[justpassingthrough]

Hi everyone,

This morning at around 7am on my way to work, I was stopped at a red light at an intersection. The lights in front of me (which I now understand where a different set of lights) turned green, at which point I proceeded to go. There is a red light camera at this intersection and I can't be sure that I saw a flash, but it must have been a good 10 seconds since the light initially turned red.

I got a gentle honk from a driver turning left onto the same road, and of course then realised my mistake. Thankfully it was early on a Sunday morning, but could have been a lot worse if there were more cars on the road.

Of course this was an honest mistake. The lights in front were green and could easily have been mistaken, as I understand a lot of drivers have been caught out by this particular intersection (and I imagine that's why there's a camera there).

I am a doctor and am worried that due to the time frame in between the lights turning red and me driving, I may be issued a court summon. The law is the law, but a court summon would of course have implications for me. I've been driving for 12 years and never had points or a notice before.

I could really use some advice as my frantic googling since the incident has made me pretty anxious about what's to come! Do I have any leg to stand on by claiming the lights turning green in front of me can be misinterpreted by motorists and this should be made clearer?

Thank you

[Debs]

I done this exact same thing yesterday! I am a new driver and I’m paranoid about this so much! I am hyper vigilant now when I drive. What happened in your case?

[Santa]

It would help if you told us which country you are in.

In England, the Registered Keeper would get a form to fill in within 14 days to state who the driver was. After that would come an offer of driver education or points and a fine. You would not have to go to court.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by Debs

I done this exact same thing yesterday! I am a new driver and I’m paranoid about this so much! I am hyper vigilant now when I drive. What happened in your case?

Clearly not ...

[Debs]

@Beelzebub I am since that happened!

[TC1474]

All you can do is wait and see if the dreaded brown envelope containing an NIP drops through the post within the next 14 days (assuming you were in your own car)

Usually if the camera had been triggered you would have noticed it. To be live the camera flashes twice and it is very clear (even if you are not paying attention), and so unless you saw the flash it probably did not trigger.

If you were caught, I do not see how it would have any implications on your career (I have booked many Doctors in my career) and it is just regarded as a minor misdemeanour unless you get disqualified, which is unlikely.

If you did trigger the camera, you are banged t rights I am afraid. Take it on the chin because the other option is to report you for careless driving where the implications are far more serious.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by TC1474

If you did trigger the camera, you are banged t rights I am afraid. Take it on the chin because the other option is to report you for careless driving where the implications are far more serious.

How would that work? If the OP pleads NG and goes to court won't it be far too late to charge him with something else?

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

How would that work? If the OP pleads NG and goes to court won't it be far too late to charge him with something else?

Sorry, I did not articulate that very well.

What I meant was that being reported for careless driving is an alternative option as opposed to failing to comply with an obligatory traffic signal.

If that option was included then it would be covered in the NIP.

The point I was making (albeit badly) was that the red traffic light offence is a slam dunk if he was caught. Careless driving is in many cases an option, but it would have to be included in the NIP.

Oh, and unless you have been arrested, you do not get charged for committing the majority of traffic offences, you are reported for summons or issued a fixed penalty.

To be charged for a driving offence you need to be arrested for specific offences such as Drink driving, driving whilst disqualified, dangerous driving to name a few.

Sounds pedantic but there is a big difference between the two outcomes.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by TC1474

Sorry, I did not articulate that very well.

What I meant was that being reported for careless driving is an alternative option as opposed to failing to comply with an obligatory traffic signal.

If that option was included then it would be covered in the NIP.

The point I was making (albeit badly) was that the red traffic light offence is a slam dunk if he was caught. Careless driving is in many cases an option, but it would have to be included in the NIP.

Oh, and unless you have been arrested, you do not get charged for committing the majority of traffic offences, you are reported for summons or issued a fixed penalty.

To be charged for a driving offence you need to be arrested for specific offences such as Drink driving, driving whilst disqualified, dangerous driving to name a few.

Sounds pedantic but there is a big difference between the two outcomes.

I think we may both be a wee bit out-of-date.

There are no summonses any more, since the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Instead, the police (within six months of the offence) issue a "written charge", accompanied by a Single Justice Procedure Notice.

See pages 8-10 here https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAss...amera-devices2

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

I think we may both be a wee bit out-of-date.

There are no summonses any more, since the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Instead, the police (within six months of the offence) issue a "written charge", accompanied by a Single Justice Procedure Notice.

See pages 8-10 here https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAss...amera-devices2

That is a Met Police only documentation which includes an NOP and a conditional offer of a fixed penalty..

But it still stands you can only be charged with a traffic offence if you are arrested, formally charged and then given the formal caution and the reply is recorded on the charge sheet.

All other offences are reported for summons (as shown on the documentation you provided) and the CPS then make a decision as to whether to prosecute or not.

Things have not changed that much since I retired

Do not use the Met as an example of how things are done nationally because they work differently to the rest of the country, and have the Metropolitan Police Act to contend with as well.

Rest assured, summonses are still issued. Bear in mind that information still has to be laid before magistrates within 6 months of the date of the alleged offence after which the summonses are then issued.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by TC1474

That is a Met Police only documentation which includes an NOP and a conditional offer of a fixed penalty..

But it still stands you can only be charged with a traffic offence if you are arrested, formally charged and then given the formal caution and the reply is recorded on the charge sheet.

All other offences are reported for summons (as shown on the documentation you provided) and the CPS then make a decision as to whether to prosecute or not.

Things have not changed that much since I retired

Do not use the Met as an example of how things are done nationally because they work differently to the rest of the country, and have the Metropolitan Police Act to contend with as well.

Rest assured, summonses are still issued. Bear in mind that information still has to be laid before magistrates within 6 months of the date of the alleged offence after which the summonses are then issued.

I linked to the Met only because it came up first on Google!

However, the process they now follow is the same as every other (territorial) force in E & W, and is that laid down in the 2015 Act. Specifically, s46 (Instituting proceedings by written charge) and s48 (Trial by single justice on the papers). This applies to non-imprisonable summary offences, and so most minor motoring offences.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/contents

Also, s 46 replaces "the public prosecutor" with "the relevant prosecutor" - the written charges and SJPNs are now generally issued by the police, not the CPS.

[TC1474]

To quote the Magistrates Court rules

Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981.

These rules govern civil and criminal proceedings in magistrates’ courts.
The 2019 amends:

• remove the requirement for signatures on summonses and warrants
• prescribe the form of warrants of arrest
• prescribe the form of summonses
• amend the rules on service of summonses to permit modern methods of communication such as email or cloud access
• introduce a new rule on service of orders, other than liability orders.
• specify the time at which service of summonses and orders is deemed to take place

The rules came into force on Wednesday 1 January 2020.

It goes on to say

A summons is the usual method of commencing a civil or criminal case in magistrates’ courts, although other methods apply in some types of proceedings. Summonses are also used in criminal proceedings in magistrates’ courts, although other methods, such as arrest and charge, or requisition, are available to public prosecutors. A person bringing civil proceedings (a ‘complainant’) makes a formal ‘complaint’ to the court, asking the court to issue a summons. The summons is usually prepared and served by the complainant. Traditionally all summonses were signed with the name of the judge, magistrate or justices’ legal adviser issuing them, but this requirement was removed in 2010 in criminal proceedings.

And so it goes on.

Summonses are still issues (certainly in my force) and is still the backbone of dealing with cases that are dealt with by the Magistrates although the majority are dealt with by FPN.

On top of which, if someone pleads not guilty to a FPN, then a summons has to be issued so that a plea can be entered and a court date set.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by TC1474

To quote the Magistrates Court rules

Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981.

These rules govern civil and criminal proceedings in magistrates’ courts.
The 2019 amends:

• remove the requirement for signatures on summonses and warrants
• prescribe the form of warrants of arrest
• prescribe the form of summonses
• amend the rules on service of summonses to permit modern methods of communication such as email or cloud access
• introduce a new rule on service of orders, other than liability orders.
• specify the time at which service of summonses and orders is deemed to take place

The rules came into force on Wednesday 1 January 2020.

It goes on to say

A summons is the usual method of commencing a civil or criminal case in magistrates’ courts, although other methods apply in some types of proceedings. Summonses are also used in criminal proceedings in magistrates’ courts, although other methods, such as arrest and charge, or requisition, are available to public prosecutors. A person bringing civil proceedings (a ‘complainant’) makes a formal ‘complaint’ to the court, asking the court to issue a summons. The summons is usually prepared and served by the complainant. Traditionally all summonses were signed with the name of the judge, magistrate or justices’ legal adviser issuing them, but this requirement was removed in 2010 in criminal proceedings.

And so it goes on.

Summonses are still issues (certainly in my force) and is still the backbone of dealing with cases that are dealt with by the Magistrates although the majority are dealt with by FPN.

On top of which, if someone pleads not guilty to a FPN, then a summons has to be issued so that a plea can be entered and a court date set.

Agreed. When I said "There are no summonses any more,", I should have added" ... for minor motoring offences".
Anyway, this must be getting very boring for the rest of the forum!

[Santa]

Not boring at all.

The OP still has a few days to wait and see if the dreaded brown envelope drops on their mat (14 days plus bank holidays}.

The post does raise a dilemma for them though in that if they do get an FPN, they have to decide whether or not to challenge it on the grounds that the lights are badly sited and confusing.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by Santa

Not boring at all.

The OP still has a few days to wait and see if the dreaded brown envelope drops on their mat (14 days plus bank holidays}.

The post does raise a dilemma for them though in that if they do get an FPN, they have to decide whether or not to challenge it on the grounds that the lights are badly sited and confusing.

The OP, who was confused, posted two years ago!

The lady (Debs) who hi-jacked the thread a few days ago doesn't seem to be confused, just paranoid.

BTW (since we're in pedantic mode) you can't challenge an FPN (or more likely a COFP): you either accept it or go to court.

[Santa]

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

BTW (since we're in pedantic mode) you can't challenge an FPN (or more likely a COFP): you either accept it or go to court.

I didn't spot the date - my bad.

To "challenge an FPN (or more likely a COFP)". you would obviously have to opt for an appearance in a magistrates court with all the expense and risk that would involve.