London

1050 readers

1 users here now

"who’d a thunk it"

For discussion about London including the surrounding Greater London area. Discuss all things from news, travel, culture, and general life around the capital and largest city of England!

Rules and other welcoming info can be found here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Thousands of drivers tricked by fake 50mph sign on A20 must pay fines, say police (www.standard.co.uk)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Around 600 drivers seeking to overturn fines for speeding after a fake 50mph sign was placed on a dual carriageway in south east London will not have their penalties waived, the Metropolitan Police said.

Thousands of motorists were ticketed on the A20 near Sidcup on a stretch of the road where the speed limit had been temporarily dropped from 70mph to 40mph by Transport for London due to persistent flooding.

Police say the 50mph sign was installed by an “unauthorised third party” on January 24 after speed cameras were set to match the lowered limit.

...

While the Met admits the sign should not have been there, it “would not have impacted the enforcement of the 40mph average speed limit”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Does speeding as an offence not require mens rea?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

mens rea : a culpable mental state especially : one involving intent or knowledge and forming an element of a criminal offense

It doesn’t. Otherwise one could just say “Sorry I was daydreaming and simply didn’t today attention.” and get off the liability. This is, in fact, the relevant word:

Many traffic offences, including speeding, are considered strict liability offences in virtually every jurisdiction, which means that it is sufficient to prove that the act occurred and it is unnecessary to prove intent. In such cases, whether or not an offender meant to commit the offence is irrelevant. For strict liability offences, lawyers are unable to argue that the offender had no knowledge or intentions of committing the offence because what counts is whether the offence was committed.

A judge would simply look if the elements are proven:

a) the offence was committed b) no lawful excuse or defence for doing so exists

However, there is the defence of reasonable mistake. This means that it is sometimes possible for strict liability traffic offences to be refuted if the offender can successfully argue and provide evidence to show that they were genuinely mistaken and did not know they were committing the offence. However, this is different from the mens rea principle.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's a strict liability offence, so no.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but in this case there can be a reasonableness take - people had every reason to think the speed limit was higher.

Bear in mind, this is the police saying people are guilty. The police do not determine this, the court may well have a different take.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

With strict liability offences, if you do it, you are guilty. Intent does not come into it. The only question for the court is whether or not they did it, as the law is very clear.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Not necessarily. If you plead guilty with special reasons, it's possible to get the charge dismissed. It's very rare, but this is exactly the kind of situation where that would apply.

Essentially, they would argue yes they were speeding, but they had good reason to think they weren't.

However, that wouldn't work if they were going significantly over 50, which most if not all probably were, because cameras are typically set 10mph above on motorways.