LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me
Discussion
Still awaiting a new trial date. 18th Jan was proposed by the court but my solicitor immediately pointed out that we hadn't yet got the complete video for processing and our expert witness was unavailable on that date so a new date would be required.
I had planned to email the solicitor this morning to find out if we had a new date yet, so I'll let you know.
I had planned to email the solicitor this morning to find out if we had a new date yet, so I'll let you know.
I received a letter from the solicitor on Monday indicating that the CPS was making a fuss about changing the hearing date from 18th Jan even though we had made it clear to the court that it wasn't an available option. However, the solicitor will be making a formal representation to the court tomorrow for a date change and the CPS has today indicated that it won't object. What a pain.
However, we still don't have the complete video. And there are other things that seem to be outstanding:
- admissible evidence that the laser device was type approved, and that it was calibrated
- the speed limit order for the road
- valid proof that the NIP was served in the required time.
As you can see, these are technical issues rather than relating to the speed reading itself, though the solicitor does point out that the civilian camera van operator may not "be able to give satisfactory evidence that all the conditions subject to which type approval has been granted have been satisfied, and that the ACPO Code of Practice was complied with".
I should know the new hearing date tomorrow.
However, we still don't have the complete video. And there are other things that seem to be outstanding:
- admissible evidence that the laser device was type approved, and that it was calibrated
- the speed limit order for the road
- valid proof that the NIP was served in the required time.
As you can see, these are technical issues rather than relating to the speed reading itself, though the solicitor does point out that the civilian camera van operator may not "be able to give satisfactory evidence that all the conditions subject to which type approval has been granted have been satisfied, and that the ACPO Code of Practice was complied with".
I should know the new hearing date tomorrow.
justinp1 said:
Globulator said:
havoc said:
Just the same, I question the morals and character of CPS clowns who're acting against the interests of justice and truth JUST to get that 'win' for 'their side'!!! 
IT'S NOT A F'''ING GAME!!!
I'm right with you Havoc but I disagree completely with your last statement. Maybe it shouldn't be, in an ideal world, but trust me, it IS all a game. IT'S NOT A F'''ING GAME!!!
Agreed.
I would also bet my house on the fact that for every 'Freemanesque' lawyer who will get a defendant off on a loophole, who knows they are guilty there are many more cases where innocent people are tried and fail to win when they represent themselves - understandable when fighting a case against a professional, do not want to go to court for the same reason, or cannot afford a solicitor, or are 'warned' by the CPS or their cohorts that they will lose and end up with a four figure bill.
If the CPS get a shock now and again by a decend solicitor who forces them to act properly, then all the better. Better still would be if the clerks and the mags could have a stricter attitude with the CPS with regard to disclosure and obstruction, and instantly throw out cases where the CPS have been non-compliant.
Oh yes! Please! Where can I get one of these?
andmole said:
Meredydd Hughes said:
All challenges to the accuracy of the equipment itself (we believe) have been defeated with costs to the defendants in some instances excess of £3000.
From that "BBC Inside Out - South west" link
And that's not bullying, trying to frighten people into not challenging these B
DS in court? Make a comment like that in the workplace today, and with all the current PC C
P that there is you would probably be disciplined/prosecuted/sacked for bullying! That's exactly the sort of comment that leads people to mistrust the BiB. The ONLY reason for mentioning the costs is to try to put people off.
In my case the CPS has been very forward in mentioning the likely costs of the requests I've made for the video. I have at least 2 letters referring to this and stating that they reserve the right to show the letter to the magistrate. It's as if they want me to stop asking for evidence simply on the basis of cost. Now why would that be?
Meredydd Hughes said:
Viewers of this programme might like to note that the lengthy, scientific and practical Home Office Type Approval process is administered by public servants - Police Officers, staff and scientists - who have no vested interests in the equipment, and are not seeking business from motorists - unlike the critics featured....
Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable & Head of the
ACPO Uniformed Operations Business Area.
"lengthy, scientific and practical Home Office Type Approval process" = point it at a fixed object and demonstrate it gives 0mph. Use if from 1km away on a moving object and be certain it's never wrong.
article said:
Since our previous programme, under the Freedom Of Information Act, the Home Office, which approved the device, has now also admitted that you can get an erroneous reading with those guns.
But it says that this will not happen if they are used according to their guidelines.
But it says that this will not happen if they are used according to their guidelines.
"guidelines" = Code of Practice.
What about when it's not? Has anyone got the actual text of the FoI response, because if we can prove that the camera in my case wasn't used in accordance with the "guidelines" then this admission effectively shoots the CPS in both feet.
I may be missing something, but I can't imagine this ABD proposal making much difference.
Operators would simply enter a number greater than the speed limit and it wouldn't really make any difference to the prosecution. Similarly, having to hit a button before using the camera would simply mean that the operator would hit it each time just in case. If the CPS can continue to refuse to provide the video then who's going to see the times when the operator was wrong?
Instead, it should be routine that the video is released in all cases. The video should contain the whole session starting with the view of the van's location and the initial camera calibration checks. If the operators knew that their setup and use of the equipment was (rightly) to be visible to those whom they accused, then they would make very sure that they did everything according to the Code of Practice.
Operators would simply enter a number greater than the speed limit and it wouldn't really make any difference to the prosecution. Similarly, having to hit a button before using the camera would simply mean that the operator would hit it each time just in case. If the CPS can continue to refuse to provide the video then who's going to see the times when the operator was wrong?
Instead, it should be routine that the video is released in all cases. The video should contain the whole session starting with the view of the van's location and the initial camera calibration checks. If the operators knew that their setup and use of the equipment was (rightly) to be visible to those whom they accused, then they would make very sure that they did everything according to the Code of Practice.
cuneus said:
justinp1 said:
flemke said:
All we need is a public record of the ratio of instances of speed recorded to instances of speed exceeding the limit (or, more appropriately, exceeding the ACPO guidelines).
That would immediately show how many readings were speculative but without foundation.
That would immediately show how many readings were speculative but without foundation.
Thats the main reason why people never get to see a 'full' video...
If the device is being used indescriminantly, then there will be results below the limit. If there are results below the limit, then this discounts the validity of the quality of the 'prior opinion' of the operator. No prior opinion, no evidence.
The only full session video I have seen yielded:
Total number of vehicles zapped: 217
Total number of vehicles over the threshold speed: 36
That's a rather poor 17% strike rate.
And the magistrate accepted that this was a valid demonstration of "prior opinion" for the case in hand?
I realise you can't argue much from 1 tape, but if this were to be the norm then it's not good. Assuming it is normal, I presume that the CPS is fully aware and chooses not to think about it. To me it looks like it's convenient to overlook the "prior opinion" requirement and simply rely on the camera. Of course, if pressed, the operator's pre-printed statement can be wheeled out for the court, but it seems perilously close to a sham.
havoc said:
Jith - parallax error will work in the defendant's favour as anything other than head-on will show a marginally reduced speed. In practice makes very little difference until well off the axis of travel (e.g. HIGH bridge or across a carriageway). Of course, at those angles slip-error becomes a major concern with the potential to massively OVERSTATE a speed.
As for the current news...I can't see it making any difference, as the gov't and SCP's will just ignore it until it falls from public notice. May help in the odd court-case as a precedent, but all depends on how tame the mags' sitting are.
As for the current news...I can't see it making any difference, as the gov't and SCP's will just ignore it until it falls from public notice. May help in the odd court-case as a precedent, but all depends on how tame the mags' sitting are.
I think Jith's comment is not re the recorded speed but the view that the operator has. It's hard enough to judge speed when you can see the car passing in front of you. When it's coming straight at you it's even harder.
This morning I had a communication from the court. The PTR is set for Friday 9th Feb. It says I must attend, but I have spoken to my solicitor Matthew Miller at motoringlawyers.com and he says I don't. The purpose of the PTR is apparently to sort out hearsay evidence, but he will also be kicking up a fuss about the CPS not having provided the requested information including the video. The trial date will be set at this time.
He mentioned as well that this case www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=348586&f=10&h=0 was one that he started. So I guess that means he's well up on the possibilities. He agreed that the way the CPS behaves is crooked but says they simply look to get as many convictions as possible.
He mentioned as well that this case www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=348586&f=10&h=0 was one that he started. So I guess that means he's well up on the possibilities. He agreed that the way the CPS behaves is crooked but says they simply look to get as many convictions as possible.
Very interesting! Thanks for the pointer. He admits quite a lot, and is clearly not used to being cross-examined in this way. Amazing that he relies so much on his long experience rather than facts and proof. I don't know how the case ended -- was the defence successful? It would be nice to think so.
Today was my PTR. I didn't have to attend and I didn't.
Apparently the court accepted the CPS request to include the ticket office's hearsay evidence that the NIP was served, but the CPS did not ask for the calibration certificate to be accepted (this is also hearsay, it seems). I don't know whether this is significant or not.
The trial is set for 27th April. Evidence must be provided on both sides by 6th April. The CPS has until 6th March to disclose everything requested (including the full session video) or explain why not. Once this is available, Dr Clark can start work (and will want paying).
So 6th March is an important date, and so is 6th April. Don't you just feel that this is taxpayers' money well spent?
Apparently the court accepted the CPS request to include the ticket office's hearsay evidence that the NIP was served, but the CPS did not ask for the calibration certificate to be accepted (this is also hearsay, it seems). I don't know whether this is significant or not.
The trial is set for 27th April. Evidence must be provided on both sides by 6th April. The CPS has until 6th March to disclose everything requested (including the full session video) or explain why not. Once this is available, Dr Clark can start work (and will want paying).
So 6th March is an important date, and so is 6th April. Don't you just feel that this is taxpayers' money well spent?
Sorry, been away last week, and will now be away for 2 more weeks.
While I was away I received a doc from the court confirming trial set for 09:30 on 27th April. However, it's at Thetford court, not Kings Lynn. Don't know whether this is important to how the case will go -- I sort of feel it might be a tame magistrate there, close to the camera site? Anyway, there's time to think about this later.
While I was away I received a doc from the court confirming trial set for 09:30 on 27th April. However, it's at Thetford court, not Kings Lynn. Don't know whether this is important to how the case will go -- I sort of feel it might be a tame magistrate there, close to the camera site? Anyway, there's time to think about this later.
Sorry I've been a bit quiet on this. It's because the case has gone quiet. The CPS has been refusing to disclose evidence. Things seem to have come to a head this week, with this letter sent to the CPS by motoringlawyers.com:
Matthew had asked me if I wanted to pay another £500 for an appeal to the court for disclosure of the notebooks that prove pre/post checks were done. I asked if it was really necessary given that:
1. if they didn't exist then the CPS case was undermined
2. if they did, then they'd just bring them along anyway.
...and wasn't all this just looking at technicalities anyway, when there's a real case regarding time/distance measurements etc.
His response was:
As you can imagine, I've said he should do what's necessary. It's frankly unbelievable that the CPS should be playing this game, and I still think that they're just trying to make it as hard/expensive as possible for me up to the point where they drop the case just before the hearing.
BTW, Matthew asked for a map of where I thought the camera van was. I was so grateful to Ian for the map he sent me!
So now more waiting, more cost. My wife says I should just have paid up and forgotten about it, even though I didn't do anything wrong. In terms of time/hassle/worry/cost she's right, but I feel I have to fight for the principle of justice. She's always accusing me of having to be "right", and I guess she's right
.
motoringlawyers.com said:
Date: 21st March 2007
Our Ref: 100243/MM/MM /Ward
Your Ref: 36KP001683006/BB
Mr Brighouse
Crown Prosecution Service Norfolk Area
Carmelite House
St James Court
Whitefriars
Norwich
NR3 1SL
URGENT
BY FAX AND BY POST
01603 693001
Dear Sirs
Re: DPP v Peter Ward Allegation of Speeding Trial on 27 April 2007
We are in receipt of your letter dated 21 March 2007.
In refusing to disclose the operator’s notebooks you are in breach of the Attorney General’s Guidelines on disclosure, guideline 57 which provides that the prosecutor should, in addition to complying with the obligations under the Act, provide the defence all evidence on which the Crown proposes to rely in a summary trial. Such provisions should allow the accused and their legal advisors sufficient time properly to consider the evidence before it is called.
In the light of that directive to you from the Attorney General, would you please now forward a copy of Mr Lupson’s notebook entries for 18th April 2006 to us. If you continue to refuse disclosure of the same, objection will be taken to any application to allow Mr Lupson to rely on them when giving evidence at the trial.
In view of your failure to serve any of the items we have requested, please inform us what evidence you seek to rely on in order to attempt to prove compliance with the ACPO Codes of Practice and manufacturer’s instructions for the device.
Yours faithfully
motoringlawyers.com
Our Ref: 100243/MM/MM /Ward
Your Ref: 36KP001683006/BB
Mr Brighouse
Crown Prosecution Service Norfolk Area
Carmelite House
St James Court
Whitefriars
Norwich
NR3 1SL
URGENT
BY FAX AND BY POST
01603 693001
Dear Sirs
Re: DPP v Peter Ward Allegation of Speeding Trial on 27 April 2007
We are in receipt of your letter dated 21 March 2007.
In refusing to disclose the operator’s notebooks you are in breach of the Attorney General’s Guidelines on disclosure, guideline 57 which provides that the prosecutor should, in addition to complying with the obligations under the Act, provide the defence all evidence on which the Crown proposes to rely in a summary trial. Such provisions should allow the accused and their legal advisors sufficient time properly to consider the evidence before it is called.
In the light of that directive to you from the Attorney General, would you please now forward a copy of Mr Lupson’s notebook entries for 18th April 2006 to us. If you continue to refuse disclosure of the same, objection will be taken to any application to allow Mr Lupson to rely on them when giving evidence at the trial.
In view of your failure to serve any of the items we have requested, please inform us what evidence you seek to rely on in order to attempt to prove compliance with the ACPO Codes of Practice and manufacturer’s instructions for the device.
Yours faithfully
motoringlawyers.com
Matthew had asked me if I wanted to pay another £500 for an appeal to the court for disclosure of the notebooks that prove pre/post checks were done. I asked if it was really necessary given that:
1. if they didn't exist then the CPS case was undermined
2. if they did, then they'd just bring them along anyway.
...and wasn't all this just looking at technicalities anyway, when there's a real case regarding time/distance measurements etc.
His response was:
Matthew Miller said:
There has never been any suggestion that we will be relying on technicalities in your case - we have simply requested disclosure of items relating to the equipment used which the expert said he needed for his report. The CPS has ignored my latest letter (copy attached) *Note: this is the above letter*
The CPS has said that they have disclosed all the items that they are seeking to rely on to prove their case. The notebooks should really fall into this category (I cannot accept that they do not exist) and if they did not disclose them we would be entitled to object to the witness (Mr Lupson) relying on them at court when he gives evidence.
I will ask Dr Clark whether he is able to prepare a meaningful report without the information which we have requested from the CPS. If he says that he cannot do so, then I don't see that we have any choice but to make the application to the Court (unless we are to proceed without expert evidence).
The CPS has said that they have disclosed all the items that they are seeking to rely on to prove their case. The notebooks should really fall into this category (I cannot accept that they do not exist) and if they did not disclose them we would be entitled to object to the witness (Mr Lupson) relying on them at court when he gives evidence.
I will ask Dr Clark whether he is able to prepare a meaningful report without the information which we have requested from the CPS. If he says that he cannot do so, then I don't see that we have any choice but to make the application to the Court (unless we are to proceed without expert evidence).
As you can imagine, I've said he should do what's necessary. It's frankly unbelievable that the CPS should be playing this game, and I still think that they're just trying to make it as hard/expensive as possible for me up to the point where they drop the case just before the hearing.
BTW, Matthew asked for a map of where I thought the camera van was. I was so grateful to Ian for the map he sent me!
So now more waiting, more cost. My wife says I should just have paid up and forgotten about it, even though I didn't do anything wrong. In terms of time/hassle/worry/cost she's right, but I feel I have to fight for the principle of justice. She's always accusing me of having to be "right", and I guess she's right
. Edited by Peter Ward on Friday 30th March 13:52
Thanks everyone for your continued support. Even my wife has come round again -- she can't believe just how difficult the CPS is being! She even suggests I should tout the story round the press when it's done. I'm not asking for more cash at present, as I can cover the next invoice.
I spoke to my lawyer today. The CPS should have disclosed everything by 6th. As expected, they've disclosed nothing. They will not let us have the complete video as it would not be "in the public interest". Now that's the first time I've heard that one!!
Nor will the CPS disclose the officer's notebook that confirms the alignment checks and tests were done. They claim it's not necessary. The lawyer's never come across this before, and is suspicious.
The court cannot fit in a hearing prior to 27th, so it looks like the aim then will be to show that the CPS has not disclosed what it needs to, and to force them into doing it. There will be a barrister (Mr Elton) and Dr Michael Clark, who has done a report that indicates there are lots of possible problems with the reading, and that without the complete video it's not possible to prove the reading's correct (or something along those lines). Though I would love the CPS to roll over at this point, I imagine it will drag out the process for as long as possible just to be difficult.
The case is on at Thetford (The Court House, Old Bury Road, Thetford), at 09:30, on 27th April. All welcome.
I spoke to my lawyer today. The CPS should have disclosed everything by 6th. As expected, they've disclosed nothing. They will not let us have the complete video as it would not be "in the public interest"
. Now that's the first time I've heard that one!! Nor will the CPS disclose the officer's notebook that confirms the alignment checks and tests were done. They claim it's not necessary. The lawyer's never come across this before, and is suspicious.
The court cannot fit in a hearing prior to 27th, so it looks like the aim then will be to show that the CPS has not disclosed what it needs to, and to force them into doing it. There will be a barrister (Mr Elton) and Dr Michael Clark, who has done a report that indicates there are lots of possible problems with the reading, and that without the complete video it's not possible to prove the reading's correct (or something along those lines). Though I would love the CPS to roll over at this point, I imagine it will drag out the process for as long as possible just to be difficult.
The case is on at Thetford (The Court House, Old Bury Road, Thetford), at 09:30, on 27th April. All welcome
.dodgyviper said:
Peter
Firstly congrats on keeping up the fight.
Mainly tho, without going back through all the pages, did you ever check your speed using a camera of your own (Or borrowed)
ie setup a vid camera where you think the van was sited and then get someone to drive at exact speeds around the corner - 50mph, 60mph etc
A straightforward comparison is then possible on your pc. Should give you peace of mind even though its unlikely to be
admissible as evidence.
Firstly congrats on keeping up the fight.
Mainly tho, without going back through all the pages, did you ever check your speed using a camera of your own (Or borrowed)
ie setup a vid camera where you think the van was sited and then get someone to drive at exact speeds around the corner - 50mph, 60mph etc
A straightforward comparison is then possible on your pc. Should give you peace of mind even though its unlikely to be
admissible as evidence.
No, I have not done this. It didn't seem worth it when, as you say, it would not be admissible. My lawyer said that all the work I'd done in measuring and assessing speeds would not be admissible either because I am not an expert in doing it. The system doesn't support a DIY approach.
Heck, I wasn't away for long. I didn't know this thread would degenerate into a BiB-bashing fiesta courtesy of someone who has made 7 posts in 17 months. Sorry to all our resident BiBs who found "my" thread hijacked in such a way.
We know that all Partnerships have the local constabulary as a key member, along with the local court and LAs. We may have our opinions as to why, and what this hides from the general public, but that's not the point. We know that the police stamp is on every communication from the Partnerships, and that their work is "on behalf of the Chief Constable", but it also seems that there are times when the police wish to distance themselves from the Partnerships as well. While having "police enforcement cameras" signs on many roads....
I found the Partnership to be friendly, if completely procedure-bound, in the early stages of this case. The court has been somewhat helpful but largely disinterested. The police have not been directly involved. The CPS started off apparently helpful and then rapidly changed into being as obstructive as possible. I honestly thought I had found someone in the CPS who understood the situation and I explained all my reasoning to them, but when they started accusing me of being "on a fishing expedition" by asking once again for the complete video (have already said they would get the police to send me it) I decided I needed a solicitor. I still find it extremely confusing that the organisation prosecuting me (CPS) also has the right to decide what I can and cannot see when building my defence, while hiding behind "public interest" when refusing the complete video which I've asked for from the start. The CPS has regularly told me that their focus is on murders and rapes, and that my case takes away valuable resources from these things, as if I should therefore give in. It is not my desire to go to court -- indeed I have never been inside a courtroom in my life -- and I wish things had not gone this far, but I believe that justice should be done as part of the wider fight as well as for me personally.
