[discretion22]

In theory, yes, but that's not how policing works.

From personal knowledge of the UK setup, the goals are twofold, mass surveillance plus auto-revenue-generation (intended to raise sufficient to pay for the surveillance infrastructure to minimize the net cost which means auto issuing the absolute maximum number of tickets possible).

Doing validation to ensure correctness of the tickets being issued would be counter-productive to the revenue generation goal; just because police have evidence a crime (like cloning) has happened, does not mean they will not issue the ticket. There is an onus in the UK for the registered keeper of the vehicle to incriminate themselves or someone else for road traffic offences (confirmed by test cases).

Essentially you have to pay up or prove the cloning (and your innocence) yourself - very difficult because you do not have access to the surveillance database that would help you. The core objective of the police is to assert your guilt, not to provide you with any help for your defence.

[multjoy]

>There is an onus in the UK for the registered keeper of the vehicle to incriminate themselves or someone else for road traffic offences (confirmed by test cases).

That's not how that works. You, as the registered keeper of a vehicle, have a number of duties relating to the provision of information to the police or other relevant authorities upon request. This isn't a controversial provision, something similar exists in practically every jurisdiction in which cars have a unique identifier.

The s172 process avoids the situation where a speeding fine can be avoided by simply not saying who was driving. 172(4) provides a statutory defence which can be advanced by an individual who's vehicle was cloned:

>A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

And regarding the disclosure issue

> The core objective of the police is to assert your guilt, not to provide you with any help for your defence.

This is an incorrect statement - the police are obliged to disclose any relevant, unused material (eg material they have that they don't produce in evidence) that will either undermine the prosecution case or advance the defence.

However, if you are being prosecuted for failing to nominate, it is more likely that you have completely failed to return the form rather than returning the form with a note saying that your plate appears to have been cloned, in which case access to the ANPR database is irrelevant because you need to explain why you did not bother to furnish the information rather than police not believing that your vehicle had been cloned.

[logifail]

> This is an incorrect statement - the police are obliged to disclose any relevant, unused material (eg material they have that they don't produce in evidence) that will either undermine the prosecution case or advance the defence.

"Obliged"?

I immediately thought the case of the Guildford Four, and the scene in the biographical film In The Name Of The Father.

IIRC in the film the note in police files said "not to be shown to the defence"... :/

[gruez]

>Essentially you have to pay up or prove the cloning (and your innocence) yourself - very difficult because you do not have access to the surveillance database that would help you. The core objective of the police is to assert your guilt, not to provide you with any help for your defence.

At least in the US prosecutors are obligated to disclose any exculpatory evidence they find, even if they don't plan to use it in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland

[ryandrake]

I'm sure a traffic camera number plate reader system can be programmed such that evidence of cloned tags was intentionally not captured or saved.

[fkyoureadthedoc]

> At least in the US prosecutors are obligated to disclose any exculpatory evidence they find, even if they don't plan to use it in court.

Once you're at that level of issue, you're already wasting massive amounts of time and money.

[lazide]

It’s very common that they don’t - and how would you know/prove it existed when it’s hard to even know who to ask?

[pjc50]

The "revenue generation" argument works for the US but cannot be imported directly over, because cameras work differently here. The revenue goes into the consolidated fund. Rule changes removed them from revenue-maxing spots and made them bright yellow with advanced signage.

(also, the court case if you take it to court should include the photo showing the car, so cloners have to match the exact model of car from the plates they're cloning)

[flir]

The decision to site a speed camera (and costs of maintaining the camera) and revenue from the camera end up at very different points in the system. The fixed cameras in my city have been off since 2012, because the local council won't pay for them. The "revenue generation" argument is very much overblown.

[Ajedi32]

> very difficult because you do not have access to the surveillance database that would help you

Is the legal process of discovery not a thing in the UK? Finding evidence that might exonerate you is precisely what that process is for.

[noodlesUK]

Disclosure in the UK (as it’s called) is a bit different from discovery in the states, but serves largely the same function.

I googled a bit to find a decent guide and found one on the HSE’s website: https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/pretrial/aft...

Unfortunately in real life disclosure is one of the many places that the criminal justice system tends to fail to meet its stated ideals. Disclosure is often served late or improperly on run-of-the-mill cases from what I’ve heard and read. There’s a great book called the Secret Barrister that goes into some detail about the UK’s (or England and Wales more specifically) criminal justice system from quite a critical lens.

[banku_brougham]

Respectfully, this is naive and doesn't consider defacto judicial process. Basically, defendants are getting railroaded unless they have resources to mount a defense, and charges are inflated to incentivize plea bargaining.

[hennell]

I'm not sure how a system would work that didn't auto issue the absolute maximum number of tickets possible. Random lottery to auto discard tickets? A max quota leading to a lawless time in the late evening?

But if that has parameters they've set to max because they really want that delicious revenue, why not detect cloned plates and charge those people more than the tickets?

[AnthonyMouse]

> But if that has parameters they've set to max because they really want that delicious revenue, why not detect cloned plates and charge those people more than the tickets?

The plate is registered to the victim whose plate was cloned. The identity of the perpetrator who cloned the plate isn't known, so how do you issue them a citation?

[redeeman]

and when this happens, it is proof of an illegitimate regime, not for the people, and as such it becomes morally and ethically justifiable to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING one deem required to demolish it, and bring the responsible parties to justice

[pjc50]

We're talking about speed cameras here, not deporting people to illegal prisons in El Salvador.

Or even more basic civil liberties stuff like the use of face recognition against protestors. No, there's always a huge number of people that come out for the right to drive illegally fast instead.