DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101127--------------------------------------------------
Cancelled speeding NIP
By: filippi9 Date: December 5, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I've just surprisingly received notice that a NIP for speeding
has been cancelled as: Kent police have been made aware of an
issue relating to a number of speed enforcement cases in the UK.
As a "precaution" there will no further action in relation to
the case, and consequently this offence has been cancelled.
Is anyone aware at all what these issues with enforcement cases
may be? IF not, what would be the best way to get this
information from Kent police, would a FOI request be the best
avenue?
Thanks
#Post#: 101129--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: NewJudge Date: December 5, 2025, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Where did the alleged offence occur?
#Post#: 101131--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: Southpaw82 Date: December 5, 2025, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
One of the vital questions of our time, clearly…
#Post#: 101147--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: andy_foster Date: December 5, 2025, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With all due deference to those above my pay grade, if there is
an ongoing issue that we are not aware, whose nature is such
that the police are unilaterally dropping cases, then I, and I
would suggest the site as a whole, would very much like to know
what this issue is.
However.
If Kent Police were minded to divulge the nature of this issue
(which they clearly aren't), presumably they would have done so.
If anyone was aware of the nature of the issue, and was both
able and willing to divulge it, they would presumably have done
so, without waiting for a thread such as this.
Utilising the knowledge and experience of this forum, it is
possible that we might be able to make an educated guess as to
the nature of the issue referred to by the OP, if the OP had not
chosen not to trouble us with the details of the now cancelled
allegation, or the exact wording of the letter from Kent Police.
TL;DR - perhaps the OP can clarify why they have decided to
bother us with half the story.
#Post#: 101161--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: Southpaw82 Date: December 5, 2025, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We’ve seen whole sessions dropped where the location was wrong
etc.
#Post#: 101180--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: andy_foster Date: December 5, 2025, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If we can reasonably assume that neither the OP, nor Kent Police
sought to deliberately mislead with their wording, then this
does not sound site-specific.
#Post#: 101183--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: filippi9 Date: December 5, 2025, 11:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The alleged offense occurred on the 6th of Aug on the M25
anti-clockwise Junction 5, Westerham. There was a temporary
speed restriction of 50 mph due to roadworks.
I'm afraid there isn't much more to it, nor to the communication
received from the police. Since I didn't see any threads on
this, nor anything reported by Kent police or news elsewhere, I
assume that these cancellations weren't announced publicly. So I
thought to check with the experts on this forum for the best way
to get more details, through a FOI request perhaps.
I've linked to a copy of the cancellation since the exact
wording was requested:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/2GBOJEQ
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/2GBOJEQ.
#Post#: 101193--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: mickR Date: December 5, 2025, 12:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
a consequence of this case possibly although it might be a bit
old..
HTML https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3wpq1n8e61o.amp
Mr Anderson said prosecution evidence in other speeding cases
could also be "questionable" after his case was dropped.
“When new evidence came to light, and after a thorough review of
the evidence, we concluded that there was no longer a realistic
prospect of conviction, and the case was discontinued.”
#Post#: 101203--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: andy_foster Date: December 5, 2025, 12:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, the wording was essentially quoted in the OP's OP, albeit
somewhat discreetly and unconventionally.
Googling the passage (with extraneous quotation marks removed)
suggests that there is a potential issue with VSL enforcement
(or at least some VSL enforcement). On faceache, a poster who
had an SAC booked - for 68 in a VSL 60 on the M6 in Cheshire
received an email cancelling the SAC (with promise of refund)
with near identical wording ("Kent Police" replaced with "We").
2 cases is not a statistically significant number, but they
appear to be consistent with other less specific noise.
AIUI, location description errors are conventionally almost
invariably from mobile enforcement, although there is an
argument, often dismissed out of hand by Magistrates who failed
to understand the question, of unduly vague locus where the
locus stated covers many miles. However, I would be surprised if
such an issue lead to pre-emptive dropping.
Google AI (which I wouldn't trust to tell me how many "r"s in
the word "strawberry) has cobbled together the following
[quote]
I am aware of a widely reported issue concerning a number of
speed enforcement cases handled by the Kent Police and other
forces [1]. Due to concerns raised about the reliability of
evidence from a specific speed camera type and processing
methods, police forces have taken precautionary measures [2, 3].
As reported in various news outlets, the Kent Police, along with
other forces such as the Metropolitan Police, are reviewing
thousands of cases. In a significant number of instances where
the evidence may be compromised, no further action is being
taken [1, 2, 4]. This has resulted in withdrawn prosecutions,
canceled fixed penalty notices (FPNs), and scrapped court
convictions [1, 3].
Key details include:
The issue primarily relates to cases that relied on the Home
Office-approved Jenoptik SPECS average speed camera system [4,
5].
The concerns involve the process of manually extracting
footage from the camera systems to check the secondary
evidential photograph, a procedure which some legal experts
argued might not meet strict legal requirements for data
integrity [4, 5].
In one specific case at the Magistrates' Court, a judge
ruled that the digital evidence provided could not be trusted
due to potential manipulation risks during the manual review
process [2, 4, 5].
Police forces emphasized that these actions were taken as a
precaution to ensure fairness and uphold the integrity of the
justice system [3, 4].
Individuals who believe their case may be affected should have
already been contacted by the relevant police force if their
case was pending [4]. If you have specific questions about a
past or current case, you should contact the Kent Police
directly for clarification.[/quote]
Many years ago, there was a landmark case in Australia where
digital evidence was excluded on the basis that it was
technically possibly to modify it (IIRC a weakness in the MD5
algorithm) - which was very much inconsistent with English case
law - so I would be very surprised if there was a co-ordinated
response by police forces nationally to drop VSL cases on the
basis that a Magistrates' Court found that a State Level Actor
could potentially falsify the evidence - when pretty much all
other prosecution evidence could potentially be falsified far
more easily.[/quote]
If we ignore experience and take numerous OPs claims at face
value, there is potential for a disconnect between the VSL logs
of when limits were displayed and what was actually displayed at
the time. If somebody had dash-cam footage (which hadn't been
obviously falsified) which supported such a claim, and that went
to court, that would be a far more plausible explanation.
Whilst we have always been far quieter than PePiPoo was back in
the day (as was PePiPoo after "the day", whenever that was), as
this is the first we are hearing of what appears to potentially
be a national issue, it would seem likely that any fall-out is
just starting and a slightly clearer picture will emerge.
Whether or not it's worth ordering some more popcorn is another
matter.
[edit: How slow is my typing? Cross posted with Mick's post]
#Post#: 101226--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: Brenda_R2 Date: December 6, 2025, 4:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=filippi9 link=topic=9042.msg101127#msg101127
date=1764944945]
Is anyone aware at all what these issues with enforcement cases
may be? IF not, what would be the best way to get this
information from Kent police, would a FOI request be the best
avenue?
Thanks
[/quote]
I have submitted an FOI to Kent Police. let's see what they come
back with.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page