Power Supply Units to GATSO cameras - update
Discussion
grumpy geezer said:
He didn't I reckon.
If he was an expert he could have demonstrated how metering devices can operate accurately from a wide range and quality of power supplies without any problem whatsoever and the meter be made to stop operating if the supply is outside of that acceptable. Sounds like a description of a Gatsometer in fact.
What was this chap doing I wonder. If he was paid he should refund the cash.
Did Ian Duncan refund the cash when his expert testimony turned out to be a crock of 5h1t?If he was an expert he could have demonstrated how metering devices can operate accurately from a wide range and quality of power supplies without any problem whatsoever and the meter be made to stop operating if the supply is outside of that acceptable. Sounds like a description of a Gatsometer in fact.
What was this chap doing I wonder. If he was paid he should refund the cash.
Ian Duncan said:
I understand that this duty overrides any obligation to the person or organisation from whom instructions are received or by whom I am paid.
Besides, didn't the CPS decide not to proceed, when the expert testimony regarding a Gatso powered from a generator was called into question?Why WAS that? Did they think the expert was not as reliable as HE thought he was?
http://pepipoo.com/files/Hatton/RSS_Callaghan_Stat...
Mill Wheel said:
Besides, didn't the CPS decide not to proceed, when the expert testimony regarding a Gatso powered from a generator was called into question?
Why WAS that? Did they think the expert was not as reliable as HE thought he was?
http://pepipoo.com/files/Hatton/RSS_Callaghan_Stat...
Oh dear, there's some real spivs pretending to be expert witnesses, aren't there?Why WAS that? Did they think the expert was not as reliable as HE thought he was?
http://pepipoo.com/files/Hatton/RSS_Callaghan_Stat...
What a racket.
14-7 said:
I'd like to see the rest of Ian Duncans statement if he is that much of an expert.
Ian Duncan's report concerned a traffic order, which HE got wrong - yet despite being made aware of, he continued towards court without adjusting his statement... until the CPS finally realised the problem of having your head stuck in the sand...
Callaghan's statement over the power supply to a Gatso was never tested in court in court either, as the CPS dropped that case too!
I wander if he returned the fee Devon & Cornwall pay to RSS for the "expert" testimony?
Not much to add other than to reiterate answers that have already been given: Our expert was from the National Physical Laboratory who set the standards for, amongst other things, the calibration of metering equipment. His evidence on power supply units (PSUs) comes from government funded research that contributes to the national standards.
So, on the one hand, you have a set of standards to which industries like aviation must comply (at risk of prosecution), and on the other hand you have a private limited company (ACPO - AVERAGE internal salary £33K) advising the Home Office of the accuracy of equipment in which they have a vested commercial interest...
CPS seem to have since dropped a case on the basis of the power supply itself and we have been made aware of legal teams awaiting the opportunity to take the issue of power supply units to a higher court.
So, on the one hand, you have a set of standards to which industries like aviation must comply (at risk of prosecution), and on the other hand you have a private limited company (ACPO - AVERAGE internal salary £33K) advising the Home Office of the accuracy of equipment in which they have a vested commercial interest...
CPS seem to have since dropped a case on the basis of the power supply itself and we have been made aware of legal teams awaiting the opportunity to take the issue of power supply units to a higher court.
Edited by ramtec on Tuesday 14th June 10:31
Flute said:
Before you start disclosing the contents of a statement to third parties you should really obtain permission from the person who wrote it. Don't think that the people involved in the court process don't read these forums, they do.
I missed this post, hence my late response.However, I can see why the person who wrote it would be embarrassed by it, and would not wish to have his incompetence exposed - he appears to make a living out of this sort of thing!
If YOU were prosecuting a case, and the defendant revealed an error in evidence you were about to use in court, wouldn't you expect the provider of that evidence to at least check the facts, or continue blindly to court?
Then, should the defendant be expected to keep quiet about this oversight, or would he be right to protest at the intransigence of the witness for the prosecution?
Justice should be SEEN to be done, not carried out behind closed doors, in secret, and mistakes (I hope it was a genuine mistake, and not an attempt to deceive) deserve to see the light of day!
I hope the officials of the court DO read here, and take note when a genuine cause for concern is raised, and acknowledge the real concern of members of the public.
ramtec said:
So, on the one hand, you have a set of standards to which industries like aviation must comply (at risk of prosecution), and on the other hand you have a private limited company (ACPO - AVERAGE internal salary £33K) advising the Home Office of the accuracy of equipment in which they have a vested commecial interest...
I confess I find it very difficult to view ACPO as anything other than a criminal conspiracy.Speeding test case abandoned by Crown after campaigner exposes potential loophole:
http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2459/Speeding_tes...
http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2459/Speeding_tes...
Edited by ramtec on Monday 27th June 20:39
ramtec said:
Speeding test case abandoned by Crown after campaigner exposes potential loophole:
http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2459/Speeding_tes...
Robbie rocks. http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2459/Speeding_tes...
Edited by ramtec on Monday 27th June 20:39
14-7 said:
Page not found.
Works for me. But here for you just in case...
FIRM said:
Speeding test case abandoned by Crown after campaigner exposes potential loophole
A test case brought by campaigner Robbie the Pict challenging the validity of police speed capture devices has been deserted by the Crown after they were unable to produce a copy of the document authorising the use of the device in question.
The case, which had been pursued by the Crown for eight years and was scheduled to be heard at Fort William tomorrow, was dramatically dropped “after careful consideration” on Saturday via email.
Now, Robbie the Pict is considering raising an action to cover his court costs after eight years of protracted litigation.
In his case, Robbie had emailed district Procurator Fiscal Alison Wyllie to obtain the police officer’s competency certificate which would have demonstrated that the WPC who operated the radar device was suitably trained to do so, together with an evidential copy of the statutory approval authorising that device to be used to secure prosecutions as required by the legislation.
“48 hours later, by email on a Saturday, the case is deserted,” Robbie told The Firm.
“All I'm doing in all cases is pulling up the civil servants for not properly raising legislative instruments and the Secretaries of State for not signing them off properly. They've been getting off with it for years and are now grumpy about being pulled up for not doing their job,” he said.
“I have several examples of subordinate instruments being signed by 'One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State' when it suits them. I presented 14 examples at Portree and the Court just glazed over. The Crown had to resort to claiming that such legal instruments, which primary legislation authorises a Cabinet Minister only to raise, are not actually legislation - only departmental decisions, which any underling can effect and enjoy the protection of war-time Emergency Powers and the Carltona case of 1942/3 which became the 'authority' for indulging such practice.
“However making particular administrative decisions in a particular case is not making the legislation which will apply to a multiplicity of cases - in the case of cameras, speed-guns, motorways and toll roads throughout the UK."
Robbie’s argument is based on the contention that the enabling subordinate legislation is fatally flawed. The position will now not be established in court following the Crown’s abandonment of proceedings.
Robbie has campaigned for a number of years against the use of speed devices that he argues have been adopted and used on an ad hoc basis, bypassing the prescribed statutorily required procedure.
If the position is successfully argued, many thousands of speeding conviction charges could be overturned and the associated inflated insurance penalties rendered liable to be claimed back by drivers in civil damages.
A test case brought by campaigner Robbie the Pict challenging the validity of police speed capture devices has been deserted by the Crown after they were unable to produce a copy of the document authorising the use of the device in question.
The case, which had been pursued by the Crown for eight years and was scheduled to be heard at Fort William tomorrow, was dramatically dropped “after careful consideration” on Saturday via email.
Now, Robbie the Pict is considering raising an action to cover his court costs after eight years of protracted litigation.
In his case, Robbie had emailed district Procurator Fiscal Alison Wyllie to obtain the police officer’s competency certificate which would have demonstrated that the WPC who operated the radar device was suitably trained to do so, together with an evidential copy of the statutory approval authorising that device to be used to secure prosecutions as required by the legislation.
“48 hours later, by email on a Saturday, the case is deserted,” Robbie told The Firm.
“All I'm doing in all cases is pulling up the civil servants for not properly raising legislative instruments and the Secretaries of State for not signing them off properly. They've been getting off with it for years and are now grumpy about being pulled up for not doing their job,” he said.
“I have several examples of subordinate instruments being signed by 'One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State' when it suits them. I presented 14 examples at Portree and the Court just glazed over. The Crown had to resort to claiming that such legal instruments, which primary legislation authorises a Cabinet Minister only to raise, are not actually legislation - only departmental decisions, which any underling can effect and enjoy the protection of war-time Emergency Powers and the Carltona case of 1942/3 which became the 'authority' for indulging such practice.
“However making particular administrative decisions in a particular case is not making the legislation which will apply to a multiplicity of cases - in the case of cameras, speed-guns, motorways and toll roads throughout the UK."
Robbie’s argument is based on the contention that the enabling subordinate legislation is fatally flawed. The position will now not be established in court following the Crown’s abandonment of proceedings.
Robbie has campaigned for a number of years against the use of speed devices that he argues have been adopted and used on an ad hoc basis, bypassing the prescribed statutorily required procedure.
If the position is successfully argued, many thousands of speeding conviction charges could be overturned and the associated inflated insurance penalties rendered liable to be claimed back by drivers in civil damages.
I am also glazing over about the Statutory Instrument point, at least as it is reported there. The question of whether a particular officer has been trained or authorised to perform a particular role is a matter of evidence, so I understand that point, but what is wrong with a Statutory Instrument signed by a Secretary of State? Does the bloke expect Brenda to sign stuff herself?
The "Carltona" doctrine is a doctrine of public law which recognises the acts of officials within a Government department as the acts of the relevant Minister, disapplying the maxim "delegatus non potest delegare" (the delegate may not delegate).
The "Carltona" doctrine is a doctrine of public law which recognises the acts of officials within a Government department as the acts of the relevant Minister, disapplying the maxim "delegatus non potest delegare" (the delegate may not delegate).
Edited by Breadvan73 on Tuesday 28th June 08:58
Breadvan73 said:
I am also glazing over about the Statutory Instrument point, at least as it is reported there.
Robbie is that most splendid thing, an anarchist lawyer, and as such he always attempts to maximise damage to the establishment and he never gives up.We could do with a good few more of his ilk.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff