Speeding, and why I didn't pay Arrive Alive 60 quid

As well as being able to drive cars, I can ride motorbikes, drive tanks, and buses. Being able to drive tanks cost me just over Ł1000, and the bus course cost over Ł1200.
On 16 January 2006, Arrive Alive issued a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP)/S172 request against one of my employers. This was received a couple of days later. The offence took place on 12 January 2006. Chances are, it was me driving. The car in question is a pool car which is available for various members of staff to use in relation to their work. Problem is, there was no way I wanted to give an organisation 60 quid for taking a video of cars. The 3 points on the licence made it that much worse, so I decided to fight it. I subsequently went to court, where I won, and was awarded costs of Ł100.

I visited the Pepipoo forums regularly and found some interesting information. What I'd ultimately be aiming for is a "time out" - if details of an offence are not laid with a court within 6 months of the date of the offence (ie by 12 July 2006 in my case), then it can't be tried, thus it's game over.
My other angle of attack would be the location. A ruling in an old case of (Young vs Day) says that a location must contain sufficient information, and, that it should not (paraphrased) be a road greater than 4 miles in length. Unfortunately the initial paperwork from Arrive Alive failed this test.

16 January 2006 - 177 days until timeout
The first NIP in the chain. Received somewhere around 19 January 2006 by my employers. Specifically note the vague location on this document.

03 February 2006 - 159 days until timeout
This is the first NIP that has been addressed to me. All standard, but they've still got that rather vague looking locus.

02 March 2006 - 132 days until timeout
After advice from Pepipoo members, I sent a PACE witness statement timed to reach Arrive Alive on the 28th day (as per the rules). This was attached to the NIP/S172 received on 03 February 2006, which simply had "See attached" written across it.

04 March 2006 - 130 days until timeout
A quick reply. Received today (04 March 2006) was this letter basically saying that they're accepting my PACE statement, and that they'll send me a COFP (Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty).

07 March 2006 - 127 days until timeout
A quick turnaround. Worrying, perhaps. The actual COFP. Maybe I'd like to kindly take their offer up of getting 3 points on my licence and giving them 60 quid. Maybe not, eh. Thanks, but no thanks.

04 April 2006 - 99 days until timeout
Oh dear. Looks like they're not too happy about me ignoring their kind offer of 3 points. I've got 7 days to respond or I'll be facing court. Oh dear. What ever shall I do?

08 April 2006 - 95 days until timeout
I left it a few more days, then decided to send them this letter. Basically, I'd moved house recently and not updated my address with DVLA. As it's an offence not to keep your address up to date, I elected to sort this one out now, and send my licence to have my address changed on it. As such, I couldn't possibly give them my licence and a cheque for 60 quid, could I? :-)

13 April 2006 - 90 days until timeout
How kind! In light of me not actually having my licence at the moment, they've decided to give me 2 weeks off. Excellent. That'll bring me nearer to the timeout utopia!

10 June 2006
So, the information was laid with the court on 07 June 2006, about a month before timeout. Oh well. As the information has been laid with the court now, it's not possible for it to timeout. Fortunately, I've got a couple of defenses here, so I'm not that worried. The court date is 07 August 2006.

13 July 2006

I send back my paperwork stating that I'll be pleading not guilty.

04 August 2006

I call the court to check that everything is still on for next week. Because I've already sent in the paperwork giving my plea as not guilty, I don't need to attend the court date next week now. The case will go ahead, but be adjourned immediately. Expect paperwork in the post a day or two after the date given above (07 August 2006).

11 August 2006
So - let me get this right. They send me a summons (I received it at close of play on 11 August, so couldn't do anything about it immediately) giving me a new date of 16 August 2006. They're having a laugh, right?

14 August 2006
Monday morning I give them a ring and ask what they're playing at. I say that I'll not be able to attend as it's far too short notice. In return, the chap on the phone tells me that it's actually only a PTR - a Pre Trial Review. This isn't the trial itself, so it's not entirely necessary to attend. Indeed, I'd personally advise not attending PTRs as this is a good opportunity for the prosecution to sound out what your defence is going to be. I'm advised to fax a letter with wording to this effect.
20 August 2006
After receiving my fax, they give me a new court date. The case has had a further adjournment until 06 October 2006.

06 October 2006
I won!. I arrived at the court early - I was the first one there, for my scheduled time of 0930. Indeed, I was so early that the doors were still locked. The first person to arrive was the clerk to the court, who tried to make small talk whilst I was waiting. He asked what my defense was going to be as they'd not received details of it. I stated that I didn't believe he needed to know that. Things turned a little sour then as he said "Don't play games with me. I know the law better than you. The prosecution has to be aware of your defense". To this, I merely stated "They're aware of my defense". He didn't seem to have a comeback for that one.
I was asked if it would be possible to put a higher priority case in in front of me, pushing my case back about half an hour. I said I was fine with this as it gave me a chance to watch the court proceedings and see how it worked, sitting at the back of the room.
Soon enough, after the first case had been heard, it was my turn. The clerk to the Court was perfectly cordial, explained to the bench that I was representing myself, so might not know the formalities of the Court. Things were explained to me in easy to understand terms. The case opened with the prosecution stating their case, essentially going through the evidence pack (all of which is shown on these pages). Pretty simple open and shut. After the prosecution had stated their case, I explained my defense, stating the case of Young vs Day and, I hoped, putting enough doubt into the minds of the bench. I'd bought an A-Z map which showed that the road name provided on the documentation from the Police didn't actually exist anywhere, so how would it be possible to accurately identify the person driving?
After stating my defense, the prosecution countered that I'd sent this document saying that I'd been driving at the time of the offense.
You know when something goes absolutely as you'd hoped? That had just happened. "Objection, your honour" I said. The bench looked at me inquisitvely. I handed around copies of the document, and stated "That is incorrect. If you were to read the the fifth line of my statement, you'd see that I merely confirm I was driving on the date in question, not at the actual time". I then produced the signing in/out book for the vehicle, which showed that myself and one other person had driven that vehicle on the day in question. I think, at that moment, I heard the prosecution explode.
Immediately, the bench retired to consider their verdict. The Clerk to the Court called me a sneaky b*stard whilst they were out, which felt pretty good to be honest.
After about fifteen minutes (during which time I made small talk with the prosecution), the bench returned to find me not guilty due to the vague locus. I immediately asked if costs would be awarded, to which the bench agreed.
A good result, I feel.
I shook hands with the prosecution who said I'd been a "good, tough opponent" and I wished him luck with the rest of his cases.