The date of the "offence" was 18th April 2006. The case will finally be presented in court on 27th April 2007. I wonder how much longer it will go on?
We know that all Partnerships have the local constabulary as a key member, along with the local court and LAs. We may have our opinions as to why, and what this hides from the general public, but that's not the point. We know that the police stamp is on every communication from the Partnerships, and that their work is "on behalf of the Chief Constable", but it also seems that there are times when the police wish to distance themselves from the Partnerships as well. While having "police enforcement cameras" signs on many roads....
I found the Partnership to be friendly, if completely procedure-bound, in the early stages of this case. The court has been somewhat helpful but largely disinterested. The police have not been directly involved. The CPS started off apparently helpful and then rapidly changed into being as obstructive as possible. I honestly thought I had found someone in the CPS who understood the situation and I explained all my reasoning to them, but when they started accusing me of being "on a fishing expedition" by asking once again for the complete video (have already said they would get the police to send me it) I decided I needed a solicitor. I still find it extremely confusing that the organisation prosecuting me (CPS) also has the right to decide what I can and cannot see when building my defence, while hiding behind "public interest" when refusing the complete video which I've asked for from the start. The CPS has regularly told me that their focus is on murders and rapes, and that my case takes away valuable resources from these things, as if I should therefore give in. It is not my desire to go to court -- indeed I have never been inside a courtroom in my life -- and I wish things had not gone this far, but I believe that justice should be done as part of the wider fight as well as for me personally.
The date of the "offence" was 18th April 2006. The case will finally be presented in court on 27th April 2007. I wonder how much longer it will go on?
Next Friday I shall be in court. I've paid my second £1000+VAT-installment to the lawyer, and £740 to Dr Clark. He will be there too along with a barrister.
Dr Clark provided:
1. A 48-page document relating to my case. He highlights disclosure issues (and says the non-disclosure is unusual in his experience), and especially points out the lack of the complete video. There is then a lot of generic information relating to his tests at Elvington aerodrome in December last year, before he returns to my case with copies of some correspondence and an analysis of the video that we have
2. A 64-page document relating to the Elvington aerodrome tests. This seems originally to have been created for someone else's court case, as it contains the name of a defendant. One interesting point is that Dr Clark's tests indicate that the LTI 20/20 beam diverges more than 3mRadians
3. A generic document relating to errors in laser speed-meters. This seems to be an accompaniment to the DVD. I'm not sure that everything he refers to here is on my DVD, but perhaps there are others
4. A DVD containing 2 clips:
1. a copy of the ITV programme on which he appeared
2. some tests he did with a camera, which I think is the Elvington aerodrome event
I'm disappointed that he has not incorporated the assessments I did into his report. Also, the solicitor tells me that if I want to have my points raised then I should do it myself.
Can anyone explain the order of court procedings? Will I be expected to give evidence or can I make a statement?
Dr Clark provided:
1. A 48-page document relating to my case. He highlights disclosure issues (and says the non-disclosure is unusual in his experience), and especially points out the lack of the complete video. There is then a lot of generic information relating to his tests at Elvington aerodrome in December last year, before he returns to my case with copies of some correspondence and an analysis of the video that we have
2. A 64-page document relating to the Elvington aerodrome tests. This seems originally to have been created for someone else's court case, as it contains the name of a defendant. One interesting point is that Dr Clark's tests indicate that the LTI 20/20 beam diverges more than 3mRadians
3. A generic document relating to errors in laser speed-meters. This seems to be an accompaniment to the DVD. I'm not sure that everything he refers to here is on my DVD, but perhaps there are others
4. A DVD containing 2 clips:
1. a copy of the ITV programme on which he appeared
2. some tests he did with a camera, which I think is the Elvington aerodrome event
I'm disappointed that he has not incorporated the assessments I did into his report. Also, the solicitor tells me that if I want to have my points raised then I should do it myself.
Can anyone explain the order of court procedings? Will I be expected to give evidence or can I make a statement?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff