A Speedy Getaway..

If you have ever heard me seak about my country of residence for the last 7 years (i.e. UK for those who still didn't get it by now) you would probably have heard me complaining about the amazing inefficiency and down-right stupidity of the people there. One example is that finding loopholes in the law and taking advantage of them are extremely easy and common (as a Singaporean listening to them, it would be completely absurd). Parking tickets are often left unpaid (and I shall not say whether I paid my own fines or not) because a former Transport Minister declared on national TV that the system was in such a state that if you had abandoned your car, the registry would take about 2 years to track you down (one can only imagine their ability to manage traffic fines!!).

Anyways, here is an article on another regular occurance - speed traps - and perhaps a way to get out of paying the speed fines.. (If only Singapore was still a British colony.. If only we could be so lucky! haha)


Speed camera blues
By District Judge Stephen Gerlis
Stephen Gerlis is a district judge at Barnet County Court
THE TIMES, 20 JULY 2006


In November 2003, Christine Hamilton, wife of former cash-for-questions row MP Neil Hamilton, escaped a speeding fine by saying she couldn’t remember who was behind the wheel when her car was snapped by a speed camera doing 63 mph in a 50 mph zone. The decision gave hope to thousands of motorists who had become victims of the "happy snapper cameras" by presenting what appeared to be a defence to such offences. Concern at the decision was such that the matter was raised in Parliament, before the Select Committee on Transport no less, on the December 17, 2003, when the "Hamilton Defence" was described as a "big loophole" in the law relating to speeding.

The law has not been changed since that time but the matter did come to the recent attention of the Divisional Court of the High Court. The owner of a motorcycle raised the Hamilton Defence against a speed camera charge, saying in response to a request for details of the rider that on the day in question more than one person had been using the bike and that he required photographic evidence to help him determine who was riding the bike at the time of the offence. Such evidence was provided but he responded that it was not conclusive and that it could have been himself or "a friend" who had been using the motorcycle, and neither of them could remember who was the rider. In response to a further request for information, he finally revealed details of the identity of the "friend" but could not throw any light on who was actually riding the bike when the offence was committed.

At the hearing of the case, the "friend" did not give oral evidence as he was living abroad, but supplied a written statement that also raised doubts as to who was the rider.

When someone is caught by a speed camera, the registered owner will receive a notice of intended prosecution together with a request that the owner supplies information as to the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence, or any information that the owner has which will lead to the identification of the driver. The information has to be supplied within 28 days of service of the notice. That was where the alleged "biker" lost out. By the time the owner had identified a possible alternative rider, the 28-day period had expired. He lost his case on that technicality. To add to his misery, the penalty for failing to supply information as to the driver is similar to that relating to the speeding offence.

However, the case did raise some interesting issues with regard to the Hamilton Defence. The court found the owner to be a credible witness: in other words, if he had responded to the form properly and in time, he might have succeeded with the defence. His only error was not providing the name of the other possible rider soon enough. The present case was distinguished from one in 2004 where the owner responded that his car could have been driven at the relevant time by any number of people because it was one of a fleet of vehicles, and he was unable to say who the driver of the vehicle was on the occasion of the offence. In that case the owner succeeded because he had replied within the 28-day time limit and had given as much information as he had in his possession. The owner of the motorbike in the present case had only identified an alternative rider after the time period had expired, even though he was aware of that information right from the start.

At the time of the hearing, the motorbike owner stated that he was sure he was not the rider of the motorbike at the time of the offence. This merely compounded his position, because if he was certain of that he should have said so in reply to the initial request for information and named the person he thought might have been the rider, within the 28-day limit.

What conclusions are to be drawn from this case as far as the Hamilton Defence is concerned? First, if the owner of a vehicle is genuinely uncertain as to who was driving it at the time of the offence, they should say so in response to the request for information, within the time limit laid down for the response, while at the same time supplying as much information as they have as to the possible driver. Secondly, such a response provides a possible defence but it is subject to being tested by the court. Raising it does not get the owner off the hook — he will still have to convince the court that he is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.