12 October 2006
Immediately after winning the case, I asked if I would be awarded costs. This was agreed, although with some provisos. I was asked to send in a letter detailing these costs. A cheque for this amount arrived around 3 weeks later. I'm quite pleased that, indirectly, they made a donation to Pepipoo. Some justice? I think so.

13 April 2006 - 90 days until timeout	How kind! In light of me not actually having my licence at the moment, they've decided to give me 2 weeks off. Excellent. That'll bring me nearer to the timeout utopia!
10 June 2006	So, the information was laid with the court on 07 June 2006, about a month before timeout. Oh well. As the information has been laid with the court now, it's not possible for it to timeout. Fortunately, I've got a couple of defenses here, so I'm not that worried. The court date is 07 August 2006.
13 July 2006	I send back my paperwork stating that I'll be pleading not guilty.
04 August 2006	I call the court to check that everything is still on for next week. Because I've already sent in the paperwork giving my plea as not guilty, I don't need to attend the court date next week now. The case will go ahead, but be adjourned immediately. Expect paperwork in the post a day or two after the date given above (07 August 2006).
11 August 2006	So - let me get this right. They send me a summons (I received it at close of play on 11 August, so couldn't do anything about it immediately) giving me a new date of 16 August 2006. They're having a laugh, right?
14 August 2006	Monday morning I give them a ring and ask what they're playing at. I say that I'll not be able to attend as it's far too short notice. In return, the chap on the phone tells me that it's actually only a PTR - a Pre Trial Review. This isn't the trial itself, so it's not entirely necessary to attend. Indeed, I'd personally advise not attending PTRs as this is a good opportunity for the prosecution to sound out what your defence is going to be. I'm advised to fax a letter with wording to this effect.
20 August 2006	After receiving my fax, they give me a new court date. The case has had a further adjournment until 06 October 2006.
06 October 2006	I won!. I arrived at the court early - I was the first one there, for my scheduled time of 0930. Indeed, I was so early that the doors were still locked. The first person to arrive was the clerk to the court, who tried to make small talk whilst I was waiting. He asked what my defense was going to be as they'd not received details of it. I stated that I didn't believe he needed to know that. Things turned a little sour then as he said "Don't play games with me. I know the law better than you. The prosecution has to be aware of your defense". To this, I merely stated "They're aware of my defense". He didn't seem to have a comeback for that one. I was asked if it would be possible to put a higher priority case in in front of me, pushing my case back about half an hour. I said I was fine with this as it gave me a chance to watch the court proceedings and see how it worked, sitting at the back of the room. Soon enough, after the first case had been heard, it was my turn. The clerk to the Court was perfectly cordial, explained to the bench that I was representing myself, so might not know the formalities of the Court. Things were explained to me in easy to understand terms. The case opened with the prosecution stating their case, essentially going through the evidence pack (all of which is shown on these pages). Pretty simple open and shut. After the prosecution had stated their case, I explained my defense, stating the case of Young vs Day and, I hoped, putting enough doubt into the minds of the bench. I'd bought an A-Z map which showed that the road name provided on the documentation from the Police didn't actually exist anywhere, so how would it be possible to accurately identify the person driving? After stating my defense, the prosecution countered that I'd sent this document saying that I'd been driving at the time of the offense. You know when something goes absolutely as you'd hoped? That had just happened. "Objection, your honour" I said. The bench looked at me inquisitvely. I handed around copies of the document, and stated "That is incorrect. If you were to read the the fifth line of my statement, you'd see that I merely confirm I was driving on the date in question, not at the actual time". I then produced the signing in/out book for the vehicle, which showed that myself and one other person had driven that vehicle on the day in question. I think, at that moment, I heard the prosecution explode. Immediately, the bench retired to consider their verdict. The Clerk to the Court called me a sneaky b*stard whilst they were out, which felt pretty good to be honest. After about fifteen minutes (during which time I made small talk with the prosecution), the bench returned to find me not guilty due to the vague locus. I immediately asked if costs would be awarded, to which the bench agreed. A good result, I feel. I shook hands with the prosecution who said I'd been a "good, tough opponent" and I wished him luck with the rest of his cases.
12 October 2006	Immediately after winning the case, I asked if I would be awarded costs. This was agreed, although with some provisos. I was asked to send in a letter detailing these costs. A cheque for this amount arrived around 3 weeks later. I'm quite pleased that, indirectly, they made a donation to Pepipoo. Some justice? I think so.