John
The bottom line is, no, could not prosecute.
Corroboration could be another suitable person or equipment. But a person could not be prosecuted on their own evidence alone or in the case of speeding, on the evidence that was not corroborated.
Speeding is one of the very few offences that require corroboration.
Corroboration
Sorry Swiss Toni, but I see it slightly differently. I agree with John; he has recognised the strength of a confession, [as opposed to an opinion] but is trying to accommodate your view that supporting evidence is necessary - I don't think it
always is required. My thinking, based on how I read the statute, and particularly the words in bold below -
RTRA 1984 s.89(2) A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit.
is that you could be prosecuted, [but not convicted] if the only evidence that you were exceeding the speed limit was the opinion of a witness to your driving that you were going faster than x mph [where x = the limit].
I read that as meaning that supporting evidence is required where the
only evidence of excess speed is somebody's
opinion - eg I saw him go past and in my opinion he was going far faster than 30mph. It implies therefore, that the opinion of 2 civilians would suffice.
I don't think we disagree about what other evidence might corroborate an opinion; I just don't think you need other evidence if the case doesn't rely solely on an opinion. I don't think a confession is an opinion.
An admission of speeding
An admission
is not the opinion of a witness, but a confession by the person committing the offence, which would therefore not require corroboration.
A voluntary admission or confession [voluntary = no trick, torture, etc etc to obtain it] is acceptable evidence in a criminal case, which could give rise to a successful prosecution in many circumstances.
Without Prejudice
I agree with Steve, Mr E and Swiss - no practical effect in these circumstances.
This thread
I felt that if Robert were to sign a witness statement containing a voluntary admission that he was doing 85 in a 70 limit he
might be prosecuted. There seemed to me to be at least
the possibility, given that a police investigation was apparently about to begin.
My instinct - that he would be no more than a witness, and that the police would not be interested in prosecuting him - remains. But the fact is that investigations do not always result in the hoped for outcome; and though I don't think for a moment that it's the case here, posters sometimes give a partial account of their own behaviour, and others involved - those whose accounts we haven't heard, but who one might expect to be defendants - might try and shift the blame, or share it by implicating the 'witness' - in this case, Robert.
So - if he is to be a witness, I think Robert's frankness will probably be regarded as an asset in a witness, and there would be no public interest in prosecuting him. But on the other hand, were others to decide to implicate him by reference to the manner of his driving, so that a different view was taken by the police, any voluntary admission about his speed
could be viewed in a different light,and used against him.
That's why I think it would be prudent, if asked to 'help' the police, to seek their assurance that he is being treated purely as a witness, and that he is not himself under investigation, or consideration for prosecution for an offence of speeding, or any other offence arising out of the events.
Robert - I hope you forgive me for using your post again in this reply - nothing I have written is meant to discomfort or worry you at all. I hope the example of what might occur is purely illustrative, rather than realistic or worrying! As Swiss Toni [I think] posted earlier, take no notice of what is posted on the internet by some random bloke you don't know.
And for the avoidance of any doubt, I mean me
)
