LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me
Discussion
Ladies and Gents,
I'm really sorry that I haven't responded to you recently. Both home life and work are manic at present (quarter end, daughter announcing engagement, etc, etc, etc). I do appreciate your support and especially your offers of help.
I spoke to my Partnership contact lady on Monday. I asked if they had yet "taken another look" at my case. Apparently not. I said I was concerned because their letter of last week only gave me a 10-day extension. However, she said that my response date was now suspended pending their review of the case and that they would write to me later to tell me the outcome. My guess is that this could be some time given the high workload in the department.
So it drags on, but I hope that the delay is good. I don't expect it to extend to 6 months -- that would be too good to be true -- but perhaps the longer it goes on, the more likely they are to drop it? They already know that I will be pleading NG if they do take it forward.
I'm really sorry that I haven't responded to you recently. Both home life and work are manic at present (quarter end, daughter announcing engagement, etc, etc, etc). I do appreciate your support and especially your offers of help.
I spoke to my Partnership contact lady on Monday. I asked if they had yet "taken another look" at my case. Apparently not. I said I was concerned because their letter of last week only gave me a 10-day extension. However, she said that my response date was now suspended pending their review of the case and that they would write to me later to tell me the outcome. My guess is that this could be some time given the high workload in the department.
So it drags on, but I hope that the delay is good. I don't expect it to extend to 6 months -- that would be too good to be true -- but perhaps the longer it goes on, the more likely they are to drop it? They already know that I will be pleading NG if they do take it forward.
Hmmm, sooner than expected I have today received another letter from the Partnership. It looks quite standard to me, but I think it means I now need to respond to the NIP and prepare for battle....
I think therefore that I must now return the NIP, await the prosecution letter, and then respond NG. Is that right?
letter said:
Where the driver contests the evidence or has any concern that the offence cannot be proved then the matter should be presented to a court and the evidence examined and questioned.
In this case, we are satisfied that the evidence is available to prove the offence.
Therefore, if your concerns about the evidence remain you should now elect, in writing, for the matter to be heard before the Magistrates Court.
In this case, we are satisfied that the evidence is available to prove the offence.
Therefore, if your concerns about the evidence remain you should now elect, in writing, for the matter to be heard before the Magistrates Court.
I think therefore that I must now return the NIP, await the prosecution letter, and then respond NG. Is that right?
Peter Ward said:
Hmmm, sooner than expected I have today received another letter from the Partnership. It looks quite standard to me, but I think it means I now need to respond to the NIP and prepare for battle....
I think therefore that I must now return the NIP, await the prosecution letter, and then respond NG. Is that right?
letter said:
Where the driver contests the evidence or has any concern that the offence cannot be proved then the matter should be presented to a court and the evidence examined and questioned.
In this case, we are satisfied that the evidence is available to prove the offence.
Therefore, if your concerns about the evidence remain you should now elect, in writing, for the matter to be heard before the Magistrates Court.
In this case, we are satisfied that the evidence is available to prove the offence.
Therefore, if your concerns about the evidence remain you should now elect, in writing, for the matter to be heard before the Magistrates Court.
I think therefore that I must now return the NIP, await the prosecution letter, and then respond NG. Is that right?
Hello Peter,
I was holding this back until this stage, but this is my advice to you based on the fact it has worked for me twice.
Firstly don't go demanding anything, just return the NIP, make them do all the work.
Bear in mind the individuals that run these camera partnerships are seldom qualified in law, in fact I have never come across one who is, and they have NO powers of prosecution, all they can do is extort money from you if you are foolish enough to give it to them.
It is only the CPS that can prosecute, and if they decide to send you a summons you can then respond to it with you intention to defend.
Many, many times they will take it no further because of the costs involved, particularly if they have doubt about the evidence.
DO NOT volunteer details about your defence to them, it weakens your position.
If they do decide to go ahead, you can then ask for the video to which you are legally entitled. I suggest you have two things in your favour.
The first is that they are most likely to turn up with only two photographs, the first of which you already know is so poor the registration plate cannot be read. The chances of them having the video in court are very slim.
You simply object to the first photograph and deny it is your vehicle.
Now let me make something clear now because I can just see all the BiB reaching for their keyboards. This kind of evidence is accepted in courts every day; that does NOT make it legally acceptable; it is done because it is seldom challenged.
But a photograph without a clear registration plate is absolutely not acceptable proof, and you should be able to get an instant dismissal on that alone. If you obtain the video before the trial you can then examine it for discrepancies and if there are any obvious problems post them back on and we can advise then; there are three glaringly obvious points just from the photos alone.
