A flash from a speed camera, and a few weeks later an unwelcome surprise in the post – a notice of a road traffic offence. Many drivers automatically assume the device must be right and simply pay up. In fact, a speed camera fine is not a final judgment – it can be challenged, and in certain circumstances effectively overturned.
How the System Works
A speed camera detects a speeding offence and photographs the vehicle. The data goes to the Centre for Automated Road Traffic Supervision (CANARD), where staff verify the photograph and identify the vehicle’s registered owner from the number plate. The owner then receives a notice of a road traffic offence.
At this point, the registered owner has three options: identify another driver, accept responsibility and agree to the fine, or refuse the fine – which refers the matter to court.
The Most Common Grounds for Challenging a Fine
Incorrect Vehicle Identification
Automatic number plate recognition systems are not infallible. Misidentification can occur where several vehicles appear in the photograph and number plates overlap, where the plate is partially obscured, dirty or damaged, or in difficult weather conditions – rain, fog or harsh light.
Every notice is worth examining with a careful look at the photograph. If the identification of the vehicle is open to doubt, that is a significant basis for refusing the fine.
Invalid Calibration of the Device
A speed camera is a measuring instrument and is subject to mandatory metrological checks. Type approval confirms the device is authorised for use, initial calibration is carried out before first use, and recalibration must be carried out every 13 months.
An expired calibration – even by a few days – can constitute an effective basis for challenging the fine. Information about the calibration status of a specific device can be obtained by submitting a request for access to public information.
Absence or Obscuring of Warning Signs
A location where automated speed enforcement is in operation must be marked with sign D-51 “automated speed control.” If the sign is absent, obscured by branches or another obstacle, or positioned at an incorrect distance, this provides grounds for challenging the measurement.
Verifying the signage at the scene and documenting it photographically can be a key piece of evidence in court.
Problems Identifying the Driver
Speed camera photographs frequently do not allow a definitive identification of who was driving the vehicle. The burden of proof lies with the authority – it is CANARD and the police who must establish that a specific person was behind the wheel at the time the offence was recorded. The registered owner has the right to decline to identify the driver, although in some circumstances this may lead to an allegation of obstructing the proceedings.
Falsely naming another person as the driver is a criminal offence and can result in serious criminal liability.
Measurement Error Tolerance
Every measuring device has a defined margin of measurement error. In the case of speed cameras, this tolerance is taken into account when calculating the degree of the excess speed – in some cases it can determine whether the excess is 10 km/h or 15 km/h, which in turn may affect the level of the fine or whether the driving licence is seized.
Average Speed Cameras – A Separate Category
A growing number of fines come not from conventional point-measurement speed cameras but from average speed measurement systems. Such a system records the moment a vehicle enters and exits a monitored section of road and calculates the average speed across it. It is harder to challenge than a point measurement, but it is not infallible.
Possible lines of defence include demonstrating that the vehicle stopped within the monitored section – at a petrol station or car park – which reduced the recorded journey time and inflated the calculated speed, as well as pointing to irregularities in the signage along the section or in the operation of the system.
The Limitation Period
The prosecution of a road traffic offence becomes time-barred two years after it was committed (Article 45 § 1 of the Code of Misdemeanours). If the authority failed to impose a final fine or refer the matter to court within that period, a limitation defence can bring the proceedings to an effective end.
Three Options After Receiving a Notice
Accepting the fine. If the offence was genuinely committed and there are no grounds for challenge, accepting the fine is the quickest way to close the matter.
Identifying another driver. Where someone else was driving the vehicle, that person can be identified by providing their full name and address. CANARD will then direct the matter to the person identified. Falsely naming another person is a criminal offence.
Refusing the fine. Where the measurement is open to question or there are grounds for challenging the offence, the fine can be refused. The matter then goes to the district court, where the driver can present their arguments. The court may acquit, confirm the offence, or impose a penalty higher or lower than the one originally proposed.
Is It Worth Contesting?
The answer depends on the circumstances. Contesting a fine is most justified where a driving licence seizure is at stake (exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 km/h in a built-up area), where the driver already has a high penalty points balance and further points could lead to the loss of entitlements, where there are specific grounds for challenging the measurement or vehicle identification, and where the fine is substantial and the cost-benefit balance of contesting it is favourable.
For minor excesses where there are no grounds to challenge the measurement, contesting a fine may not be cost-effective.
Contact Us
If you have received a speed camera fine and have doubts about its validity, it is worth consulting a lawyer before deciding whether to accept or refuse it.
It pays to be properly prepared: both in knowing what you can claim and in having a clear strategy.
We handle cases for drivers in Poznań and across the Wielkopolska region, with in-person and online consultations available for clients elsewhere in Poland.
Adwokat Marta Krzyżanowicz and Adwokat Michalina Koligot Law Firm “Adwokat dla Kierowców w Poznaniu”
ul. Adama Mickiewicza 18/3, 60-834 Poznań
tel. +48 795 001 536 · +48 531 335 713
kontakt@adwokatdlakierowcy.pl · www.adwokatdlakierowcy.pl
This text is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case requires individual analysis.
