LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me

[gopher]

Peter Ward said:

I spent several hours last night reading Pepipoo. If I write the "PACE" response letter rather than filling in the NIP, it looks like I'll be badgered into filling it in, then the next thing that happens is that they invite me to court. At that point I would be saying several things: 1. The distance is greater than the ACPO guidelines 2. I don't believe I was doing more than the speed limit so the reading is wrong 3. There were cars, signs and other things close to the line of sight that could affect the reading. Realistically, reading over Pepipoo stories, none of these things is likely to be considered relevant by a magistrate. Even really clear cases where guidelines have been flouted are still found guilty by the magistrates, so it would end up being my word against the video. Of course the CPS might get their case wrong, but that's not justice that's luck. So despite my certainty I can't see much point or hope in fighting this. I'll call the Partnership tomorrow to see if they can provide a picture with both registration number and speed on it, but I presume the answer will be "no, we don't need to, it's all on the video". At that point I'll decide what to do. Thanks for all your pointers and comments to date, and for the PMs. I appreciate your assistance.

If you go the PACE route then they will be attempting to do you on failure to supply (ie details of driver) and would expect the original speeding charge to be out of time by the time it goes to court. In this case you would be argueing that you did supply present evidence that you supplied etc) and hopefully you are found not guilty or CPS drop the case (as seems to be happening in most cases).

However if you want to defend yourself on the fact that you were not actually speeding and that the camera\operator was at fault then you need to supply your details as the driver and then do not take them up on their offer of £60 and 3 points but plead not guilty in which ase you can go to court and argue your case, and follow Justinp1's advice.

I know it's up to you but if you are sure that you were not speeding then I think you really should fight it, otherwise the scammers are going to continue shafting every safe driver in this country until we become a nation of criminals that require a Police State to control them.

[esselte]

I've entered this a bit late but how can you tell that the cars in the photographs are one and the same?The first one is too far away for the reg.no. to be seen.

[Peter Ward]

I spoke to the Enforcement Office this morning. They cannot provide a picture showing both the speed and the registration number, but assure me that the video proves that the car in both pictures is the same. They offered me the chance to see the video for myself in Norwich, but I declined for the present.

However, they did say that if I wrote in to say that I have driven the same road again and do not believe the recorded speed is accurate then they will take another look at it. They have also given me an extra 10 days to return the NIP.

I have therefore written the letter to say that I don't believe I was doing 77mph based on my second journey along the same road, and asking them to take another look. I have also said that if the case goes ahead I will be pleading not guilty.

I guess that's all I can do for now. I hope sense will prevail but if not then I will be following up the idea of getting an independent witness onboard for a trip round that corner, and will naturally be investigating the video itself.

I have to say that the Enforcement Office people are friendly, helpful and polite.

[superlightr]

Peter Ward said:

I have to say that the Enforcement Office people are friendly, helpful and polite.

so are con artists.....

[BliarOut]

Peter Ward said:

I spoke to the Enforcement Office this morning. They cannot provide a picture showing both the speed and the registration number, but assure me that the video proves that the car in both pictures is the same. They offered me the chance to see the video for myself in Norwich, but I declined for the present. However, they did say that if I wrote in to say that I have driven the same road again and do not believe the recorded speed is accurate then they will take another look at it. They have also given me an extra 10 days to return the NIP. I have therefore written the letter to say that I don't believe I was doing 77mph based on my second journey along the same road, and asking them to take another look. I have also said that if the case goes ahead I will be pleading not guilty. I guess that's all I can do for now. I hope sense will prevail but if not then I will be following up the idea of getting an independent witness onboard for a trip round that corner, and will naturally be investigating the video itself. I have to say that the Enforcement Office people are friendly, helpful and polite.

So they have confirmed that they have video

Now that could play into your hands. Apparently they are very reluctant to allow video out for expert examination. If you plead not guilty insist on a copy so that you can have it examined. If they refuse to let you have a copy seven days before the case goes to court it is inadmissable as evidence. Just a thought.

[blueyes]

Peter Ward said:

I spoke to the Enforcement Office this morning. They cannot provide a picture showing both the speed and the registration number, but assure me that the video proves that the car in both pictures is the same. They offered me the chance to see the video for myself in Norwich, but I declined for the present. However, they did say that if I wrote in to say that I have driven the same road again and do not believe the recorded speed is accurate then they will take another look at it. They have also given me an extra 10 days to return the NIP. I have therefore written the letter to say that I don't believe I was doing 77mph based on my second journey along the same road, and asking them to take another look. I have also said that if the case goes ahead I will be pleading not guilty. I guess that's all I can do for now. I hope sense will prevail but if not then I will be following up the idea of getting an independent witness onboard for a trip round that corner, and will naturally be investigating the video itself. I have to say that the Enforcement Office people are friendly, helpful and polite.

So they're SURE they can't give you a photo with both speed and plate on it BUT they can't be sure about your speed so if you complain they're going to have another look to check if they've made a mistake.

I smell bullshit!!!


Check with pepipoo.com , but I'm sure it's game over for them.

[Peter Ward]

Today i received the letter from the Enforcement Office that I was promised when I spoke to them on Monday. This was sent by a different person to the one I have been dealing with. I was very interested in both the content and attitude:

Enforcement Office letter said:

I acknowledge receipt of your recent communication.... I apologise for the delay in replying, but this is due to the current workload in the office.
I would advise you that the photographs enclosed with our letter... are the ones which are presented as evidence to the courts and therefore meet their criteria....
Therefore please ensure you act within 10 days of the date of this letter....if you fail to comply... I reserve the right to consider proceedings under Section 172....

So...
1. High workload in the office. Must be a lot of naughty people out on the roads of Norfolk
2. The photographs will be presented as evidence, and not the video. But even though the photo with the speed on it does not have a registration visible, and vice versa, they "meet the criteria" of the courts. Really?

I still hope that my initial contact at the Enforcement Office will take another look at the case and decide that I'm telling the truth when I say that I could not have been doing 77mph. However, if not, and if the photos are presented as evidence rather than the video then I can't see how I could contest the case in court. I do realise that I have the right to ask for the video, but it sounds to me like they would rather just convict on stills if they can. Not nice.

[justinp1]

Peter Ward said:

Today i received the letter from the Enforcement Office that I was promised when I spoke to them on Monday. This was sent by a different person to the one I have been dealing with. I was very interested in both the content and attitude:

Enforcement Office letter said:

I acknowledge receipt of your recent communication.... I apologise for the delay in replying, but this is due to the current workload in the office.
I would advise you that the photographs enclosed with our letter... are the ones which are presented as evidence to the courts and therefore meet their criteria....
Therefore please ensure you act within 10 days of the date of this letter....if you fail to comply... I reserve the right to consider proceedings under Section 172....

So...
1. High workload in the office. Must be a lot of naughty people out on the roads of Norfolk
2. The photographs will be presented as evidence, and not the video. But even though the photo with the speed on it does not have a registration visible, and vice versa, they "meet the criteria" of the courts. Really?

I still hope that my initial contact at the Enforcement Office will take another look at the case and decide that I'm telling the truth when I say that I could not have been doing 77mph. However, if not, and if the photos are presented as evidence rather than the video then I can't see how I could contest the case in court. I do realise that I have the right to ask for the video, but it sounds to me like they would rather just convict on stills if they can. Not nice.

It was the attitude I guessed. It took me 5 letters to the CPS to *not* get the things I had asked for. If they are that busy, they would probably not really want to have to run you off a copy of the video for expert analysis!? Worth a try as they may decide to drop it.

The other factor may be is that although that the partnership may think that the photos are ok on their own, there may be the case that if you have a good solicitor that the evidence may not be able to stand on the fact that the photo that was used to gain the speed reading could not see a registration number or driver. One for a solicitor if you go down that route I think.

[TSS]

Surely they cannot convict on a photo that does not show the plate and one that does but has no speed reading. How can they prove both photos are the same car? The video may prove it’s the same car, but what if during the 24 seconds between the 2 photos and while the vehicles going the other way obscured the camera’s view, the car in the first photo which is very similar to yours turned off and you turned on to the road???

I would insist on seeing the video and if they haven’t got an uninterrupted view of your car for the full length of it, how can they prove it was you?

[Flat in Fifth]

TSS said:

Surely they cannot convict on a photo that does not show the plate and one that does but has no speed reading. How can they prove both photos are the same car? The video may prove it’s the same car, but what if during the 24 seconds between the 2 photos and while the vehicles going the other way obscured the camera’s view, the car in the first photo which is very similar to yours turned off and you turned on to the road???

I would insist on seeing the video and if they haven’t got an uninterrupted view of your car for the full length of it, how can they prove it was you?

The problem Peter has got is that the court will accept the two photos and the written statement of the operator that these two photos relate to the same vehicle. They wil also accept the statement by Word template re device calibration, the reading was secondary check of prior opinion and so on and so on. Even if all that may be true or a complete load of horlicks, unless the evidence is challenged in court by requiring them to appear and screwing up their case, aka Freeman defence, then the decision will only go one way, sad to say.

To my mind at this stage unless Peter's initial contact comes up trumps, it seems that the way forward is for PW to declare himself the driver, thus removing the potential for a S172 offence. That gives more time to prepare a defence or roll over.

Peter, on your recent revisit to the site were you able to form any opinion on where the van was sitting, and does this conform to code of practice?

Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 7th June 15:58

[justinp1]

Flat in Fifth said:

TSS said:

Surely they cannot convict on a photo that does not show the plate and one that does but has no speed reading. How can they prove both photos are the same car? The video may prove it’s the same car, but what if during the 24 seconds between the 2 photos and while the vehicles going the other way obscured the camera’s view, the car in the first photo which is very similar to yours turned off and you turned on to the road???

I would insist on seeing the video and if they haven’t got an uninterrupted view of your car for the full length of it, how can they prove it was you?

The problem Peter has got is that the court will accept the two photos and the written statement of the operator that these two photos relate to the same vehicle. They wil also accept the statement by Word template re device calibration, the reading was secondary check of prior opinion and so on and so on. Even if all that may be true or a complete load of horlicks, unless the evidence is challenged in court by requiring them to appear and screwing up their case, aka Freeman defence, then the decision will only go one way, sad to say.

To my mind at this stage unless Peter's initial contact comes up trumps, it seems that the way forward is for PW to declare himself the driver, thus removing the potential for a S172 offence. That gives more time to prepare a defence or roll over.

Peter, on your recent revisit to the site were you able to form any opinion on where the van was sitting, and does this conform to code of practice?

Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 7th June 15:58

Agreed. From experience, fighting a case the honest way with facts and arguments about facts of the case is pointless as the either the facts will be fudged to show that they *were* using the device properly even though they cannot prove it and anything else they will put down to 'only guidelines'.

It pains me to say but the best way to 'win' a case it to attack a particular section or flaw. Finding the flaw is the key. You dont have to be Freeman to find it sometimes if the operator witness is *honest* then enough doubt will be shown. In a case where I helped a guy from PH in a similar situation his story from the start was that the reading gained by the LTI 2020 was from a car which was overtaking him as the time. He asked the operator the simple question whether this was possible. He agreed. Case closed!

[Flat in Fifth]

justinp1 said:

It pains me to say but the best way to 'win' a case it to attack a particular section or flaw. Finding the flaw is the key.

Likewise agreed.

Case earlier this year, not going into too many details.

Basically the defence was on the basis that the vehicle couldn't go that fast, expert witness testimony from actual trials.
Also that the check, in this case Vascar, was done completely outwith the codes of practice, every blinking rule in the book broken.

CPS hired a barrister to present their case.

CPS silk reads pre-case submission notes for prosecuton and defence, then stands up on hind legs and announces to court that he is offering no evidence because he cannot prove the case. All costs awarded, including very substantial expenses of the :ahem: technical expert witness defence team. :ahem:

Then, to astonishment of all, the mags rip into both CPS and local plod demanding written reports why it has taken so many hearings to get to this point, you wouldn't believe the actual number of hearings, and again written report from plod as to how many people have been done, not only by this utterly and terminally lazy copper on this particular day, but by use of this Vascar site using the questionable data prefed into the Vascar.

Worth a drink ot two that one!

Moral is you can win, but sadly in most cases it needs a defendant who is both determined and not short of a bob or two to summon up resources.

[justinp1]

Flat in Fifth said:

justinp1 said:

It pains me to say but the best way to 'win' a case it to attack a particular section or flaw. Finding the flaw is the key.

Likewise agreed.

Case earlier this year, not going into too many details.

Basically the defence was on the basis that the vehicle couldn't go that fast, expert witness testimony from actual trials.
Also that the check, in this case Vascar, was done completely outwith the codes of practice, every blinking rule in the book broken.

CPS hired a barrister to present their case.

CPS silk reads pre-case submission notes for prosecuton and defence, then stands up on hind legs and announces to court that he is offering no evidence because he cannot prove the case. All costs awarded, including very substantial expenses of the :ahem: technical expert witness defence team. :ahem:

Then, to astonishment of all, the mags rip into both CPS and local plod demanding written reports why it has taken so many hearings to get to this point, you wouldn't believe the actual number of hearings, and again written report from plod as to how many people have been done, not only by this utterly and terminally lazy copper on this particular day, but by use of this Vascar site using the questionable data prefed into the Vascar.

Worth a drink ot two that one!

Moral is you can win, but sadly in most cases it needs a defendant who is both determined and not short of a bob or two to summon up resources.

A trevesty indeed. The sad story is for the numerous others who couldnt afford the cost or hassle of defending themselves from allogations from the same 'team'. I was in a similar situation where I cross-examined three 'expert witness' police officers who gave statements that a had run a red light between 3 and 6 seconds after it had turned red. I took about 4 days in total and many sleepless night thinking about it and luckily enough exposing the statements through cross examination of the officers in the dock for the tripe they were.

Another stroke of luck was that the case was sat by not three magistrates but a visiting crown court judge and in his summing up he threw out two of the officers testimonies immediately, and said the other was doubtful at best. I won the case, but what I still do not understand to this day is that the judge added that he would recommend that no action would be taken against the officers. Seeing what you have recounted above would have been the icing on the cake.

[Peter Ward]

Well perhaps I don't have too long to wait until I find out whether I have to do all this. I'm still hopeful that they will drop the case based on my letter to them on Monday, but if not then it looks like a long and slow process to get to a judgement. I can clearly see why for most people it's easier to accept the £60/3pts.

[WildCat]

Peter Ward said:

Today i received the letter from the Enforcement Office that I was promised when I spoke to them on Monday. This was sent by a different person to the one I have been dealing with. I was very interested in both the content and attitude:
[quote=Enforcement Office letter]
I acknowledge receipt of your recent communication.... I apologise for the delay in replying, but this is due to the current workload in the office.
I would advise you that the photographs enclosed with our letter... are the ones which are presented as evidence to the courts and therefore meet their criteria....
Therefore please ensure you act within 10 days of the date of this letter....if you fail to comply... I reserve the right to consider proceedings under Section 172....
[/quote

So...
1. High workload in the office. Must be a lot of naughty people out on the roads of Norfolk
2. The photographs will be presented as evidence, and not the video. But even though the photo with the speed on it does not have a registration visible, and vice versa, they "meet the criteria" of the courts. Really?

I still hope that my initial contact at the Enforcement Office will take another look at the case and decide that I'm telling the truth when I say that I could not have been doing 77mph. However, if not, and if the photos are presented as evidence rather than the video then I can't see how I could contest the case in court. I do realise that I have the right to ask for the video, but it sounds to me like they would rather just convict on stills if they can. Not nice.

How many cars this make und colour? Und why ist registration not clear on this evidence?

Ist time to see the video perhaps ...they want cheap option und you have right to have the full evidence for checking its veracity.

[Parrot of Doom]

Peter Ward said:

Well perhaps I don't have too long to wait until I find out whether I have to do all this. I'm still hopeful that they will drop the case based on my letter to them on Monday, but if not then it looks like a long and slow process to get to a judgement. I can clearly see why for most people it's easier to accept the £60/3pts.

Keep going mate, if there were only a tiny percentage more people like you the system would collapse

[mondeoman]

Don't you DARE give up Peter!

Admit that it is you in the pic, no problem, just to avoid the S172 charge, then plead NOT GUILTY and argue like hell about the other relevant facts.

You do NOT have to see the video at their offices, they DO have to supply the WHOLE video to you - its the relevant "Document" bit that screws them, they cannot just supply a portion of the document, they have to supply all of it for you to review and analyse.

Good Luck mate, they can be beaten if you really want to, don't let them get away with robbery.

[jjustin]

I've only just seen this thread.
I know that section of road extremely well and those crafty buggers would have been well hidden out of the way.

It's a very good road surface there and the road is very safe, wide and flowing.
Those crafty buggers would have been so well hidden, and I'd imagine they also got alot of vehicles travelling the other direction as well due to the van being completely shielded by bushes and well away from the road from that way. You'd go past it without even seeing it.

You wouldnt have seen the van when you were on that corner due to the signs for the picnic area obscuring it (and the van is heck of a long way away from you).

I know this doesn't help you, but for anyone else, be extremely careful if you're leaving Brandon and heading towards Mundford/Swaffham as there's simply no way you'd see a van in the position that this one was in.

Thieving bastards.

Edited by jjustin on Thursday 8th June 23:10

[davidra]

hi Peter

Assuming the camera frame rate is constant (it should be) it may be possible to calculate vehicle speed throughout the video sequence. If the supplied video is high-res, this could be quite accurate. I might need some physical measurements from the scene to calibrate the final figures but would be happy to do the calculations gratis if you are going to court to fight the fine. It would be quite time-consuming so only keen to do it if you're going to fight it all the way.

I would also be prepared to provide an explanation of the video tracking technique and relevant literature sources for anyone who wished to confirm the evidence. I think I might constitute an "expert" since I've almost finished a Phd in robotic visual navigation which basically uses the same processes (but for different purposes).

The offer extends to anyone caught by laser gun who has access to the video and has good reason to believe the evidence is suspect. No point with Gatso.

cheers
dave
PS Contact by email if interested.

[BliarOut]

davidra said:

hi Peter

Assuming the camera frame rate is constant (it should be) it may be possible to calculate vehicle speed throughout the video sequence. If the supplied video is high-res, this could be quite accurate. I might need some physical measurements from the scene to calibrate the final figures but would be happy to do the calculations gratis if you are going to court to fight the fine. It would be quite time-consuming so only keen to do it if you're going to fight it all the way.

I would also be prepared to provide an explanation of the video tracking technique and relevant literature sources for anyone who wished to confirm the evidence. I think I might constitute an "expert" since I've almost finished a Phd in robotic visual navigation which basically uses the same processes (but for different purposes).

The offer extends to anyone caught by laser gun who has access to the video and has good reason to believe the evidence is suspect. No point with Gatso.

cheers
dave
PS Contact by email if interested.

You sir could prove to be a very nasty thorn in the side of the sameraships and their tame "professional witness".