Over 3 million motorists are expected to be caught speeding this year and will pay in excess of £180 million for the privilege!

9 out of 10 speeding motorists will be caught by a static camera.

If you exceed the legal speed limit you face prosecution for Speeding or in severe cases Dangerous Driving.

If you have been caught Speeding we are here to help           

Contact us Now

There are a number of different speeding offences under the Road Traffic Act 1984 including:

• Exceeding the limit on a restricted road;
• Exceeding the speed limit on a road (other than a restricted road)
• Contravening temporary speed limits (on roads other than motorways)
• Exceeding the limit applicable to motorways only
• Exceeding the limit applicable to a particular class of vehicle

It is therefore important at all times to be aware of the type of road on which you are travelling, including any temporary limits and any particular limits that may apply to your vehicle.


If the prosecution can establish that a speed limit applies they must then prove that the defendant was the driver and that they exceeded the speed limit.

Corroboration

There is a general rule applying to all offences of speeding that a driver should not be prosecuted, or convicted, for speeding on the evidence of one witness's opinion, with no corroboration. There is a slight exception regarding breach of the overall speed limit on a motorway. However in practical terms the requirement for corroboration is usually satisfied by the use of specialist equipment. Accordingly you can be convicted on the evidence of a single police officer using correctly calibrated authorised equipment in the correct manner.

Usually in order to secure a conviction for exceeding the speed limit the police will rely on what is technically known as "Speed Check Equipment" (Speed Cameras, VASCAR etc). It can be difficult (but not impossible) to challenge the accuracy of such equipment. In Kent v Stamps [1982] the Court commented:

"The basic principle must be that the reading on the machine is evidence. It is very cogent evidence indeed, and in the vast majority of cases one would suppose that it was conclusive evidence. But we have not reached the stage when the reading on such a piece of apparatus as this has to be accepted as absolutely accurate no matter what. The reading on the machine is......strong and should in most cases be conclusive evidence......that the vehicle was travelling at a speed in excess of the limit. The justices would be, and should be, extremely reluctant to reject that finding although there may be situations in which they are entitled to doubt it. They will be very few and far between, and the justices must be very careful not to allow somebody to run away with their judgement on these matters."

The opinion of the driver that he or she was not speeding will, not surprisingly, carry little weight with the Court.

The police are entitled to use a wide range of devices and methods to detect speeding motorists including:

• Unattended cameras. The familiar road side camera e.g. GATSO. Some cameras can calculate and record the speed of an oncoming vehicle before it passed the camera;
• Radar speed meters and other radar detection devices e.g. hand held radar gun;
• xLaser speed measuring equipment. This is usually a device which transmits a laser beam, receives the return signal and calculates the speed of the target vehicle;
• VASCAR. Usually found in police cars and enables the operator to calculate the speed of the target vehicle over a known distance. However its accuracy depends on the operator correctly activating the device at exactly the right moment, correctly identifying the target vehicle, and correctly judging the distance over which the speed was timed;
• Police Pilot. A more advanced version of VASCAR. The police car does not have to be travelling in the same direction as the target vehicle, can be stationary or moving, and the device can be used in any weather conditions and at night or in the daytime;
• Electric trip wire equipment e.g. Truvelo equipment. Usually involves two wires being placed across the carriageway a known distance apart; and
• Accident investigation. It may be possible to calculate the pre-impact speed of a vehicle from tyre marks and other factors.

In addition to the technology described above a range of other supporting evidence of speeding can be submitted to the courts, subject to the usual rules of evidence in criminal cases. This evidence may include the opinion of any witnesses including police officers, subject to the usual rules regarding corroboration dealt with above, who may have observed the driving in question.

The case of Nicholas v Penny [1950] confirmed that a driver could be convicted of speeding on the evidence of one police officer supported by his reading of a speedometer, even though that speedometer had not been checked for accuracy. This principle can be expanded to all technical equipment. Each case will be judged individually and the degree of the alleged breach as well as any other supporting evidence will be a factor.

Do not forget that the permitted speed depends on a number of factors including:
• The category of road and any special factors e.g. road works
• The class and use of vehicle driven

Notice of Intended Prosecution may be required particularly if the driver was not stopped at the time of the alleged offence (Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). Any failure to do so may prove fatal to any subsequent prosecution. See the section titled ‘Notice of Intended Prosecution’ on this website for further details.

Speeding attracts between 3 and 6 penalty points and a discretionary disqualification if dealt with by a Court. If the police choose to issue a fixed penalty notice this will attract 3 penalty points. A prompt 'guilty' plea may attract a discount on the fine.
The Magistrates Association has published a set of Sentencing Guidelines suggesting suitable penalties. As a result e.g. anyone travelling more than 30mph over the national speed limit of 70mph could face 6 penalty points, a fine and a driving ban of up to 56 days.

Remember the situation may be different for new drivers and those at risk of disqualification for 'Totting Up'. A prompt 'guilty' plea may attract a discount on any fine imposed. For more information on ‘Totting up’ see the section of that title on the Traffic Lawyers website.

Defences

It is always a defence to a speeding charge that the facts alleged are incorrect, that the speed was not in excess of the relevant speed limit and / or that the accused was not the driver at the time in question. There are other specific defences such as, necessity, that the equipment used to record the speed was defective, or operated incorrectly or that the relevant signs were absent or inadequate. The defence of necessity is dealt with in detail below, however if you have been charged, or think that you may be charged with a speeding offence and that one of the defences may apply contact Traffic Lawyers today!

There are some specific exemptions to the need to obey speed limits, for example for vehicles used by the emergency services when travelling to a genuine emergency. However this is not a general exemption to speed at all times and when dealing with non-emergency situations.

Theoretically any motorist can use the defence of necessity to a charge of exceeding a speed limit. This defence is essentially that due to the particular circumstances existing at the time the driver had exceed the speed limit. It should be noted that to stand any chance of success the driver must have had no other option. This is illustrated by the case of Moss v Howdle 1997 where a passenger being driven on a motorway suddenly cried out in pain. The driver reacted by driving the passenger to the nearest service station, at speeds in excess of 100 mph. On arrival at the service station the passenger explained that they had been suffering for an attack of cramp and hence cried out in pain. The driver was charged and convicted of speeding despite pleading the defence of necessity. On appeal the courts confirmed that such a defence did exist and could be used in cases were they was genuinely no choice, however in this particular case the defendant could have used another option, such as stopping on the hard shoulder and finding out what the problem was. If a defence of necessity is not established the Magistrates’ court sentencing guidelines do make clear that if a genuine emergency is established then this can be taken into account when sentencing.


The comments above are general and should not be taken as a definitive statement of the law or procedure. Expert advice should always be sought on this area. We have not attempted to cover all the factors that may be relevant where an offence is alleged to have been committed.