The high angle to your vehicle caused by them being on the wrong side of the road, the fact that they are sighting across passing traffic and a large sign, and the ridiculous range they are operating at.
Secondly I think if you have a local friendly motor engineer or qualified advanced driver, and if he was an ex BiB it would be perfect, who would be willing to drive your vehicle on this stretch of road and sustantiate that it would not corner comfortably at the alleged speed, you have corroboration of your assertion that you were not speeding.
This to me is important Peter, and is the reason I believe you; SUVs are not the best handling vehicles.
Always bear in mind Peter that you do not have to prove what speed you were doing; THEY have to prove it, you only have to show that what they claim has a reasonable element of doubt.
Let me know how it goes.
smeggy said:
A great post Jith.
I'm probably demonstrating my ignorance but:
I thought the lower courts can make judgements based on the balance of probabilities?
I'm probably demonstrating my ignorance but:
jith said:
You simply object to the first photograph and deny it is your vehicle......
I thought the lower courts can make judgements based on the balance of probabilities?
You're not being ignorant at all smeggy, that's a good point.
But once again it shows the distinction between what the lower courts view as acceptable evidence and what the appeal court would not.
Bear in mind the reason for the two photographs is corroboration so they must BOTH be of an acceptable standard. I mean the first photograph in Peter's case is simply ridiculous; you can hardly make out what type of car it is let alone the registration number.
jith said:
I mean the first photograph in Peter's case is simply ridiculous; you can hardly make out what type of car it is let alone the registration number.
Agree with that, the only way that this photo should stand up is if the photo is presented to together with the complete unedited video showing continuity of scan.
Don't forget it will also be accepted if accompanied, as mentioned earlier, by the 'written statement by Word template' (as I like to call it) from the operator that these photos are of the same vehicle from a continuous video, or words to the effect. Plus if the operator is not required to attend court by the defence, that written statement, complete with all warts, errors and omissions if any, will simply be read out unchallenged and accepted as if the operator had stood up in the witness box, and given the evidence verbally on oath.
jith said:
But once again it shows the distinction between what the lower courts view as acceptable evidence and what the appeal court would not.
Ah ok, I wasn't sure
So I guess the taking of the ‘continuity between photos’ route (minus what FIF said – which I tend to agree with) will need the pre-acceptance that the case will fail and would have to go to appeal?
Edited by smeggy on Thursday 15th June 15:05
Flat in Fifth said:
jith said:
I mean the first photograph in Peter's case is simply ridiculous; you can hardly make out what type of car it is let alone the registration number.
Agree with that, the only way that this photo should stand up is if the photo is presented to together with the complete unedited video showing continuity of scan.
Don't forget it will also be accepted if accompanied, as mentioned earlier, by the 'written statement by Word template' (as I like to call it) from the operator that these photos are of the same vehicle from a continuous video, or words to the effect. Plus if the operator is not required to attend court by the defence, that written statement, complete with all warts, errors and omissions if any, will simply be read out unchallenged and accepted as if the operator had stood up in the witness box, and given the evidence verbally on oath.
I agree. I think that this will be the sticking point in the defence. If you go down that route then you live in hope that the CPS mess up or the witness does not appear or they drop the case etc. If the witness comes to court to swear on oath that it was the same car, then you could do dome clever things to outline how impossible it will be to make a distinct memory of every car, however this will be pot luck as to whether the magistrates are sensible or whether they are just going to convict you.
My example of this is that as my case the operator admitted that the laser was pointed in front of my car and then waited for me to drive through the beam. The appeal focussed around the police officer memory of the events a year previously. He then of course definately remembered aiming at the number plate of my car and testing the device before and after even though he didnt think to record this action at the time.
Great memory eh? Great except my barrister closed the cross-examination with the question: 'What colour was the defendants car?'
He couldnt remember this. This would not be so bad except it was a bright yellow TVR Tuscan!
Still lost the case though!
justinp1 said:
Flat in Fifth said:
jith said:
I mean the first photograph in Peter's case is simply ridiculous; you can hardly make out what type of car it is let alone the registration number.
Agree with that, the only way that this photo should stand up is if the photo is presented to together with the complete unedited video showing continuity of scan.
Don't forget it will also be accepted if accompanied, as mentioned earlier, by the 'written statement by Word template' (as I like to call it) from the operator that these photos are of the same vehicle from a continuous video, or words to the effect. Plus if the operator is not required to attend court by the defence, that written statement, complete with all warts, errors and omissions if any, will simply be read out unchallenged and accepted as if the operator had stood up in the witness box, and given the evidence verbally on oath.
I agree. I think that this will be the sticking point in the defence. If you go down that route then you live in hope that the CPS mess up or the witness does not appear or they drop the case etc. If the witness comes to court to swear on oath that it was the same car, then you could do dome clever things to outline how impossible it will be to make a distinct memory of every car, however this will be pot luck as to whether the magistrates are sensible or whether they are just going to convict you.
My example of this is that as my case the operator admitted that the laser was pointed in front of my car and then waited for me to drive through the beam. The appeal focussed around the police officer memory of the events a year previously. He then of course definately remembered aiming at the number plate of my car and testing the device before and after even though he didnt think to record this action at the time.
Great memory eh? Great except my barrister closed the cross-examination with the question: 'What colour was the defendants car?'
He couldnt remember this. This would not be so bad except it was a bright yellow TVR Tuscan!
Still lost the case though!
Yes Justin,
but did you go to appeal with it?: all the points raised are very valid, but what you have to get into your head and have it stick there is that in reality this is a game of chess, with all the possible predictable and unpredictable moves that shift the balance one way or another as the game moves on.
What you have in your favour is that in a great many cases, and I mean the majority, the CPS case is deeply flawed, because many of them are not that bright, don't do their homework, and almost every single one of them has no idea about the technical aspect of the arguments.
Although it becomes expensive if you have to go to appeal unless of course you do it yourself, the quality of the court is on an entirely different level, and logic will be appreciated in a manner that you seldom get in a magistrates court.
If you don't attempt a defence, the only alternative is prosecution, that's it in a nutshell!
jith said:
justinp1 said:
Flat in Fifth said:
jith said:
I mean the first photograph in Peter's case is simply ridiculous; you can hardly make out what type of car it is let alone the registration number.
Agree with that, the only way that this photo should stand up is if the photo is presented to together with the complete unedited video showing continuity of scan.
Don't forget it will also be accepted if accompanied, as mentioned earlier, by the 'written statement by Word template' (as I like to call it) from the operator that these photos are of the same vehicle from a continuous video, or words to the effect. Plus if the operator is not required to attend court by the defence, that written statement, complete with all warts, errors and omissions if any, will simply be read out unchallenged and accepted as if the operator had stood up in the witness box, and given the evidence verbally on oath.
I agree. I think that this will be the sticking point in the defence. If you go down that route then you live in hope that the CPS mess up or the witness does not appear or they drop the case etc. If the witness comes to court to swear on oath that it was the same car, then you could do dome clever things to outline how impossible it will be to make a distinct memory of every car, however this will be pot luck as to whether the magistrates are sensible or whether they are just going to convict you.
My example of this is that as my case the operator admitted that the laser was pointed in front of my car and then waited for me to drive through the beam. The appeal focussed around the police officer memory of the events a year previously. He then of course definately remembered aiming at the number plate of my car and testing the device before and after even though he didnt think to record this action at the time.
Great memory eh? Great except my barrister closed the cross-examination with the question: 'What colour was the defendants car?'
He couldnt remember this. This would not be so bad except it was a bright yellow TVR Tuscan!
Still lost the case though!
Yes Justin,
but did you go to appeal with it?: all the points raised are very valid, but what you have to get into your head and have it stick there is that in reality this is a game of chess, with all the possible predictable and unpredictable moves that shift the balance one way or another as the game moves on.
What you have in your favour is that in a great many cases, and I mean the majority, the CPS case is deeply flawed, because many of them are not that bright, don't do their homework, and almost every single one of them has no idea about the technical aspect of the arguments.
Although it becomes expensive if you have to go to appeal unless of course you do it yourself, the quality of the court is on an entirely different level, and logic will be appreciated in a manner that you seldom get in a magistrates court.
If you don't attempt a defence, the only alternative is prosecution, that's it in a nutshell!
What happened above did happen at my appeal. By this stage and a second loss, my fine was £200, the CPS costs were £375 and my legal costs were just under £1000. I was advised by my solicitor that the next way forward was for him to take the case further would be for him to fill out the paperwork £200 more, get a different barrister at at least £1000 more and get an expert witness who may charge £500 a day. Further to this he did warn that in some cases, the CPS were intent on winning the case so they would also get their own expert witness (MD of Teletraffic, impartial eh?) who may charge £500-£1000 as well as the CPS barrister costs.
Thus to appeal for a second time and lose may have taken my losses from £1500 to £4000 which after the rather strange outcome of my appeal, I realised that it is a bit of a lottery whether the system supports itself and there was a real risk of losing without explanation again, which I couldnt afford.
justinp1 said:
Further to this he did warn that in some cases, the CPS were intent on winning the case so they would also get their own expert witness (MD of Teletraffic, impartial eh?) who may charge £500-£1000 as well as the CPS barrister costs.
It’s worse than that; the VP of LTI (who is also the registered inventor on many aspects of it) was recently called upon at a cost of £4k
smeggy said:
justinp1 said:
Further to this he did warn that in some cases, the CPS were intent on winning the case so they would also get their own expert witness (MD of Teletraffic, impartial eh?) who may charge £500-£1000 as well as the CPS barrister costs.
It’s worse than that; the VP of LTI (who is also the registered inventor on many aspects of it) was recently called upon at a cost of £4k
Hi Smeggy,
I did fear it would be worse, but I was trying not to be sensationalist!
As I have said before, if the CPS/Police hate the use of Nick Freeman, it is these type of actions that has made him so successful.
As I have found it is nigh on impossible to fight a laser case in a fair way due to the fact that the CPS make you jump through every legal (and illegal) hoop in order to keep information and evidence to fight your case with from you.
It sadly is much easier to use 'Mr Loophole' to win the case and show the inadequacies of the CPS and make them and thus the taxpayer pay his £4000 fee.
Who wins?
Edited by justinp1 on Friday 16th June 15:06
Today I posted via recorded delivery my PACE letter and attached NIP. The relevant paragraph in my letter, modified from the pepipoo version, says:
I don't expect they will take much notice of the distinction between my comments on the 2 photos, but at least I hope it will give them something to consider. I guess I now await the court summons, at which point I can plead NG in order to obtain the complete video as evidence, and then we can get to work analysing it.
If the video proves I am guilty as charged I will of course plead guilty. I'm not trying to get out of any offence that I am proven to have committed. However, I still don't believe I am guilty, which is why I'm contesting it.
my letter said:
Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution.
I am in receipt of an image showing the alleged offence, and another intended to identify the vehicle. I acknowledge that I am the driver shown in the picture with timestamp 10:16:15. 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 10:15:51. This is because of the extreme range of the photograph. I cannot therefore honestly confirm who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence. However, I can confirm that the following individual was driving the above-registered vehicle pictured at the later time: blah blah blah
As this statement is provided under threat..... etc.
I am in receipt of an image showing the alleged offence, and another intended to identify the vehicle. I acknowledge that I am the driver shown in the picture with timestamp 10:16:15. 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 10:15:51. This is because of the extreme range of the photograph. I cannot therefore honestly confirm who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence. However, I can confirm that the following individual was driving the above-registered vehicle pictured at the later time: blah blah blah
As this statement is provided under threat..... etc.
I don't expect they will take much notice of the distinction between my comments on the 2 photos, but at least I hope it will give them something to consider. I guess I now await the court summons, at which point I can plead NG in order to obtain the complete video as evidence, and then we can get to work analysing it.
If the video proves I am guilty as charged I will of course plead guilty. I'm not trying to get out of any offence that I am proven to have committed. However, I still don't believe I am guilty, which is why I'm contesting it.
Thank you Peter Ward for standing your ground. Please get in touch as things progress and especially when you have the video, even if it is some months from now. They must give you the video in advance of the trial (!) (hearing?) but not much so - perhaps a month or so. DVD could advise on this.
I hope I can do something to help in your case.
regards
dave rawlinson
I hope I can do something to help in your case.
regards
dave rawlinson
davidra said:
Thank you Peter Ward for standing your ground. Please get in touch as things progress and especially when you have the video, even if it is some months from now. They must give you the video in advance of the trial (!) (hearing?) but not much so - perhaps a month or so. DVD could advise on this.
I hope I can do something to help in your case.
regards
dave rawlinson
I believe they have to declare any evidence that they will use SEVEN DAYS before the trial date.I hope I can do something to help in your case.
regards
dave rawlinson
requires means testing BliarOut said:
davidra said:
Thank you Peter Ward for standing your ground. Please get in touch as things progress and especially when you have the video, even if it is some months from now. They must give you the video in advance of the trial (!) (hearing?) but not much so - perhaps a month or so. DVD could advise on this.
I hope I can do something to help in your case.
regards
dave rawlinson
I believe they have to declare any evidence that they will use SEVEN DAYS before the trial date.I hope I can do something to help in your case.
regards
dave rawlinson
Thats declared to the court though isn't it.. it has to have changed hands between appelant and defendant in a "reasonable" timescale before that surely.?
I have some vague recollection that if the time period in which evidence is served is too short, you may ask for a delay of the trial in which to assess the evidence. In this case it would appear obvious that the treatment to which we wish to put the video cannot be done comfortably in a week. Could be done, but not easily.
bon chance
bon chance
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff