DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106896--------------------------------------------------
97 on M40 but written evidence is partly incorrect
By: Farmersson Date: January 21, 2026, 7:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received a NIP from Warwickshire police which was served
within the 14 day limit and I have admitted I am the driver
within the specified time. They have EROS offence images from an
LTI 20:20 Trucam 2 ( handheld laser gun ) showing my vehicle
doing 97 on the M40 motorway.
I have now had an SJP notice. Among the forest of paperwork they
have sent with the SJP is a Statement of Facts which states that
I drove my vehicle on the “ Towards ( let’s say ) Banbury bound
carriageway of the M40”. The offence was actually on the away
from Banbury bound carriageway. One of the EROS offence images
has been annotated with M40 SB which I assume means Southbound
and that is correct.
The wording on the charge sheet mentions my vehicle on the M40
but doesn’t state which carriageway I was on.
There is also a sheet headed Speed where plod 1 states they used
their laser gun to catch my car on ( let’s say ) 15th Dec and
there is no possibility the equipment was faulty etc. This sheet
has an offence reference on it but is not signed. 15th Dec was
the correct date.
There is also a Witness Statement where plod 2 goes into great
detail about how they were on duty and in uniform and carried
out a fixed distance check with their equipment at a local
police station and then went to the M40 and carried out
enforcement where the roads were dry and the weather was fine
etc. etc. Later the same day they tested the alignment and
uploaded the SD card etc. This statement doesn’t mention my car
specifically. This witness statement was signed by plod 2 and
the signature witnessed by plod 1. It has the same offence ref.
But all the dates mentioned are for the day after the 15th Dec.
The back of another piece of paper has a signature from plod 1
saying the SD card was copied to disc on the 15th Dec ( correct
) which has been overwritten and initialled with 16th Dec (
incorrect ). So they have me on the wrong carriageway and 2
confusions over offence dates.
But they also have a laser gun picture of my car doing 97 with
all the correct anotation ( correct carriageway and date ).
So my question is: are the mistakes in evidence a defense in
law ? Presumably all the excruciating detail about the equipment
they used and how they processed my offence is supposed to build
up a cast iron case against me but that case is full of errors!
I suspect you might say they will just say in court; these are
obviously admin errors and we’ll correct them now. Or will a
single JP say there is so much doubt and throw the prosecution’s
case out ?
#Post#: 106912--------------------------------------------------
Re: 97 on M40 but written evidence is partly incorrect
By: JustLoveCars Date: January 22, 2026, 2:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Farmersson link=topic=9607.msg106896#msg106896
date=1769043862]
I have now had an SJP notice. Among the forest of paperwork they
have sent with the SJP is a Statement of Facts which states that
I drove my vehicle on the “ Towards ( let’s say ) Banbury bound
carriageway of the M40”. The offence was actually on the away
from Banbury bound carriageway. One of the EROS offence images
has been annotated with M40 SB which I assume means Southbound
and that is correct.
The wording on the charge sheet mentions my vehicle on the M40
but doesn’t state which carriageway I was on.
[/quote]
They may have been on the SB carriageway but can enforce in both
directions. The key part was your car was there.
[quote author=Farmersson link=topic=9607.msg106896#msg106896
date=1769043862]
The back of another piece of paper has a signature from plod 1
saying the SD card was copied to disc on the 15th Dec ( correct
) which has been overwritten and initialled with 16th Dec (
incorrect ).
[/quote]
It's normal for the session video to be processed the day after
by the backoffice.
[quote author=Farmersson link=topic=9607.msg106896#msg106896
date=1769043862]
Or will a single JP say there is so much doubt and throw the
prosecution’s case out ?
[/quote]
A single JP won't decide anything unless you plead guilty. And
there's still a chance they'll refer the matter to a normal
court hearing to consider a ban.
The single JP will only usually sentence 6 points if they feel
that's appropriate.
#Post#: 106916--------------------------------------------------
Re: 97 on M40 but written evidence is partly incorrect
By: NewJudge Date: January 22, 2026, 2:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you want to challenge these discrepancies the only way to do
so is to plead not guilty. You will then face a trial where you
can have the people who provided this written evidence attend
court to give their evidence in person.
Then you will have the opportunity to cross -examine them in an
effort to persuade the court that their evidence is unreliable.
And they will have the opportunity to clarify or correct any of
the mistakes or discrepancies you believe they have made.
The cost, if you are unsuccessful, is the difference between
about £90 in prosecution costs they will request if you plead
guilty and about £650 for a trial. You will also lose the one
third discount you will be given off your fine and surcharge
which you would be granted for a guilty plea.
If you take home £500pw that difference will be about £900.
#Post#: 107314--------------------------------------------------
Re: 97 on M40 but written evidence is partly incorrect
By: Farmersson Date: January 25, 2026, 1:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your replies so far. It would seem then a very
high risk strategy to plead not guilty, and probably one I’m not
willing to take.
So would you advise putting a shortened version of these
descrepancies in my mitigation if I were to plead guilty or is
it pointless as they will just say these are minor errors and
the photo evidence from the laser gun trumps everything ?
And is it advised to plead guilty and appear or is that
pointless as well ? In other words just plead guilty online and
wait for the judgement ?
#Post#: 107320--------------------------------------------------
Re: 97 on M40 but written evidence is partly incorrect
By: davidmcn Date: January 25, 2026, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Farmersson link=topic=9607.msg107314#msg107314
date=1769367612]
So would you advise putting a shortened version of these
descrepancies in my mitigation if I were to plead guilty
[/quote]None of them seem like mitigation - they aren't relevant
to your culpability or what your sentence ought to be.
Mitigation is e.g. it being your first offence, you being
distracted for some unusual but good reason (rushing to a
hospital bedside etc), you need licence for work/family etc.
#Post#: 107354--------------------------------------------------
Re: 97 on M40 but written evidence is partly incorrect
By: Southpaw82 Date: January 26, 2026, 2:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you plead guilty and write anything that looks like a defence
the court is likely to take that as an equivocal plea and enter
a not guilty plea for you.
*****************************************************