LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me
Discussion
Today I sent the following to the Chief Crown Prosecutor at the CPS in Norfolk:
I hope this gives enough justification for him to forward the video. I've also copied the Justices' Clerk at the court so he/she knows why I'm not responding immediately to the request to submit a plea. I had a surreal conversation with the switchboard at the court this morning, where he said that they don't have Justices' Clerks even though I explained that my summons was signed by someone with that title. Eventually he suggested I just send it to the court and they would work out who to give it to.
letter said:
<snip>
I am unable to submit a plea to the Court at this time.
As I stated in my earlier response to the Partnership, “I am unable to identify either the driver of the car, or the car itself, shown in the picture with the alleged speed which is timestamped at 10:15:51. This is because of the extreme range [745.4m] of the photograph. I cannot therefore honestly confirm who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence”.
I have also consistently questioned the recorded speed of 77mph, and would highlight the fact that – if the two photographs are indeed of the same vehicle – the 24-second gap in timestamps between the two pictures over an estimated distance of 650m would indicate a speed of approximately 60mph. Alternatively, calculating backwards, a speed of 77mph between photographs would require a distance between them of 826.1m which is obviously impossible.
I therefore request that you provide me with a copy of the full and complete video in time for me to get it professionally assessed. I would ask to receive the video at your earliest convenience, and certainly no later than Monday 9th October so that I have time to make appropriate arrangements for its analysis.
I would also request that you confirm the details of the police officer who formed the prior opinion that I was speeding from a distance of half a mile away.
<snip>
I am unable to submit a plea to the Court at this time.
As I stated in my earlier response to the Partnership, “I am unable to identify either the driver of the car, or the car itself, shown in the picture with the alleged speed which is timestamped at 10:15:51. This is because of the extreme range [745.4m] of the photograph. I cannot therefore honestly confirm who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence”.
I have also consistently questioned the recorded speed of 77mph, and would highlight the fact that – if the two photographs are indeed of the same vehicle – the 24-second gap in timestamps between the two pictures over an estimated distance of 650m would indicate a speed of approximately 60mph. Alternatively, calculating backwards, a speed of 77mph between photographs would require a distance between them of 826.1m which is obviously impossible.
I therefore request that you provide me with a copy of the full and complete video in time for me to get it professionally assessed. I would ask to receive the video at your earliest convenience, and certainly no later than Monday 9th October so that I have time to make appropriate arrangements for its analysis.
I would also request that you confirm the details of the police officer who formed the prior opinion that I was speeding from a distance of half a mile away.
<snip>
I hope this gives enough justification for him to forward the video. I've also copied the Justices' Clerk at the court so he/she knows why I'm not responding immediately to the request to submit a plea. I had a surreal conversation with the switchboard at the court this morning, where he said that they don't have Justices' Clerks even though I explained that my summons was signed by someone with that title. Eventually he suggested I just send it to the court and they would work out who to give it to.
Edited by Peter Ward on Wednesday 27th September 16:46
Gently Bentley said:
pies said:
Just at little bit of info,unless my maths is wrong
the time between the two pics is 24 seconds
At 77mph you travel 0.0213888 miles per second
Distance travelled 0.0213888 x 24 = 0.51333miles = 826 meters
So the distance from you to the camera van started at 745.4 meters
Yet the second picture shows you still well infront of the camera but a steady 77mph would put it behind you
So if you assume maximum distance travelled between the two photos is 745.4meters (i know its less but bear with me) in 24 seconds,which is 31 meters per second equals 121.21kmh or 69.11mph
So unless you came round the corner at brakeneck speed and threw on the anchors its wrong
Unless my maths is wrong
the time between the two pics is 24 seconds
At 77mph you travel 0.0213888 miles per second
Distance travelled 0.0213888 x 24 = 0.51333miles = 826 meters
So the distance from you to the camera van started at 745.4 meters
Yet the second picture shows you still well infront of the camera but a steady 77mph would put it behind you
So if you assume maximum distance travelled between the two photos is 745.4meters (i know its less but bear with me) in 24 seconds,which is 31 meters per second equals 121.21kmh or 69.11mph
So unless you came round the corner at brakeneck speed and threw on the anchors its wrong
Unless my maths is wrong
Folks a round of applause for this reply please.
I think you're saying the same as I tried to say, ie.
1. A speed of 77mph for 24 seconds gives a distance of 826m, ie. impossible given it started "only" 745m away
2. I don't know how far away I was from the camera in the second photo, but assuming it's around 100m then 24s to travel 650m gives a speed of about 60mph. Who can tell exactly how far away the car is in that photo?
