LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me

[herewego]

pies said:

[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"

This doesn't work because for a variety of reasons he could have slowed down between the 745.4m point and the camera van.

[chrispy porker]

They don't have to prove exactly how fast Peter was going, just that it was over the limit.

[havoc]

Peter Ward said:

response said:

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.

Quick question - was there a distance tag on the second photo, or could it be estimated reliably.

Because you've then got a near-irrefutable speed-distance-time calc of your AVERAGE speed between the two points. The whole video SHOULD show the car continuing at a reasonably consistent speed, not slowing massively (IS it possible to tell?), so if the AVERAGE is less than or equal to the limit, then that should be at least reasonably compelling evidence that the LTI was misreading.

[cptsideways]

havoc said:

Peter Ward said:

response said:

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.

Quick question - was there a distance tag on the second photo, or could it be estimated reliably.

Because you've then got a near-irrefutable speed-distance-time calc of your AVERAGE speed between the two points. The whole video SHOULD show the car continuing at a reasonably consistent speed, not slowing massively (IS it possible to tell?), so if the AVERAGE is less than or equal to the limit, then that should be at least reasonably compelling evidence that the LTI was misreading.

No just a single 745m reading (according to the video supplied in the thread)

[justinp1]

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?

Quite correct sir!

[justinp1]

vonhosen said:

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)

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.

But Von, you have missed the point which cuneus has just made, and I made earlier...

This is that when the full tape was produced, that has become a document.

The CPS have chosen (for reasons we agree upon) in the first instance not to supply the document in its entirity - only to edit the document down to two frames and supply these so that this should be 'enough' to prosecute or for the defendant to see that they are the driver (or not).

By doing this, that *have* introduced the full tape as evidence as it is clear that the photos were *not* taken independantly of the original document by a camera - they are *part* of the original document, this being the video.

So, the CPS has already introduced the document into evidence. If what *they* want to use is only the two photos then that is up to them, but they have no right not to disclose the rest unless they wish to claim exemption. To date, they have not tried to claim exemption with the court. The case law for that situation I have already repeated a page ago.

[timsta]

This is tantamount to being tried under a certain Act. When you wish to use parts of the Act that exempt your actions you are told by the CPS that you can't use that, and the are only prosecuting under the phrases that they specify.

Edited by timsta on Saturday 5th May 11:55

[johno_78]

cptsideways said:

havoc said:

Peter Ward said:

response said:

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.

Quick question - was there a distance tag on the second photo, or could it be estimated reliably.

Because you've then got a near-irrefutable speed-distance-time calc of your AVERAGE speed between the two points. The whole video SHOULD show the car continuing at a reasonably consistent speed, not slowing massively (IS it possible to tell?), so if the AVERAGE is less than or equal to the limit, then that should be at least reasonably compelling evidence that the LTI was misreading.

No just a single 745m reading (according to the video supplied in the thread)

Even though 745m in 24s means an average speed of 69mph, the second pic doesn't show the vehicle to be level with the camera. judging by the angle of the vehicle in relation to the camera on the second pic, the vehicle still appears to be 50-100m from the camera, which would give an average speed of 60-65mph.

i suppose this is imaterial though as the evidence is just one freeze frame shot.

good luck with the case.

[vonhosen]

justinp1 said:

vonhosen said:

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)

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.

But Von, you have missed the point which cuneus has just made, and I made earlier...

This is that when the full tape was produced, that has become a document.

The CPS have chosen (for reasons we agree upon) in the first instance not to supply the document in its entirity - only to edit the document down to two frames and supply these so that this should be 'enough' to prosecute or for the defendant to see that they are the driver (or not).

By doing this, that *have* introduced the full tape as evidence as it is clear that the photos were *not* taken independantly of the original document by a camera - they are *part* of the original document, this being the video.

So, the CPS has already introduced the document into evidence. If what *they* want to use is only the two photos then that is up to them, but they have no right not to disclose the rest unless they wish to claim exemption. To date, they have not tried to claim exemption with the court. The case law for that situation I have already repeated a page ago.

The stated case you mentioned is in respect of "Prosecution to disclose on request by the Defence a copy of any video recording forming part of the prosecution case prior to plea before venue being considered."

If it's unused material it is not part of the prosecution case. If an edited version from unused material is supplied to you, it still isn't part of the prosecution case, it's been given to help you in your case.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 5th May 23:12

[justinp1]

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

vonhosen said:

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)

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.

But Von, you have missed the point which cuneus has just made, and I made earlier...

This is that when the full tape was produced, that has become a document.

The CPS have chosen (for reasons we agree upon) in the first instance not to supply the document in its entirity - only to edit the document down to two frames and supply these so that this should be 'enough' to prosecute or for the defendant to see that they are the driver (or not).

By doing this, that *have* introduced the full tape as evidence as it is clear that the photos were *not* taken independantly of the original document by a camera - they are *part* of the original document, this being the video.

So, the CPS has already introduced the document into evidence. If what *they* want to use is only the two photos then that is up to them, but they have no right not to disclose the rest unless they wish to claim exemption. To date, they have not tried to claim exemption with the court. The case law for that situation I have already repeated a page ago.

The stated case you mentioned is in respect of "Prosecution to disclose on request by the Defence a copy of any video recording forming part of the prosecution case prior to plea before venue being considered."

If it's unused material it is not part of the prosecution case. If an edited version from unused material is supplied to you, it still isn't part of the prosecution case, it's been given to help you in your case.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 5th May 23:12

Again Von, you are missing the fundamental point - the full tape is *not* unused material, it *has* been used to form the prosecutions case - however they are *choosing* only to use 2 stills to take the case to court and argue their case - they could of course use any part or all of it should they want to play to the court to prove their case.

The two photos are not taken from another independant source from the video - if they were, then you and they have a very good point, but the stills are taken from a 'document' in the eyes of the law - the original video.

Just because that CPS for their own reasons what to simplify *their own* case and take out other variables which could introduce doubt by snipping the original document to two stills so they can put forward their case simply, after they have chosen to use any part of the original document, they have no legal right to deny the defendant the original document too, as covered by the case law above.

[vonhosen]

justinp1 said:

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

vonhosen said:

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)

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.

But Von, you have missed the point which cuneus has just made, and I made earlier...

This is that when the full tape was produced, that has become a document.

The CPS have chosen (for reasons we agree upon) in the first instance not to supply the document in its entirity - only to edit the document down to two frames and supply these so that this should be 'enough' to prosecute or for the defendant to see that they are the driver (or not).

By doing this, that *have* introduced the full tape as evidence as it is clear that the photos were *not* taken independantly of the original document by a camera - they are *part* of the original document, this being the video.

So, the CPS has already introduced the document into evidence. If what *they* want to use is only the two photos then that is up to them, but they have no right not to disclose the rest unless they wish to claim exemption. To date, they have not tried to claim exemption with the court. The case law for that situation I have already repeated a page ago.

The stated case you mentioned is in respect of "Prosecution to disclose on request by the Defence a copy of any video recording forming part of the prosecution case prior to plea before venue being considered."

If it's unused material it is not part of the prosecution case. If an edited version from unused material is supplied to you, it still isn't part of the prosecution case, it's been given to help you in your case.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 5th May 23:12

Again Von, you are missing the fundamental point - the full tape is *not* unused material, it *has* been used to form the prosecutions case - however they are *choosing* only to use 2 stills to take the case to court and argue their case - they could of course use any part or all of it should they want to play to the court to prove their case.

The two photos are not taken from another independant source from the video - if they were, then you and they have a very good point, but the stills are taken from a 'document' in the eyes of the law - the original video.

Just because that CPS for their own reasons what to simplify *their own* case and take out other variables which could introduce doubt by snipping the original document to two stills so they can put forward their case simply, after they have chosen to use any part of the original document, they have no legal right to deny the defendant the original document too, as covered by the case law above.

Are the stills being used as part of the prosecution case though OR are they just being supplied for your benefit from unused material ?

There would be sufficient evidence to proceed without the photos.
Video or photographic evidence are not a pre-requisite for laser prosecutions.
I have been talking about where the video does NOT form part of the prosecution case.

[justinp1]

Von, P45 of this thread:

Peter Ward said:

Thanks, VH. Your assessment is absolutely correct. The CPS intends to rely on the 2 photographs (page 1, post 1) and the operator's statement....

So I take it that in *this situation*, my assertation is correct as far as you can see?

[vonhosen]

justinp1 said:

Von, P45 of this thread:

Peter Ward said:

Thanks, VH. Your assessment is absolutely correct. The CPS intends to rely on the 2 photographs (page 1, post 1) and the operator's statement....

So I take it that in *this situation*, my assertation is correct as far as you can see?

I know what Peter said, but that wasn't my assessment as he said.
I don't know whether they are using them as a part of the prosecution case OR whether they have been supplied from unused material (because I have nothing to do with SCP proceedures & no experience of them either).
I see Peter says they intend to rely on them, but are they infact going to tender them as evidence OR is that simply an assumption as they've been supplied ?

Ultimately, as has been said previously the court should know this & see that the law in relation to disclosure is correctly applied. It's their responsibility to ensure that everything is in order.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 6th May 00:27

[TOPTON]

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

Von, P45 of this thread:

Peter Ward said:

Thanks, VH. Your assessment is absolutely correct. The CPS intends to rely on the 2 photographs (page 1, post 1) and the operator's statement....

So I take it that in *this situation*, my assertation is correct as far as you can see?

I know what Peter said, but that wasn't my assessment as he said.
I don't know whether they are using them as a part of the prosecution case OR whether they have been supplied from unused material (because I have nothing to do with SCP proceedures & no experience of them either).
I see Peter says they intend to rely on them, but are they infact going to tender them as evidence OR is that simply an assumption as they've been supplied ?

Ultimately, as has been said previously the court should know this & see that the law in relation to disclosure is correctly applied. It's their responsibility to ensure that everything is in order.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 6th May 00:27

You know excatly what JP1 is talking about VH, but in only the style you can do, you twist it round.
Even a numpty like me understands that "THE WHOLE TAPE" is the evidence. Not just a small part of it because it suits them not to submit it. (just in case something doesn't add up)

[herewego]

TOPTON said:

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

Von, P45 of this thread:

Peter Ward said:

Thanks, VH. Your assessment is absolutely correct. The CPS intends to rely on the 2 photographs (page 1, post 1) and the operator's statement....

So I take it that in *this situation*, my assertation is correct as far as you can see?

I know what Peter said, but that wasn't my assessment as he said.
I don't know whether they are using them as a part of the prosecution case OR whether they have been supplied from unused material (because I have nothing to do with SCP proceedures & no experience of them either).
I see Peter says they intend to rely on them, but are they infact going to tender them as evidence OR is that simply an assumption as they've been supplied ?

Ultimately, as has been said previously the court should know this & see that the law in relation to disclosure is correctly applied. It's their responsibility to ensure that everything is in order.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 6th May 00:27

You know excatly what JP1 is talking about VH, but in only the style you can do, you twist it round.
Even a numpty like me understands that "THE WHOLE TAPE" is the evidence. Not just a small part of it because it suits them not to submit it. (just in case something doesn't add up)

If they were to record the video on a hard disk with a separate file for each vehicle then it would be even harder to argue for sight of other recordings.

[justinp1]

herewego said:

TOPTON said:

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

Von, P45 of this thread:

Peter Ward said:

Thanks, VH. Your assessment is absolutely correct. The CPS intends to rely on the 2 photographs (page 1, post 1) and the operator's statement....

So I take it that in *this situation*, my assertation is correct as far as you can see?

I know what Peter said, but that wasn't my assessment as he said.
I don't know whether they are using them as a part of the prosecution case OR whether they have been supplied from unused material (because I have nothing to do with SCP proceedures & no experience of them either).
I see Peter says they intend to rely on them, but are they infact going to tender them as evidence OR is that simply an assumption as they've been supplied ?

Ultimately, as has been said previously the court should know this & see that the law in relation to disclosure is correctly applied. It's their responsibility to ensure that everything is in order.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 6th May 00:27

You know excatly what JP1 is talking about VH, but in only the style you can do, you twist it round.
Even a numpty like me understands that "THE WHOLE TAPE" is the evidence. Not just a small part of it because it suits them not to submit it. (just in case something doesn't add up)

If they were to record the video on a hard disk with a separate file for each vehicle then it would be even harder to argue for sight of other recordings.

Yeah, it would... But they dont.

[cuneus]

vonhosen said:

There would be sufficient evidence to proceed without the photos.
Video or photographic evidence are not a pre-requisite for laser prosecutions.
I have been talking about where the video does NOT form part of the prosecution case.

Really please explain

for the sake of clarity (and Peter's sanity) why don't we just stick with the subject matter of this thread

[justinp1]

cuneus said:

vonhosen said:

There would be sufficient evidence to proceed without the photos.
Video or photographic evidence are not a pre-requisite for laser prosecutions.
I have been talking about where the video does NOT form part of the prosecution case.

Really please explain

for the sake of clarity (and Peter's sanity) why don't we just stick with the subject matter of this thread

Von is right in that where no video is taken, only the operator's testimony is needed, as thats all there is.

However, in this situation, I think we all know what we were talking about and what you talk about was Von's 'tactical withdrawal' as preference to admitting that in *this case* the CPS really should know better.

Edited by justinp1 on Sunday 6th May 10:27

[vonhosen]

TOPTON said:

vonhosen said:

justinp1 said:

Von, P45 of this thread:

Peter Ward said:

Thanks, VH. Your assessment is absolutely correct. The CPS intends to rely on the 2 photographs (page 1, post 1) and the operator's statement....

So I take it that in *this situation*, my assertation is correct as far as you can see?

I know what Peter said, but that wasn't my assessment as he said.
I don't know whether they are using them as a part of the prosecution case OR whether they have been supplied from unused material (because I have nothing to do with SCP proceedures & no experience of them either).
I see Peter says they intend to rely on them, but are they infact going to tender them as evidence OR is that simply an assumption as they've been supplied ?

Ultimately, as has been said previously the court should know this & see that the law in relation to disclosure is correctly applied. It's their responsibility to ensure that everything is in order.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 6th May 00:27

You know excatly what JP1 is talking about VH, but in only the style you can do, you twist it round.
Even a numpty like me understands that "THE WHOLE TAPE" is the evidence. Not just a small part of it because it suits them not to submit it. (just in case something doesn't add up)

I'm simply exploring how both sides can come to a misunderstanding, with one believing the tape must be disclosed & one believing it doesn't have to be & infact should not.

The fact there is a tape doesn't mean it forms part of the prosecution case that is to be presented at court. They may choose to, they may feel it not necessary.

As I keep saying though, the court should know the state of play in regards to what evidence is being used & they should ensure that pre-trial you have had everything that you are legally & reasonably entitled to.
If you are having problems because you are not getting it, go to them.

[Globulator]

justinp1 said:

Von is right in that where no video is taken, only the operator's testimony is needed, as thats all there is.

And if the tape will show the operator fishing and getting low speed readings all the time, the defence can use this to discredit the witness/operator, and so disprove prior opinion.

I imagine this is where the CPS do not have to supply unless forced by the court. And in fact why that will not supply unless forced to by the court.

It seems to make sense:
a) Always insist on the tape
b) Always expect court force to be needed to get it