LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me
Discussion
havoc said:
herewego said:
I can see the idea that if a number of vehicles were zapped at or below the limit then the operator must be failing to form prior opinion. However when drivers see a speed trap they slow down, so the zap speed could commonly be much lower than the prior opinion speed. Therefore if the tape shows a number of drivers to be zapped at or below the limit, this would not necessarily invalidate the operator’s procedure. In my opinion.
But given the distances involved, how many drivers would SPOT a van 500/600/700yds distant (IIRC Peter was zapped at 6xx yards...which is above the recommended use for an LTI20/20). I consider myself observant and I rarely focus for long at up to 1/2 mile ahead, more concentrating on the next 300/400yds...
So I'd suggest it's unlikely that people are slowing down between him spotting and him zapping, if he's taking them as they come around the corner, as happened to Peter.
Agreed.
The speed traps are often set up so that the driver *cannot* see them in his field of vision by hiding them, or indeed setting up the 'killing zone' at a target point just around a corner so that the driver's vision is on the bend they are driving through, not half a mile ahead where the van is!
In any case though, this can be something ascertained by the full video and discussed. Without that, the CPS are keeping this option closed.
_dobbo_ said:
The sad thing is the video shouldn't be required anyway - surely the operator can't form a prior opinion over 700 meters away in any case?
Well yes, you would think that, but they get away with putting it in their statement!
Of course, they only get away with it as they know that only a tiny minority of people will ever find this out.
havoc said:
jith said:
The decision as to what the defence may utilise as evidence is NOT that of the crown's. It should always exclusively be that of the accused's.
Except where it may be deemed 'prejudicial' to another case, or otherwise 'sensitive'. However, those decisions should not be taken lightly as they may impact on a defendants case. That the CPS seem to be trying to make everyone's mind up for them on this matter is pure gamesmanship!
(Again, I keep coming back to 'game' when referring to the CPS in this case. I sincerely hope I'm never facing them, as my opinion of the ability of someone to get a fair trial in this country is falling rapidly...I've seen juntas with more integrity!!!)
The CPS also have a duty to protect the interests of others. In these days where you are liable to be sued, I think it prudent on their behalf to leave the matter to the court where it could impact on another's case or contain sensitive material.
Where they have a legal duty to disclose, they are covered, with unused material there is no such duty.
I'm not saying that you should never be entitled to it, far from it. I just think that where it is unused material & the CPS believe it contains sensitive material, they could make a judgement off their own back to allow edited disclosure, but for full disclosure they may protect themselves by ensuring it's been ordered by a court first. Court's problem then not theirs.
Even after that there will inevitably still be times where the CPS may rather drop the case than reveal what they court has demanded they must for the trial to continue. Such as where they may be protecting the identity of informants who would be seriously at risk should their identity be disclosed.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 4th May 15:24
von, I still disagree - how is a tape of speeding vehicles equivalent to naming a crusial witness in a sensitive trial.
The use of the speed gun should be tested the same way as any other piece of evidence ie fully.
You're continued wriggling does someone who I have respect for no favours whatsoever.
The use of the speed gun should be tested the same way as any other piece of evidence ie fully.
You're continued wriggling does someone who I have respect for no favours whatsoever.
Bing o said:
von, I still disagree - how is a tape of speeding vehicles equivalent to naming a crusial witness in a sensitive trial.
The use of the speed gun should be tested the same way as any other piece of evidence ie fully.
You're continued wriggling does someone who I have respect for no favours whatsoever.
The use of the speed gun should be tested the same way as any other piece of evidence ie fully.
You're continued wriggling does someone who I have respect for no favours whatsoever.
I wouldn't want evidence of any offence I committed given to others.
If you do fine, then sign a release, but without my consent disclosing evidence from my case to others is not on.
I'd however have to accept a court's ruling if they ruled that another's interests took precedence over mine, but I'd expect them to test the veracity of that fully before doing so.
I don't have any problem with disclosure of unused material in such circumstances.
If there were physical risk to myself however (obviously that wouldn't be the situation in this type of case) I'd expect the CPS to drop the case where they didn't have my consent to disclose, or else it would be a serious breach of trust.
It's not wriggling by me, because I have no axe to grind in this, I have nothing to do with SCP cases.
I'm just expressing my personal viewpoint on what I believe to be correct & fair for all concerned.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 4th May 15:49
Bing o said:
von, I still disagree - how is a tape of speeding vehicles equivalent to naming a crusial witness in a sensitive trial.
The use of the speed gun should be tested the same way as any other piece of evidence ie fully.
You're continued wriggling does someone who I have respect for no favours whatsoever.
The use of the speed gun should be tested the same way as any other piece of evidence ie fully.
You're continued wriggling does someone who I have respect for no favours whatsoever.
Hmm, I must agree.
I am completely unsure who the CPS will be sued by for releasing a full tape.
Indeed, the only way it may affect other cases is that other defendants may if they *could* find out that the proper checks and procedure was not followed, that they could apply to reopen their cases!
I am sure that they would have no problem with that!
Of course, the CPS would, as it would mean that other defendants who had pleaded not guilty but were not as brave and bold as Peter in putting £2000 behind his principle or given up under the fact that their case has been dragged out for over a year under the constant threat that despite the case law I have already quoted that the costs to them to just see the evidence against them increase and increase, may find out something that may help their case!
I wonder why the CPS wants to push this principle so far!?
As I'm sure most are already aware, the police don't need your consent to release video footage of people committing crimes. I'm sure the CPS would be the same. Or we would never get programs like Road Wars. I'm sure the criminals never gave their consent.
Tim
Tim
Edited by timsta on Friday 4th May 16:00
cuneus said:
VH
The tape is considered a document. If relied on in court the whole document (tape) must be disclosed.
You cannot simply choose which parts to hand over.
(squawk - that's my parrot impression)
The tape is considered a document. If relied on in court the whole document (tape) must be disclosed.
You cannot simply choose which parts to hand over.
(squawk - that's my parrot impression)
Again, if it's unused material it doesn't have to be disclosed, only the evidence being used to prosecute does.
If the defence want it & the CPS won't give it for whatever reason, you'll have to get the court to listen to why you want it & why they don't want to give it. The court can then rule on it.
The CPS will give edited documents (names, phone numebrs etc etc edited out) from unused material, but won't give the full unedited version without a court ordering it.
timsta said:
vonhosen said:
justinp1 said:
I wonder why the CPS wants to push this principle so far!?
If any offence I had committed were on the tape I'd expect them to.
I would want them to, but I wouldn't expect them to. I would fully expect them to release it anyway.
As I said, I'd expect them to protect my interests, but if a court decided (having listened to the arguments) that the interests of justice genuinely required it, despite my wishes, then I'd be in no position to feel aggrieved as that veracity had been properly tested & it hadn't been done on a whim.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 4th May 16:16
Not sure if this question should be put on another thread, but assuming someone on the tape was found innocent, for example not having proved previous opinion of speeding, would that mean that anyone else on the tape could use that defence and also get their speeding cases thrown out.
Maybe that is why you cannot see the full tape?
Maybe that is why you cannot see the full tape?
vonhosen said:
timsta said:
vonhosen said:
justinp1 said:
I wonder why the CPS wants to push this principle so far!?
If any offence I had committed were on the tape I'd expect them to.
I would want them to, but I wouldn't expect them to. I would fully expect them to release it anyway.
As I said, I'd expect them to protect my interests, but if a court decided (having listened to the arguments) that the interests of justice genuinely required it, despite my wishes, then I'd be in no position to feel aggrieved as that veracity had been properly tested & it hadn't been done on a whim.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 4th May 16:16
This is all hypothetical anyway:
If I had committed an offence, and knew I was guilty, and took the fine, how could my interests be greater than someone who is innocent and needs to use the tape for their defence?
Similarly, if I had pleaded not guilty, I would happily let someone else fight for the case to be pushed for the full release too!
The point is that we are really skirting around the issue, and playing devils advocate because:
THE CPS KNOW FULL WELL THAT THEY WILL BE FORCED TO RELEASE THE FULL TAPE LIKE EVERY OTHER TIME.
Thus, everything in the meantime is bluff and bluster at the taxpayer's expense in order to try to win a case by frustrating the system.
justinp1 said:
vonhosen said:
timsta said:
vonhosen said:
justinp1 said:
I wonder why the CPS wants to push this principle so far!?
If any offence I had committed were on the tape I'd expect them to.
I would want them to, but I wouldn't expect them to. I would fully expect them to release it anyway.
As I said, I'd expect them to protect my interests, but if a court decided (having listened to the arguments) that the interests of justice genuinely required it, despite my wishes, then I'd be in no position to feel aggrieved as that veracity had been properly tested & it hadn't been done on a whim.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 4th May 16:16
This is all hypothetical anyway:
If I had committed an offence, and knew I was guilty, and took the fine, how could my interests be greater than someone who is innocent and needs to use the tape for their defence?
Similarly, if I had pleaded not guilty, I would happily let someone else fight for the case to be pushed for the full release too!
The point is that we are really skirting around the issue, and playing devils advocate because:
THE CPS KNOW FULL WELL THAT THEY WILL BE FORCED TO RELEASE THE FULL TAPE LIKE EVERY OTHER TIME.
Thus, everything in the meantime is bluff and bluster at the taxpayer's expense in order to try to win a case by frustrating the system.
If they do, then they do.
I just want it to be the court making that decision & I'm prepared for my taxes to pay for that.
A couple of days ago I emailed Dr Clark with some questions. He has kindly responded.
my email said:
Dear Dr Clark,
You are currently working with Matthew Miller of motoringlawyers.com on my case in Norfolk. I trust that it is acceptable to contact you direct, and that motoringlawyers have now settled your invoice given that I paid them 2 weeks ago.
I'm concerned with the way things are going at present, and the way that the CPS has attempted to demolish your evidence. I believe that Matthew expects the case to be won on technicalities, but I put a huge amount of work into the facts of the case before I involved a solicitor and I just want to be sure that you have the material that I put together, in case Matthew overlooked some. I visited the site 3 times to perform measurements and to identify the likely actual location of the van.
I think it's all self-evident, but please let me know if anything needs further explanation:
1. Crown Court transcript -- what Mr Frank Garrett said in court this year, confirming that wrong use of the LTI 20/20 leads to wrong results
2. request for video letter 28.10.06 -- my letter to CPS stating my case. I had an offer from a friend to analyse the video and he was my "expert witness" at that time
3. CPS letter 14.11.2006 -- my letter to CPS pointing out that data protection was not a valid reason for not providing the video (they have now moved on to "not in the public interest"!)
4. viewfromvan.jpg -- my best estimate of the view from the camera van, therefore identifying its location which I marked on the large-scale maps that I provided to you through Matthew.
One point I've been making to the CPS for almost a year now is stated clearly in the "request for video #2" letter. I think it's key:
Allow me to reiterate once more: if I had travelled at 77mph from the “745.4m point” for the 24.04s between the first and second photos originally provided, I would have covered a distance of 830.1m. This means that I would have already passed the camera van. It is therefore self-evident that I did not travel at 77mph down the straight.
Many thanks for your work on my behalf. I look forward to meeting you before too long!
kind regards
Peter
You are currently working with Matthew Miller of motoringlawyers.com on my case in Norfolk. I trust that it is acceptable to contact you direct, and that motoringlawyers have now settled your invoice given that I paid them 2 weeks ago.
I'm concerned with the way things are going at present, and the way that the CPS has attempted to demolish your evidence. I believe that Matthew expects the case to be won on technicalities, but I put a huge amount of work into the facts of the case before I involved a solicitor and I just want to be sure that you have the material that I put together, in case Matthew overlooked some. I visited the site 3 times to perform measurements and to identify the likely actual location of the van.
I think it's all self-evident, but please let me know if anything needs further explanation:
1. Crown Court transcript -- what Mr Frank Garrett said in court this year, confirming that wrong use of the LTI 20/20 leads to wrong results
2. request for video letter 28.10.06 -- my letter to CPS stating my case. I had an offer from a friend to analyse the video and he was my "expert witness" at that time
3. CPS letter 14.11.2006 -- my letter to CPS pointing out that data protection was not a valid reason for not providing the video (they have now moved on to "not in the public interest"!)
4. viewfromvan.jpg -- my best estimate of the view from the camera van, therefore identifying its location which I marked on the large-scale maps that I provided to you through Matthew.
One point I've been making to the CPS for almost a year now is stated clearly in the "request for video #2" letter. I think it's key:
Allow me to reiterate once more: if I had travelled at 77mph from the “745.4m point” for the 24.04s between the first and second photos originally provided, I would have covered a distance of 830.1m. This means that I would have already passed the camera van. It is therefore self-evident that I did not travel at 77mph down the straight.
Many thanks for your work on my behalf. I look forward to meeting you before too long!
kind regards
Peter
response said:
Peter
Thank you for your email. There is no problem with your contacting me directly. However might I suggest you copy anything you send to your solicitor as he has to keep a file on your case. Also please note I am not an open book but am happy to explain any points as best I can on this occasion.
Regarding your points:
1) As the expert witness for the defence in this case I am very familiar with it and was of course present in court. If a barrister has not been appointed in your case and you wish to do so I can recommend Katherine Hodson. However this is a matter for your solicitor.
2) It is only the 16 fields that occur before the data first appears on the video that are relevant as this is where the measurement occurs. The distance is the average distance of this measurement set. The Crown always argue that you could have slowed down. I am afraid it is unlikely the Court will accept your evidence, no matter what you say, unless you can provide some corroborative evidence to the contrary.
3) I have heard numerous excuses for not providing a full tape, all of which I am assured by lawyers are legally invalid, however what happens in Court is not always correct, as appears to be the situation in your case. This is a legal matter, so I cannot provide any advice, but I have seen cases won simply because the full tape was not provided.
4) Thanks for this stuff, it may prove useful in court.
As I mention in 2 above I am afraid this calculation is unlikely to sway a Court because you could have slowed down. However even if you did not slow down I have some concern that your observation demonstrates that you were speeding. Taking your numbers:- to travel a distance of 745.4 m in 24.04 s requires an average speed of 31m/s = 69 mph - still in excess of the 60 mph limit.
The Court must assume that the LTI was working correctly because it is Type Approved. We have to demonstrate that there was something 'wrong' on this occasion, which no doubt will form part of the defence used by your legal team.
I hope you find the above is helpful, all is not lost!
Michael.
Thank you for your email. There is no problem with your contacting me directly. However might I suggest you copy anything you send to your solicitor as he has to keep a file on your case. Also please note I am not an open book but am happy to explain any points as best I can on this occasion.
Regarding your points:
1) As the expert witness for the defence in this case I am very familiar with it and was of course present in court. If a barrister has not been appointed in your case and you wish to do so I can recommend Katherine Hodson. However this is a matter for your solicitor.
2) It is only the 16 fields that occur before the data first appears on the video that are relevant as this is where the measurement occurs. The distance is the average distance of this measurement set. The Crown always argue that you could have slowed down. I am afraid it is unlikely the Court will accept your evidence, no matter what you say, unless you can provide some corroborative evidence to the contrary.
3) I have heard numerous excuses for not providing a full tape, all of which I am assured by lawyers are legally invalid, however what happens in Court is not always correct, as appears to be the situation in your case. This is a legal matter, so I cannot provide any advice, but I have seen cases won simply because the full tape was not provided.
4) Thanks for this stuff, it may prove useful in court.
As I mention in 2 above I am afraid this calculation is unlikely to sway a Court because you could have slowed down. However even if you did not slow down I have some concern that your observation demonstrates that you were speeding. Taking your numbers:- to travel a distance of 745.4 m in 24.04 s requires an average speed of 31m/s = 69 mph - still in excess of the 60 mph limit.
The Court must assume that the LTI was working correctly because it is Type Approved. We have to demonstrate that there was something 'wrong' on this occasion, which no doubt will form part of the defence used by your legal team.
I hope you find the above is helpful, all is not lost!
Michael.
Fer said:
Not sure if this question should be put on another thread, but assuming someone on the tape was found innocent, for example not having proved previous opinion of speeding, would that mean that anyone else on the tape could use that defence and also get their speeding cases thrown out.
Maybe that is why you cannot see the full tape?
Maybe that is why you cannot see the full tape?
About 5 years ago I was stopped for speeding, video evidence from a plain car parked up.
I was stopped by a plain clothed officer with a hand written sign - asking for his ID may have got his back up - but I did have a very good reason.
Watched video from the back seat of the Police car, decided to decline their offer of £60 and 3 points.
I went to court, and even with weeks of notice the Police officers didn't turn up - they were on 'holiday'.
Couple of weeks later I got a letter saying the case has been dropped because they had been a mistake on the calibration of the video camera.
I wrote back and asked if they were going to cancel all the 'Tickets' that were issued on that day.
Never did get a reply.
Steve
skeggysteve said:
Fer said:
Not sure if this question should be put on another thread, but assuming someone on the tape was found innocent, for example not having proved previous opinion of speeding, would that mean that anyone else on the tape could use that defence and also get their speeding cases thrown out.
Maybe that is why you cannot see the full tape?
Maybe that is why you cannot see the full tape?
About 5 years ago I was stopped for speeding, video evidence from a plain car parked up.
I was stopped by a plain clothed officer with a hand written sign - asking for his ID may have got his back up - but I did have a very good reason.
Watched video from the back seat of the Police car, decided to decline their offer of £60 and 3 points.
I went to court, and even with weeks of notice the Police officers didn't turn up - they were on 'holiday'.
Couple of weeks later I got a letter saying the case has been dropped because they had been a mistake on the calibration of the video camera.
I wrote back and asked if they were going to cancel all the 'Tickets' that were issued on that day.
Never did get a reply.
Steve
streaky said:
skeggysteve said:
Fer said:
Not sure if this question should be put on another thread, but assuming someone on the tape was found innocent, for example not having proved previous opinion of speeding, would that mean that anyone else on the tape could use that defence and also get their speeding cases thrown out.
Maybe that is why you cannot see the full tape?
Maybe that is why you cannot see the full tape?
About 5 years ago I was stopped for speeding, video evidence from a plain car parked up.
I was stopped by a plain clothed officer with a hand written sign - asking for his ID may have got his back up - but I did have a very good reason.
Watched video from the back seat of the Police car, decided to decline their offer of £60 and 3 points.
I went to court, and even with weeks of notice the Police officers didn't turn up - they were on 'holiday'.
Couple of weeks later I got a letter saying the case has been dropped because they had been a mistake on the calibration of the video camera.
I wrote back and asked if they were going to cancel all the 'Tickets' that were issued on that day.
Never did get a reply.
Steve
Doesn't matter if you stop.
Just means you can't be prosecuted for failing to stop if you don't when they aren't in uniform.
[quote=Peter Ward].
Allow me to reiterate once more: if I had travelled at 77mph from the “745.4m point” for the 24.04s between the first and second photos originally provided, I would have covered a distance of 830.1m. This means that I would have already passed the camera van. It is therefore self-evident that I did not travel at 77mph down the straight.
That could be the best arguement.Tthey have to prove you were doing 77mph,you dont have to prove anything just show the evidence is iffy
IIRC they cant just say "sorry our calculations were wrong but you were still speeding"
Allow me to reiterate once more: if I had travelled at 77mph from the “745.4m point” for the 24.04s between the first and second photos originally provided, I would have covered a distance of 830.1m. This means that I would have already passed the camera van. It is therefore self-evident that I did not travel at 77mph down the straight.
That could be the best arguement.Tthey have to prove you were doing 77mph,you dont have to prove anything just show the evidence is iffy
IIRC they cant just say "sorry our calculations were wrong but you were still speeding"
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff