can agree that the evidence says you did it but not admit guilt?

[DanceswithUnix]

The insurance companies always ask if you have any pending prosecutions at time of renewal. Thankfully I have never been in that situation, but anyone know just how badly they load your premium if you are in that position of only having been accused?

One of the many aspects of insurance that makes me angry every time I deal with them.

[Saracen]

Out of pure curiousity, does anyone know if English law allows the "No Contest" plea? I.e. you can agree that the evidence says you did it but not admit guilt?

IANAL, of course, but, no.

Certainly under England, Wales and NI, no. You have guilty or not guilty, and if you refuse to plead one or other, the court enters it as not guilty.

Scotland's legal system is a bit different, like IIRC a "not proven" verdict, but I don't think nolo contendere is available there, either.

[Saracen]

The insurance companies always ask if you have any pending prosecutions at time of renewal. Thankfully I have never been in that situation, but anyone know just how badly they load your premium if you are in that position of only having been accused?

One of the many aspects of insurance that makes me angry every time I deal with them.

You should, however, get any loading refunded in the event either of acquittal, or the prosecution being formally withdrawn. It probably reflects the vast majority of any such impending action either not being contested, or a conviction resulting.