And of course this assumes that the car snapped at 745.4m is mine, which I can't tell.
smeggy said:
Don’t get hung up on this:
Simply because the SCPs only need to say (rightly or wrongly, I’m not questioning your integrity Peter):
and you’re done – which is far from unlikely, especially given the fact that all the relevant case details (vrm, reference, date & log#) has been broadcast for any snoopers to pass on.
pies said:
……
Distance travelled 0.0213888 x 24 = 0.51333miles = 826 meters
So the distance from you to the camera van started at 745.4 meters
……
Distance travelled 0.0213888 x 24 = 0.51333miles = 826 meters
So the distance from you to the camera van started at 745.4 meters
……
Simply because the SCPs only need to say (rightly or wrongly, I’m not questioning your integrity Peter):
pies rightly said:
… unless you came round the corner at brakeneck speed and threw on the anchors…
and you’re done – which is far from unlikely, especially given the fact that all the relevant case details (vrm, reference, date & log#) has been broadcast for any snoopers to pass on.
Absolutely right, smeggy. They can say all sorts of things. Hence the need for the video which I hope will confirm my integrity. I would love to think they'll drop the case as it has the potential to be difficult, but if not then I'm depending on the video to prove me not guilty. It is of course possible that the video will prove me guilty, in which case I will accept it. But honestly, 77mph round a sharp corner in a fully laden Forester followed by a straight on which it's clear I was doing around 60, and I never saw the van nor had reason to brake. It doesn't add up. Let's hope the video shows this.
slowpoke said:
You seem to think you'll get the video. Good luck with that.
They'll fight tooth and nail to prevent you getting hold of an unedited full-session tape. They'll lie, not just to you but also to the court.
That's quite an assertion. We'll see. I don't want to damn them before they've had chance to prove themselves honest and supporters of good old-fashioned justice.
BTW, your name starting with the $ seems to break the quote formatting. Perhaps it's taken as opening a comment? Who opens bug reports round here?!
Edited by Peter Ward on Saturday 30th September 00:33
My aim at this point in time is to successfully defend myself against the accusation of speeding. If I am successful, either by the CPS withdrawing the case or in court, then I will have achieved my main goal. Following this, there may be the opportunity to point out to a wider audience that cameras are not always reliable etc etc, but I would not wish to seek return prosecutions for libel and the like. I am not in this to hurt those who would wish to hurt me.
The CPS still have until 9th to respond to my request for the video and for information on the police officer operating the camera. In 1 week's time I will have to chase them if I have heard nothing, or else I run the risk of not being able to give David sufficient time to analyse the video. Although there has been some comment about how I should not expect to receive it, I have no evidence at present that this will be the situation in my case. I hope they will take the honourable course and release the video to me for that analysis. I try to trust people until they prove untrustworthy, and at present I have no reason not to trust them.
The CPS still have until 9th to respond to my request for the video and for information on the police officer operating the camera. In 1 week's time I will have to chase them if I have heard nothing, or else I run the risk of not being able to give David sufficient time to analyse the video. Although there has been some comment about how I should not expect to receive it, I have no evidence at present that this will be the situation in my case. I hope they will take the honourable course and release the video to me for that analysis. I try to trust people until they prove untrustworthy, and at present I have no reason not to trust them.
davidra said:
Peter, perhaps it is time to start arranging the video analysis? I am in china and japan from 8th Oct. -23 Oct and in the UK from 17-nov to 4th Dec which might disrupt my ability to work on the video during this period. So I think we need to figure out how to prepare and analyse the tape now.
Based on the picture, I have come up with a couple of mathematical models for speed recovery. Both depend heavily on available resolution for accuracy though it will be possible to demonstrate possible error.
My preferred method would be expansion of features on your car which assumes that the car is travelling parallel to the point of focus of the camera and that the camera is not panned or zoomed during measurement period - which could be as little as a few frames, but integration over many frames will improve the result.
I am assuming that you will be supplied the video on VHS cassette or a CD of digital video. Every extra conversion step the video undergoes before it gets to you reduces the quality and our ability to measure speed. However, the analysis must be digital so if an analogue tape is supplied, it must be converted.
I don't know how happy you are working with video but I bet there are people on PH located in the UK who could help if necessary. Basically it owuld involve playing the cassette in a VCR and capturing the output using a TV capture card in a PC. The ideal option would be for you to snail-mail a CD or DVD to me, and/or place the video file on the web somewhere that I can download it so that I can work on it while I 'm on the move.
I can and am happy to provide advice where possible, but it'd be best to have someone on hand and the same time zone to help with that sort of stuff.
----
The other two prongs of the attack can be done using manual viewing of the video. You (and others?) can play it through and watch for the trigger pressed markings on the image. Whenever this occurs, note down frame and time as a reference and any notes about the feasibility of the operator making the necessary prior judgement - e.g. if cars are being shot as soon as they come into view, frequency of triggering e.g. more than 1 per car is highly suspect. Then we need to speak with a lawyer (perhaps someone volunteering from ths forum?) to decide on the strength of this argument and how it should be presented.
The third prong is to note frame and timestamp of each trigger press against your car. We know there's 2 of them. There may well be more. Based on these and some trivial math as already demonstrated, we may be able to prove that any one of these readings is inconsistent with its neighbours thus casting doubt on all of them. Again, this must be followed by a conversation with a lawyer as to how to present the argument.
I think the best approach would be to set up this entire process ready to go the moment the video is available, so that the 3 strands can progress in parallel at max speed!
with bated breath,
dave
Based on the picture, I have come up with a couple of mathematical models for speed recovery. Both depend heavily on available resolution for accuracy though it will be possible to demonstrate possible error.
My preferred method would be expansion of features on your car which assumes that the car is travelling parallel to the point of focus of the camera and that the camera is not panned or zoomed during measurement period - which could be as little as a few frames, but integration over many frames will improve the result.
I am assuming that you will be supplied the video on VHS cassette or a CD of digital video. Every extra conversion step the video undergoes before it gets to you reduces the quality and our ability to measure speed. However, the analysis must be digital so if an analogue tape is supplied, it must be converted.
I don't know how happy you are working with video but I bet there are people on PH located in the UK who could help if necessary. Basically it owuld involve playing the cassette in a VCR and capturing the output using a TV capture card in a PC. The ideal option would be for you to snail-mail a CD or DVD to me, and/or place the video file on the web somewhere that I can download it so that I can work on it while I 'm on the move.
I can and am happy to provide advice where possible, but it'd be best to have someone on hand and the same time zone to help with that sort of stuff.
----
The other two prongs of the attack can be done using manual viewing of the video. You (and others?) can play it through and watch for the trigger pressed markings on the image. Whenever this occurs, note down frame and time as a reference and any notes about the feasibility of the operator making the necessary prior judgement - e.g. if cars are being shot as soon as they come into view, frequency of triggering e.g. more than 1 per car is highly suspect. Then we need to speak with a lawyer (perhaps someone volunteering from ths forum?) to decide on the strength of this argument and how it should be presented.
The third prong is to note frame and timestamp of each trigger press against your car. We know there's 2 of them. There may well be more. Based on these and some trivial math as already demonstrated, we may be able to prove that any one of these readings is inconsistent with its neighbours thus casting doubt on all of them. Again, this must be followed by a conversation with a lawyer as to how to present the argument.
I think the best approach would be to set up this entire process ready to go the moment the video is available, so that the 3 strands can progress in parallel at max speed!
with bated breath,
dave
David, thanks for your suggestions. I agree we should be prepared.
I have just acquired a 500GB external drive for backups, of which 440GB is still free. I would hope this will give us some space to play.
I don't have a TV-to-PC capture card but I do have an S-VHS VCR which should give reasonable results. I presume I can obtain a capture card quickly from an online retailer -- any recommendations as to the required features/preferred brands or are they all the same?
I don't have access to a large amount of web storage space so I can't upload a whole digitised video. However I probably have enough space for a subset -- perhaps my section? -- based on the size of videos I see elsewhere. If anyone is willing to volunteer to review the whole video then you're welcome at my place near Warwick or I'll travel to wherever you are if you're bringing your professional expertise to bear.
As for comments re highlighting my success in fighting the case, well yes, I'd like to do this. The Press seems like a reasonable approach but I know from past experience that interviewers can twist your words so I need to be careful. I am not willing to push for libel or suchlike, but I agree it's right -- assuming a successful outcome -- that others are made aware of possible errors in measuring equipment or its usage.
davidra said:
Quick ask around suggests that pretty much any capture card will do, you should be able to get one for less than 30 quid. The first UK link on google is:
http://shopping.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/ss_v - not that I'm recommending this, just as a guide to pricing.
The difference is in the CODEC ie software algorithm used for compression. Extra codecs can be downloaded for free from the internet.
One possibility is to "decimate" the video - ie drop 90% of the frames (9 out of each 10 frames), but all surviving frames are at full quality. Then the file size will be 10% of original. It might not be necessary to use all frames anyway, and could later use extra frames within a certain time period if req'd.
Might be worth getting in touch with CPS now to check that the video will arrive uncompressed. Sorry did not think of that already.
dave
http://shopping.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/ss_v - not that I'm recommending this, just as a guide to pricing.
The difference is in the CODEC ie software algorithm used for compression. Extra codecs can be downloaded for free from the internet.
One possibility is to "decimate" the video - ie drop 90% of the frames (9 out of each 10 frames), but all surviving frames are at full quality. Then the file size will be 10% of original. It might not be necessary to use all frames anyway, and could later use extra frames within a certain time period if req'd.
Might be worth getting in touch with CPS now to check that the video will arrive uncompressed. Sorry did not think of that already.
dave
Thanks for the guidance. I'll give the CPS a call this afternoon re the compressed video. I presume that the "document" served on the court would be the original video, so I have a right to receive a copy as-is rather than modified. I'll post back on here when I've spoken to them.
Today I received a letter from the CPS. It simply stated that the case was "still with King's Lynn police (Criminal Justice Unit)" and that they had therefore passed my letter to them.
I phoned them up via the Norfolk police switchboard. The first time I was put through to the camera office in Norwich but a friendly chap there said he couldn't help and to try again. The second time I reached the CJU in King's Lynn. I described my situation and asked for a copy of the video as per my letter. The CJU were not yet in receipt of it, but I offered to email or fax it if required.
A helpful lady by the name of Marie didn't know what to do but said she would call back. She did wonder if it had to come to court before the video was offered, but I suggested that they couldn't prosecute me without evidence!
In about 10 mins she phoned back. She said they would release just my part of the video. I asked that it should be a straight copy and not a compressed one and this didn't make much sense to her so I assume it will be ok. I expressed disappointment that it would only be my part and not the full tape because I wanted to see the initial and final testing of the device, but she said this wouldn't be on the video anyway and is covered by the operator statement.
She also asked that I forward my letter to the CPS to them via email. I have done this.
So I am now expecting to receive a copy of the video, if not a NFA statement (well, I asked that they consider this in the light of my arguments restated again in the letter). We can but wait to see what happens.
In the meantime I'll get onto a TV-to-PC converter.
I phoned them up via the Norfolk police switchboard. The first time I was put through to the camera office in Norwich but a friendly chap there said he couldn't help and to try again. The second time I reached the CJU in King's Lynn. I described my situation and asked for a copy of the video as per my letter. The CJU were not yet in receipt of it, but I offered to email or fax it if required.
A helpful lady by the name of Marie didn't know what to do but said she would call back. She did wonder if it had to come to court before the video was offered, but I suggested that they couldn't prosecute me without evidence!
In about 10 mins she phoned back. She said they would release just my part of the video. I asked that it should be a straight copy and not a compressed one and this didn't make much sense to her so I assume it will be ok. I expressed disappointment that it would only be my part and not the full tape because I wanted to see the initial and final testing of the device, but she said this wouldn't be on the video anyway and is covered by the operator statement.
She also asked that I forward my letter to the CPS to them via email. I have done this.
So I am now expecting to receive a copy of the video, if not a NFA statement (well, I asked that they consider this in the light of my arguments restated again in the letter). We can but wait to see what happens.
In the meantime I'll get onto a TV-to-PC converter.
M@H said:
slowpoke said:
Sooooo, did she say why they wern't releasing a full session copy of the tape?
If I've got this right in my head, that tape is the equivanent of an officer's notebook, and you have the right to ...........
Aghh, I'm just confusing and upsettinig myself again. Good luck with it, hope all goes well for you.
If I've got this right in my head, that tape is the equivanent of an officer's notebook, and you have the right to ...........
Aghh, I'm just confusing and upsettinig myself again. Good luck with it, hope all goes well for you.
I think "you have the right to..." sod all..! 
Edited by M@H on Thursday 5th October 14:55
This is obviously very important. I've been led to believe that I have the right to see my video. I have previously been told that I can make an appointment to see it, but now I'm asking for a copy. Do I have a right to:
1) see it
2) get a copy of my part
3) get a copy of all of it
In the parallel case of an officer's notebook, do you have a right to see it? All of it, or just your pages, or what? Before the court appearance? After it? Only if appealing? There must be some law and/or precedent on this. It can't just be left to the whim of the CPS, courts, police, etc. Can it?
Justin,
I am very grateful as always for your time and thoughtfulness in providing significant help for my case. Can I please clarify that you believe (or are certain) that I have a right to see the whole video and not just my section? What can I quote in support of this?
As for everything else, I think it's an admirable approach. I have already written (recorded delivery) to the CPS (text higher up this thread) and copied the court. When I spoke to the CJU at King's Lynn they confirmed that they had my previous letter to the camera office, so you're definitely right that these letters are kept -- and I hope given to the courts at the appropriate time.
I do like your comment re the photos not being evidence, and that the evidence is the video. However, I was told by the camera office at one point that they normally only need to give the magistrates these photos to secure a conviction, so it might be an uphill battle to convince the magistrates of this. Is there anything I can quote in support of this? I can just imagine using your "common sense" justification and being told it's irrelevant.
I gave the CPS a deadline of 9th to receive the video. I will call the CJU on 9th if I have not received it and find out what's happening. If I get no joy then I will write again, copying the court, along the lines you've suggested. It's amazing really -- all I've seen so far are an unidentifiable car clocked (if it's mine, I believe wrongly) at 77mph, and a nice picture of my car with no speed recorded. It's hardly evidence, is it?!
I am very grateful as always for your time and thoughtfulness in providing significant help for my case. Can I please clarify that you believe (or are certain) that I have a right to see the whole video and not just my section? What can I quote in support of this?
As for everything else, I think it's an admirable approach. I have already written (recorded delivery) to the CPS (text higher up this thread) and copied the court. When I spoke to the CJU at King's Lynn they confirmed that they had my previous letter to the camera office, so you're definitely right that these letters are kept -- and I hope given to the courts at the appropriate time.
I do like your comment re the photos not being evidence, and that the evidence is the video. However, I was told by the camera office at one point that they normally only need to give the magistrates these photos to secure a conviction, so it might be an uphill battle to convince the magistrates of this. Is there anything I can quote in support of this? I can just imagine using your "common sense" justification and being told it's irrelevant.
I gave the CPS a deadline of 9th to receive the video. I will call the CJU on 9th if I have not received it and find out what's happening. If I get no joy then I will write again, copying the court, along the lines you've suggested. It's amazing really -- all I've seen so far are an unidentifiable car clocked (if it's mine, I believe wrongly) at 77mph, and a nice picture of my car with no speed recorded. It's hardly evidence, is it?!
tigger1 said:
Peter Ward said:
<snip> all I've seen so far are an unidentifiable car clocked (if it's mine, I believe wrongly) at 77mph, and a nice picture of my car with no speed recorded. It's hardly evidence, is it?!
You need the video to show that there is continuity between the two photo's.
This is from the CPS website (albeit copied and pasted from pepipoo)
pepipoo said:
"The video film on which evidence is recorded of an incident is a document for the purposes of the Magistrates Court (Advance Information) Rules 1985. The Divisional Court in the case of R. -v- Calderdale Magistrates Court ex parte Donahue and Cutler 2001 Crim L.R. 141 has held that there is a duty on the Prosecution to disclose on request by the Defence a copy of any video recording forming part of the prosecution case prior to plea before venue being considered."
I've just been looking at both the pepipoo and CPS websites. This quote is definitely on the CPS website, though the search engine fails to find it -- ie. you need the pepipoo link to find it (paranoid? me?).
Pepipoo also has a link to the act, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1995, chapter 25, Part I, (www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/96025--a.htm ) referring to disclosure. It clearly states that the prosecution has to provide the defendant with "material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused" (section 3.1.a). However, I don't see clear proof that this implies the whole of the video, except to say "disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might be reasonably expected to assist the accused's defence" (section 7.2.a). However, this is in the context of a defence statement having been given under sections 5 or 6, and I don't know what this means.
I don't think I've made a "defence statement" and I don't know what would constitute it. Apart from this, however, it would seem to me that the whole video could well be "reasonably expected to assist the accused's defence", so I need to press for this. How/when should I make this "defence statement" in order to (further) justify a request for the whole video?
Edited by Peter Ward on Friday 6th October 12:20
cuneus said:
Yes, I think so. Just amazing, how difficult this could turn out to be.
9th October today, the deadline I gave for receiving the video. The post came but no video.
I called the King's Lynn CJU via the Norfolk switchboard but they were engaged. I held for about 10 mins but eventually decided to email as then I have a record of what I said. What I said:
I called the King's Lynn CJU via the Norfolk switchboard but they were engaged. I held for about 10 mins but eventually decided to email as then I have a record of what I said. What I said:
my email said:
Good morning,
On 4th October I sent you the email below, with the attachment of the softcopy of the letter which I wrote to the CPS on 27th September. This was in response to your request for a copy of the letter as you were not at that point in receipt of the forwarded hardcopy.
In that letter, and reiterated to Marie in discussions, I requested a copy of the full video by 9th October so that my expert witness would have time to review the video in time for me to plead guilty or not guilty to the court summons.
Unfortunately the post has been delivered today and I have not received a copy of the video as requested.
Please can you confirm:
1. that you have received and will be responding to this email
2. that you will be sending me a copy of the full video. My expert witness needs this in order to perform a full analysis, so that he can assess all of the logged events on the date in question with a view to determining the correct operation of the equipment. He says that it is not possible to perform a meaningful analysis with just my portion of the video
3. the expected date of receipt of this. I may need to ask the court for my hearing to be delayed if my expert witness is not given sufficient time to review the full video tape
4. the identity of the police officer who formed the prior opinion of my speed from a distance of half a mile away.
If you are also able to update the King's Lynn court with the status of your response to my request I would be grateful. I previously tried to contact the Justices' Clerk at King's Lynn to ensure he/she was aware of why I was not yet in a position to plead. However, I was told by the court's switchboard that there was no position of Justices' Clerk so I am not certain that my message has got through.
I did call you this morning but the Norfolk police switchboard was unable to reach you.
Many thanks for your help.
Regards
Peter Ward
On 4th October I sent you the email below, with the attachment of the softcopy of the letter which I wrote to the CPS on 27th September. This was in response to your request for a copy of the letter as you were not at that point in receipt of the forwarded hardcopy.
In that letter, and reiterated to Marie in discussions, I requested a copy of the full video by 9th October so that my expert witness would have time to review the video in time for me to plead guilty or not guilty to the court summons.
Unfortunately the post has been delivered today and I have not received a copy of the video as requested.
Please can you confirm:
1. that you have received and will be responding to this email
2. that you will be sending me a copy of the full video. My expert witness needs this in order to perform a full analysis, so that he can assess all of the logged events on the date in question with a view to determining the correct operation of the equipment. He says that it is not possible to perform a meaningful analysis with just my portion of the video
3. the expected date of receipt of this. I may need to ask the court for my hearing to be delayed if my expert witness is not given sufficient time to review the full video tape
4. the identity of the police officer who formed the prior opinion of my speed from a distance of half a mile away.
If you are also able to update the King's Lynn court with the status of your response to my request I would be grateful. I previously tried to contact the Justices' Clerk at King's Lynn to ensure he/she was aware of why I was not yet in a position to plead. However, I was told by the court's switchboard that there was no position of Justices' Clerk so I am not certain that my message has got through.
I did call you this morning but the Norfolk police switchboard was unable to reach you.
Many thanks for your help.
Regards
Peter Ward
Flat in Fifth said:
Maybe you put a return receipt request on the email to show if has been delivered and read?
I think I would have sent in written form by Royal Mail Special delivery ie guaranteed by noon next day, receipt of postage, receipt of delivery trackd entire way. Still time to do this today. Less complication than proving e-mails sent and received in my experience.
I think I would have sent in written form by Royal Mail Special delivery ie guaranteed by noon next day, receipt of postage, receipt of delivery trackd entire way. Still time to do this today. Less complication than proving e-mails sent and received in my experience.
Fair points. I did put a return receipt on it, and I have received it back. I'll chase by phone again this PM and if no joy then will write as you suggest.
So just to clarify, it's worth writing another letter to the CPS at this stage, pointing out that the CJU at King's Lynn have not provided the video evidence requested in the time I specified. Even though the CPS put me onto the CJU because the case hadn't reached them yet?
I guess I could copy the CJU and the court. Would that cover everything? What is the title of the head of a CJU?
And it's ok not to plead right up to attending court? The summons only gives me 3 options:
1. plead not guilty and not attend court
2. plead guilty and attend
3. plead guilty and not attend.
I guess I could copy the CJU and the court. Would that cover everything? What is the title of the head of a CJU?
And it's ok not to plead right up to attending court? The summons only gives me 3 options:
1. plead not guilty and not attend court
2. plead guilty and attend
3. plead guilty and not attend.
Flat in Fifth said:
Peter Ward said:
The summons only gives me 3 options:
1. plead not guilty and not attend court
2. plead guilty and attend
3. plead guilty and not attend.
1. plead not guilty and not attend court
2. plead guilty and attend
3. plead guilty and not attend.
Presumably they also like to play cards with a stacked deck............
. Sorry, what I should have said on option 1 is: summons said:
You may plead not guilty. In this case, sign Box 1 on Page 3 and send it to me so it reaches me at least three working days before the hearing shown in the summons. DO NOT ATTEND COURT ON THE DATE SHOWN IN THE SUMMONS. I WILL NOTIFY YOU OF A DATE WHEN YOUR CASE WILL BE HEARD....
So I was correct but not complete. What I think we're talking about now is to not plead, but attend court and AT THE COURT HEARING state that I have been unable to plead because of not having any evidence on which to make a judgement for myself as to whether I'm guilty or not. I therefore need to see the evidence before I can plead. Would this be acceptable to the magistrate, would it get them in a complete tizzy, or would they simply throw me out?
Fantastic guidance, thanks.
So I'll write to the CPS tomorrow again requesting the complete video and pointing out that they did not provide it by the deadline I requested, and copy the CJU and the Justices' Clerk. Closer to the time (<7 days to the trial, assuming I've still not received the video before then), I'll call the court to say that I will be attending on the specified date/time to put forward my case, and also to say that I've received no evidence despite repeated requests and cannot plead.
I'd better book my day off work. Can I claim that as part of my costs?
So I'll write to the CPS tomorrow again requesting the complete video and pointing out that they did not provide it by the deadline I requested, and copy the CJU and the Justices' Clerk. Closer to the time (<7 days to the trial, assuming I've still not received the video before then), I'll call the court to say that I will be attending on the specified date/time to put forward my case, and also to say that I've received no evidence despite repeated requests and cannot plead.
I'd better book my day off work. Can I claim that as part of my costs?
I've written to the CPS cc CJU and Magistrates' Clerk and will post the letters tomorrow. Text below. Writing the letter I became very aware of the stupidity of the situation -- After 5 months I still have nothing on which I can base a plea for guilty or not guilty, having been given no evidence that the 2 photographs are of the same car. On top of that, I retain a deep disbelief in the 77mph quoted simply because I know how I was driving that day, with a fully loaded car, and the distance-over-time of the gap between the 2 photos (if they are of the same car, of course) indicate a speed of around 60mph. But somehow, I can't get through to "the system" to get anyone to listen to me.
BTW, thanks for comments re claiming costs.
letter said:
I write to follow up on my earlier letter of 27th September and a response I received from your office dated 3rd October.
In response to my request for a copy of the complete video record for the session in which my car was photographed, I received a letter from a P J Yallop in your office explaining that your “case is still with the King’s Lynn police (Criminal Justice Unit) and therefore your letter has been forwarded to them to action”.
On receipt of that letter on 4th October I immediately contacted the King’s Lynn CJU. A lady named Marie in that office said that you had not yet forwarded my letter and asked if I could provide a softcopy by email. This I did, on the same day. In my conversation with Marie she said that she did not think that I could be given a complete video, though I once more explained to her that this is what I need.
You will remember that I gave a date of 9th October for the receipt of the complete video so that my expert witness would have time to analyse it. He specifically stated that I should obtain the complete video for his analysis. Unfortunately I did not receive anything from the CJU in today’s post, and I therefore telephoned the office. The Norfolk police switchboard was unable to reach them and after approximately 10 minutes on hold I decided instead to email the office. I know that my email was received at 13:24 today because I placed a read receipt on it, but unfortunately I have not received an actual response to date.
In my email to the CJU I stated:
<email text snipped -- see above>
At present I remain in the position of having seen no credible evidence of me speeding on the date in question, and I therefore continue to be unable to submit a plea to the Court.
I reiterate my statement once again: “I am unable to identify either the driver of the car, or the car itself, shown in the picture with the alleged speed which is timestamped at 10:15:51. This is because of the extreme range [745.4m] of the photograph. I cannot therefore honestly confirm who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence”.
I would also repeat that I have consistently questioned the recorded speed of 77mph, and would highlight the fact that – if the two photographs are indeed of the same vehicle – the 24-second gap in timestamps between the two pictures over an estimated distance of 650m would indicate a speed of approximately 60mph. Alternatively, calculating backwards, a speed of 77mph between photographs would require a distance between them of 826.1m which is obviously impossible.
I therefore restate my request that you provide me with a copy of the full and complete video at your very earliest convenience so that I can get it professionally assessed by my expert witness. My court appearance is set for Monday 20th November and I need to receive the complete video by Monday 16th October at the very latest if I am to have sufficient time to have it analysed for any evidence of my alleged speeding offence.
I would also restate my request that you confirm the details of the police officer who formed the prior opinion that I was speeding from a distance of half a mile away.
If I do not receive the complete video by close of business on Monday 16th October, then I will consider making an appeal to the Court for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process. I find it inconceivable that my case, for which I received a Notice of Intended Prosecution as long ago as 10th May, should still be in a state where there is no credible evidence raised against me and nothing presented to me on which I can consider a plea.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to my requests.
In response to my request for a copy of the complete video record for the session in which my car was photographed, I received a letter from a P J Yallop in your office explaining that your “case is still with the King’s Lynn police (Criminal Justice Unit) and therefore your letter has been forwarded to them to action”.
On receipt of that letter on 4th October I immediately contacted the King’s Lynn CJU. A lady named Marie in that office said that you had not yet forwarded my letter and asked if I could provide a softcopy by email. This I did, on the same day. In my conversation with Marie she said that she did not think that I could be given a complete video, though I once more explained to her that this is what I need.
You will remember that I gave a date of 9th October for the receipt of the complete video so that my expert witness would have time to analyse it. He specifically stated that I should obtain the complete video for his analysis. Unfortunately I did not receive anything from the CJU in today’s post, and I therefore telephoned the office. The Norfolk police switchboard was unable to reach them and after approximately 10 minutes on hold I decided instead to email the office. I know that my email was received at 13:24 today because I placed a read receipt on it, but unfortunately I have not received an actual response to date.
In my email to the CJU I stated:
<email text snipped -- see above>
At present I remain in the position of having seen no credible evidence of me speeding on the date in question, and I therefore continue to be unable to submit a plea to the Court.
I reiterate my statement once again: “I am unable to identify either the driver of the car, or the car itself, shown in the picture with the alleged speed which is timestamped at 10:15:51. This is because of the extreme range [745.4m] of the photograph. I cannot therefore honestly confirm who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence”.
I would also repeat that I have consistently questioned the recorded speed of 77mph, and would highlight the fact that – if the two photographs are indeed of the same vehicle – the 24-second gap in timestamps between the two pictures over an estimated distance of 650m would indicate a speed of approximately 60mph. Alternatively, calculating backwards, a speed of 77mph between photographs would require a distance between them of 826.1m which is obviously impossible.
I therefore restate my request that you provide me with a copy of the full and complete video at your very earliest convenience so that I can get it professionally assessed by my expert witness. My court appearance is set for Monday 20th November and I need to receive the complete video by Monday 16th October at the very latest if I am to have sufficient time to have it analysed for any evidence of my alleged speeding offence.
I would also restate my request that you confirm the details of the police officer who formed the prior opinion that I was speeding from a distance of half a mile away.
If I do not receive the complete video by close of business on Monday 16th October, then I will consider making an appeal to the Court for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process. I find it inconceivable that my case, for which I received a Notice of Intended Prosecution as long ago as 10th May, should still be in a state where there is no credible evidence raised against me and nothing presented to me on which I can consider a plea.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to my requests.
BTW, thanks for comments re claiming costs.
Yesterday I had a VM from the CJU manager. I called her back today and she told me that my file and the tape have now been sent to the CPS (Peter Tidey) along with a request for him to give his view on whether the tape can be released to me. The normal view is that it can't because it contains other people's offences and is therefore covered by the data protection act.
This seems like a predictable response, though of course it doesn't meet the terms of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 that states:
Am I quoting the act in context? Are there requirements on me that I must fulfill before I can expect the above to be performed?
Anyway, I guess it's now out of the hands of the CJU and with the CPS. I wonder how long I might have to wait for a response from them?
This seems like a predictable response, though of course it doesn't meet the terms of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 that states:
CPI Act 1996 said:
Part I Disclosure
3. - (1) The prosecutor must-
(a) disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused
3. - (1) The prosecutor must-
(a) disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused
Am I quoting the act in context? Are there requirements on me that I must fulfill before I can expect the above to be performed?
Anyway, I guess it's now out of the hands of the CJU and with the CPS. I wonder how long I might have to wait for a response from them?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff