RE: Laser meters are inaccurate: BBC
Discussion
justinp1 said:
My case was lost at Magistrates Court and Crown Court. My hope is to get enough money together to lodge an appeal and get an expert witness. However the cost implication is that I have already spent about £1500 on the case already, and I dont have £2500 more...
Based on Kevin's comment, it's actually necessary for this to be contested at a higher court anyway for it to have any meaningful effect. As you say though, not something most people can keep throwing money at.
I believe the next court would be the Court of Appeal (maybe High Court I'm not sure) so may have some weight.
Tony, can I ask: did you use the Inside Out programme as evidence? How was it used and how was it taken?
Any appeal I make will be using the programme, or maybe the evicence of Mike Clark personally.
Cheers.
Tony, can I ask: did you use the Inside Out programme as evidence? How was it used and how was it taken?
Any appeal I make will be using the programme, or maybe the evicence of Mike Clark personally.
Cheers.
I won my case through bluff and bluster. I wanted the video tape . they dropped the case rather than let me have a tape. This has happened to quite a few cases.
The other case we are fighting has gone 4 rounds in court, we still dont have the tape. We dont expect to get the full tape. They have made mistakes in thier case which should sink them... SHOULD!!
We gave them the tape just to wind them up .. we may serve them a copy properly as evidence 7 days before the final hearing.
Fighting a case in the courts is not easy. It is best to atend a couple of cases to understand the tricks they play and the proceedures
The other case we are fighting has gone 4 rounds in court, we still dont have the tape. We dont expect to get the full tape. They have made mistakes in thier case which should sink them... SHOULD!!
We gave them the tape just to wind them up .. we may serve them a copy properly as evidence 7 days before the final hearing.
Fighting a case in the courts is not easy. It is best to atend a couple of cases to understand the tricks they play and the proceedures
justinp1 said:
I believe the next court would be the Court of Appeal (maybe High Court I'm not sure) so may have some weight.
Court of Appeal if you are appealing the decision, High Court if it by way of 'Case Stated'.
justinp1 said:
Tony, can I ask: did you use the Inside Out programme as evidence? How was it used and how was it taken?
Any appeal I make will be using the programme, or maybe the evicence of Mike Clark personally.
Cheers.
I would suggest a video copy of the program may be sufficient, it is in the public domain. Check with a solicitor on procedure to introduce evidence in your defence.
>> Edited by kevinday on Friday 16th September 09:13
kevinday said:
I believe the next court would be the Court of Appeal (maybe High Court I'm not sure) so may have some weight.
Court of Appeal if you are appealing the decision, High Court if it by way of 'Case Stated'.
[quote]
Tony, can I ask: did you use the Inside Out programme as evidence? How was it used and how was it taken?
Any appeal I make will be using the programme, or maybe the evicence of Mike Clark personally.
Cheers.
I would suggest a video copy of the program may be sufficient, it is in the public domain. Check with a solicitor on procedure to introduce evidence in your defence.[/quote]
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for helping out, I appreciate it. I am still unsure about which court it would be tried in, what is meant by 'case stated'?
I think the basis of appeal will be the new evidence of the programme and hopefully Dr Clark as a witness. In both the Magistrates and Crown court the PC stated that the LTI20/20 had *never* given a reading he thought was false, and that if there was any error or slip error it was impossible for the device to return a reading and if slip error had occurred the device would have given an error message.
As I thought at the time, we now *know* this to be false. Would this be an appeal based on 'case stated'?
Through my many days (and nights) researching the subject, and money spent so far and time off work at Court, I have realised what a farse the system of obtaining laser evidence is. If I could expose this at the High Court is such a way that anyone on here or otherwise could use my case as a test case, I would feel at least all the work had been worthwhile!
John Brignell, mentioned aboe, has a post on his site about the program and the issues. Very interesting reading on many fronts.
No direct link available but if you go here
www.numberwatch.co.uk/2005%20September.htm
and scroll down the around 17th September (dates under items) you can read his thoughts.
If John is correct in that the information available to him and reported here is correct, then we might be concerned that no official approval testing for anything is worth the paper it is printed on.
To be honest it would not surprise me at all if you was indeed correct, based on the video I saw when the wife was entrapped. Trouble is we could not get a copy and EVERY time it went past the critical measurement point on the film (a lot to watch for in 1/3 of a second) the silly mare piped up some idiot comment about how she couldn't have been speeding. Totaly distracting. After about six runs through on a rather dodgy player I was too embarrassed to tell her to leave the room and ask for one more play!
This was a few years ago. We knew no better and paid up after a lot of info chasing, including talking to one or two people referred to in the articles. There was no way I could see anyone accepting that the scamera was wrong at that time and we had too many other things going on to drag out the aggro.
Now it might be different.
No direct link available but if you go here
www.numberwatch.co.uk/2005%20September.htm
and scroll down the around 17th September (dates under items) you can read his thoughts.
If John is correct in that the information available to him and reported here is correct, then we might be concerned that no official approval testing for anything is worth the paper it is printed on.
To be honest it would not surprise me at all if you was indeed correct, based on the video I saw when the wife was entrapped. Trouble is we could not get a copy and EVERY time it went past the critical measurement point on the film (a lot to watch for in 1/3 of a second) the silly mare piped up some idiot comment about how she couldn't have been speeding. Totaly distracting. After about six runs through on a rather dodgy player I was too embarrassed to tell her to leave the room and ask for one more play!
This was a few years ago. We knew no better and paid up after a lot of info chasing, including talking to one or two people referred to in the articles. There was no way I could see anyone accepting that the scamera was wrong at that time and we had too many other things going on to drag out the aggro.
Now it might be different.
So, just a thought, if it was proven that a particular speed camera was wrong, would EVERYONE get a refund.
By proof, that would be a camera set recording permanently inside a car, and filming the road ahead as well as 2 GPS based devices on the dash. Then, if a scamera van should check your speed, you'd technically have video evidence from both side, with GPS versus Laser Gun.
Would this be 'evidence' that all convictions involving a similar speed measurement device were faulty.
By proof, that would be a camera set recording permanently inside a car, and filming the road ahead as well as 2 GPS based devices on the dash. Then, if a scamera van should check your speed, you'd technically have video evidence from both side, with GPS versus Laser Gun.
Would this be 'evidence' that all convictions involving a similar speed measurement device were faulty.
Darth Viper said:Unlikely I'd have thought. But as I had a conviction a few years back where the photos actually had the slip error code (03) on the picture 3 frames before the one which "recorded" my speed I reckon I'd be up for a £60 rebate!
So, just a thought, if it was proven that a particular speed camera was wrong, would EVERYONE get a refund.
By proof, that would be a camera set recording permanently inside a car, and filming the road ahead as well as 2 GPS based devices on the dash. Then, if a scamera van should check your speed, you'd technically have video evidence from both side, with GPS versus Laser Gun.
Would this be 'evidence' that all convictions involving a similar speed measurement device were faulty.
james_j said:
Strange isn't it that there appears to have been no BIB comment on this now long thread? (Apologies if I'm mistaken.)
I just wonder why; it's just that comment from the BIB may be useful to shed some light from "their side of the fence" so to speak.
perhaps their superiors are watching closly or perhaps they might not want to look liek they are backtracking after previously stating that there can never be any error on these devises.
IIRC there was a case highlighted on here ages ago Anyone know what happened to that motorbike that went from somthing like 85ish to 120 then back to 85 in about a second and they were doing him for the higher reading. IIRC there was a clip to the video.
SS2. said:
I think you mean this link:
http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/Case_file_11.htm
An unfortunately 'fishy' CPS response which is very familiar.
Am I correct in assuming that the case was lost?
Something has come to mind after the re-opening of a case where a mother was accused and jailed for killing her two young children. The foremost 'expert witness' in his field told the court that the chance of both children dying was 100,000,000 to 1. Maybe, due to the fact that he had this opionion was the reason he was chosen as a prosecution witness, after all the chance of conviction would be high?
Anyway, in the last couple of months it has been revealed that the expert doctor knew nothing of what he was talking about and the chance was in thousands and not hundreds of millions. The case was immediately overturned and all of the similar cases where he was an expert witness have now all been reopened.
Another astonishing facet of the LTI20/20 farce is that the expert witness statement has been stopped from publication by Mr Garatt. No doubt appearing as an 'expert witness' is another lucrative arm to the smokescreen of information, and does not want prosecutors using information in the public domain that he can photocopy himself at the taxpayers expense for each case for £500.
GOing back to my original point. It would seem from what I have seen on both the Inside Out programmes, and the internet that Mr Garatt is not only the importer of the device, and has no technical knowledge, the reports he is producing are transcribed badly from the manufacturers information in order to subtley change the possibility of doubt in the quality of the evidence produced by the device.
A rediculous situation has occurred where at magistrates court I was not allowed to make technical assumptions on the working of the LTI20/20 despite my personal investigations and my A level qualifications in Physics easily qualify me to explain to the court how a beam of light diverges and how slip error will occur.
I successfully argued that the understanding of the device was paramount, NOT who makes the device. FOr example if evidence was taken with a ruler, we would not expect to hear the evidence of the manufaturer of the ruler in order to understand the concept of how a ruler should be used!?
The fact remains however, the clark agreed with the cout that I could not forward myself as an expert witness.
However if I were to start a company who would import the LTI20/20, this would not only make me an expert in the field, I could also charge to reprint the manufacturers blurb and pass it off as my own in courts around the land.
My question is this: If proper expert witness evidence now exists from real doctors in their field which now discounts Mr Garatts 'views', can he now be discredited as an expert witness from this point and have other cases reopened?
Hi Guys,
After seeing the Inside out programme I sent an email to the Essex Safety Scamera partnership asking them about the accuracy of the LTI 20.20. I have just received the reply and I think you may like to read it so here it is,
"Thank you for your email to the Essex Safety Camera Partnership.
The hand held cameras focused on within the BBC's Inside Out programme were the LTI laser speedmeter, this is designed for the American market, it is not a Home Office type approved device and therefore not used by the Essex Safety Camera Partnership. The American version of the LTI laser speedmeter uses a different version of software to that approved for use in the UK. Cameras which are used in the UK have different error trapping software contained within it and it has been subjected to Home Office type approval testing, recognised as the most stringent in the world, to ensure its accuracy. The Home Office Scientific Development Branch is of the opinion that the UK version will perform within permitted tolerances if used in accordance with the current published ACPO enforcement guidelines and will not replicate the errors shown by the American device.
I hope this helps with your enquiries. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions."
After seeing the Inside out programme I sent an email to the Essex Safety Scamera partnership asking them about the accuracy of the LTI 20.20. I have just received the reply and I think you may like to read it so here it is,
"Thank you for your email to the Essex Safety Camera Partnership.
The hand held cameras focused on within the BBC's Inside Out programme were the LTI laser speedmeter, this is designed for the American market, it is not a Home Office type approved device and therefore not used by the Essex Safety Camera Partnership. The American version of the LTI laser speedmeter uses a different version of software to that approved for use in the UK. Cameras which are used in the UK have different error trapping software contained within it and it has been subjected to Home Office type approval testing, recognised as the most stringent in the world, to ensure its accuracy. The Home Office Scientific Development Branch is of the opinion that the UK version will perform within permitted tolerances if used in accordance with the current published ACPO enforcement guidelines and will not replicate the errors shown by the American device.
I hope this helps with your enquiries. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions."
k off?nightdriver said:
Hi Guys,
After seeing the Inside out programme I sent an email to the Essex Safety Scamera partnership asking them about the accuracy of the LTI 20.20. I have just received the reply and I think you may like to read it so here it is,
"Thank you for your email to the Essex Safety Camera Partnership.
The hand held cameras focused on within the BBC's Inside Out programme were the LTI laser speedmeter, this is designed for the American market, it is not a Home Office type approved device and therefore not used by the Essex Safety Camera Partnership. The American version of the LTI laser speedmeter uses a different version of software to that approved for use in the UK. Cameras which are used in the UK have different error trapping software contained within it and it has been subjected to Home Office type approval testing, recognised as the most stringent in the world, to ensure its accuracy. The Home Office Scientific Development Branch is of the opinion that the UK version will perform within permitted tolerances if used in accordance with the current published ACPO enforcement guidelines and will not replicate the errors shown by the American device.
I hope this helps with your enquiries. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions."
You could ask them for the version numbers of the software if they are so sure
Hmm,
I suppose they would say that.
However an interesting thing is that the Home Office Scientific Branch is confident that they will be accurate as long as the ACPO guidelines are followed.
Does this mean by default that if the ACPO guidelines are not followed that it is no longer type approved. In both of my cases an magistrates and crown court, it is accepted by the court that the ACPO guidelines were 'guidelines' and do not legally have to be followed for the conviction to stand.
The ACPO guideline do make reference to slip error, but no training is offered in how to avoid it. The camera partnerships and Mr Brunstrom seem to be clear that the Guidelines are an integral part of the evidence gathering process. Perhaps they should tell the CPS prosecutors this. The prosecutors try to make out that every defence is aimed to 'blind the court with science', however worse than this in an effort to 'win' the case they deliberately misrepresent the use and gravity of the ACPO guidelines to the magistrates and judges.
I suppose they would say that.
However an interesting thing is that the Home Office Scientific Branch is confident that they will be accurate as long as the ACPO guidelines are followed.
Does this mean by default that if the ACPO guidelines are not followed that it is no longer type approved. In both of my cases an magistrates and crown court, it is accepted by the court that the ACPO guidelines were 'guidelines' and do not legally have to be followed for the conviction to stand.
The ACPO guideline do make reference to slip error, but no training is offered in how to avoid it. The camera partnerships and Mr Brunstrom seem to be clear that the Guidelines are an integral part of the evidence gathering process. Perhaps they should tell the CPS prosecutors this. The prosecutors try to make out that every defence is aimed to 'blind the court with science', however worse than this in an effort to 'win' the case they deliberately misrepresent the use and gravity of the ACPO guidelines to the magistrates and judges.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff