LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me
Discussion
Alice Cupra said:
justinp1 said:
In my case the cross-examination was stuff like "This is a fast car isnt it?" "What is the top speed?" "Could you race in this car if you wanted to?" "Were you late that day?"
Surely number 1 is a leading question? Should this have been allowed?
How did you actually answer these questions? With the benefit of preparation, I suppose that answers which may be slightly in your favour, rather than the usual "Yes" and "No" could have been:
"This is a fast car isnt it?"
Do you mean "fast" as in a high top speed, or "fast" as in capable of accelerating quickly? It is only as fast as the driver makes it go. The car itself is not "fast".
"What is the top speed?"
I don't know. It is capable of travelling at 70mph on a motorway, but I have never attempted to find its top speed, and would not attempt such a thing on a public road.....
"Could you race in this car if you wanted to?"
Certainly not on a public road, and not if I wanted to ensure my insurance remained valid, which I do. On a professionally organised trackday, on a private track, I suppose I could.
"Were you late that day?"
Late for what?
Are these typical of the questions they ask to form "background" for a case?
Thanks justinp1 and Alice Cupra for your perceptive comments.
I agree that I should get the solicitor to agree to a call before Friday so I can go through the pros and cons of giving evidence. I would feel really miffed if I didn't state the obvious things I've been banging on about for a year and then I lost. OTOH, I don't want to be duped into saying something stupid. What a pain!
Important: my case will not be proceeding this Friday!
I spoke to my solicitor today. He has received a 4-page letter from the CPS saying that they need more time to read the material provided by Dr Clark, and that the case will also take more time than has been allocated on Friday. The court has very kindly and generously agreed to give them that extra reading time. The hearing on Friday will now simply be to request further disclosures including the complete video, and to agree a new date. The CPS has apparently said it may wheel out its own EW as well. Dr Clark will not be attending on Friday.
The CPS has finally disclosed the operator's notebook for the session. It simply says, "tests ok" or words to that effect, ie. no indication of what tests were done.
I had hoped we might resolve this whole thing this week. As it is now, it could run on for a lot longer. It seems like we're going to have expert pitted against expert, with ever-increasing costs, just for the sake of 1 contested speeding case. Talk about "not in the public interest", but I guess over time the big picture is lost in the thrill of the chase.
Is it worth a letter from me to the CPS? I guess not, but I just wonder what would bring them to their senses over this. After all, I know how much they detest pesky motorists taking them away from their real focus of rapists and murderers :-J.
I spoke to my solicitor today. He has received a 4-page letter from the CPS saying that they need more time to read the material provided by Dr Clark, and that the case will also take more time than has been allocated on Friday. The court has very kindly and generously agreed to give them that extra reading time. The hearing on Friday will now simply be to request further disclosures including the complete video, and to agree a new date. The CPS has apparently said it may wheel out its own EW as well. Dr Clark will not be attending on Friday.
The CPS has finally disclosed the operator's notebook for the session. It simply says, "tests ok" or words to that effect, ie. no indication of what tests were done.
I had hoped we might resolve this whole thing this week. As it is now, it could run on for a lot longer. It seems like we're going to have expert pitted against expert, with ever-increasing costs, just for the sake of 1 contested speeding case. Talk about "not in the public interest", but I guess over time the big picture is lost in the thrill of the chase.
Is it worth a letter from me to the CPS? I guess not, but I just wonder what would bring them to their senses over this. After all, I know how much they detest pesky motorists taking them away from their real focus of rapists and murderers :-J.
Bing o said:
I should hope that Peter will be presenting a full account of this disgraceful set of circumstances in front of several national newspapers when (and I mean WHEN) he is proven "innocent".
The truth will out Peter - hang on in there!
The truth will out Peter - hang on in there!
At present I intend to keep going. It would be mad and expensive to give up now. I hope their game is to make it painful for me then give up just before they go into court to lose.
They may instead have decided they can win and will go all-out to defeat Dr Clark in this case. In which case it's probably not about me any more.
justamin said:
BUGGER! I was looking forward to watching the CPS lose today! Interestng that they've disclosed the notebook in your case Peter, but in mine just sent me a letter with its mention.
Again, though, it is just tactics on their part - as I explained to the usher in must last appearance "Its all very well for the CPS to keep asking for another date - he gets paid for it; I don't!"
I thinks its about time I wrote to them again explaining the rules for disclosure of evidence and why I should have the notebook and full video now...
I think though that their reply might be on the lines of Flocci num faccio.....
Again, though, it is just tactics on their part - as I explained to the usher in must last appearance "Its all very well for the CPS to keep asking for another date - he gets paid for it; I don't!"
I thinks its about time I wrote to them again explaining the rules for disclosure of evidence and why I should have the notebook and full video now...
I think though that their reply might be on the lines of Flocci num faccio.....
Let's see what happens in the hearing for my case today. If the CPS is told by the court to disclose the full video then you might be able to indicate to your prosecutors that there is a "precedent" for you. If it's the same CPS people prosecuting you as me (and I can't imagine there's very many) then they will know what you're talking about!
I've still not heard directly from the solicitor, but one of his colleagues said that the case has been adjourned till 22nd because the CPS needed more time. She didn't know whether anything else was discussed on Friday. I'm not sure what chance I have to influence the new date because nobody asked me if it was convenient and I'm not sure it is.
Here is a link to a TIF file of a letter from the CPS to motoringlawyers.com regarding my case: [url]http://home.btconnect.com/peter-ward/[/url]
My case was adjourned by the court last Friday, and the rearranged hearing on 22nd May is a "Directions" hearing, whatever that is. However, the CPS has now released -- as far as I can tell -- the start and end of the video that confirms the alignment tests were performed. These have been sent to Dr Clark but I have not seen them.
If there is any truth in the CPS letter then it seems to me that most of what Dr Clark has provided is irrelevant to my case. I hope that he can put something together now that is more focused based on what he has. I'm very concerned that the solicitor has not provided my evidence to Dr Clark for his consideration -- measurements, distance/time calculations, use against Code of Practice, etc, and I'm trying to get confirmation that he has. It still seems to me that it's these basic issues that are the nub of the defence, and not loads of procedural and conjectural questions.
Feeling a bit down.....
My case was adjourned by the court last Friday, and the rearranged hearing on 22nd May is a "Directions" hearing, whatever that is. However, the CPS has now released -- as far as I can tell -- the start and end of the video that confirms the alignment tests were performed. These have been sent to Dr Clark but I have not seen them.
If there is any truth in the CPS letter then it seems to me that most of what Dr Clark has provided is irrelevant to my case. I hope that he can put something together now that is more focused based on what he has. I'm very concerned that the solicitor has not provided my evidence to Dr Clark for his consideration -- measurements, distance/time calculations, use against Code of Practice, etc, and I'm trying to get confirmation that he has. It still seems to me that it's these basic issues that are the nub of the defence, and not loads of procedural and conjectural questions.
Feeling a bit down.....
Globulator said:
If I was the expert I'd need the entire tape.
I'd need to check the checks at the beginning belong to the tape and were not edited in.
I'd need to establish evidence of a fishing trip or of prior opinion in action
I'd need to look at the actual frames with Peters car
I'd need timings and locations so I can compute if the camera was sited correctly within the rules, and the real car speed, according to distance/time calculations.
The whole tape would not be needed to show the court, but my expert would need the full tape for the reasons above and as evidence in defence, to show general conduct and fishing.
Peter - you need to have a good long chat with your expert, it sounds like communications are somewhat less than ideal here. Go arrange some long chats.
I'd need to check the checks at the beginning belong to the tape and were not edited in.
I'd need to establish evidence of a fishing trip or of prior opinion in action
I'd need to look at the actual frames with Peters car
I'd need timings and locations so I can compute if the camera was sited correctly within the rules, and the real car speed, according to distance/time calculations.
The whole tape would not be needed to show the court, but my expert would need the full tape for the reasons above and as evidence in defence, to show general conduct and fishing.
Peter - you need to have a good long chat with your expert, it sounds like communications are somewhat less than ideal here. Go arrange some long chats.
Last night I emailed him direct with some questions and comments. I figure that if I'm paying him then I have some right to deal direct with him. I'll see what he comes back with and then push for a discussion. I have little visibility of what the solicitor is doing but I am getting the feeling that perhaps he's not as focused on this as he could be. It also looks like the court and CPS have a "non-neutral" relationship (and why not, both being in the partnership? But I'm sure this doesn't affect the execution of justice) and that the solicitor needs to do more to level the playing field.
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. What else would they need? Everything they need is there.
Where I struggle is with your last statement about the CPS having to release anything that weakens their case. This is manifestly not happening except with the utmost reluctance and only when they think my solicitor has submitted sufficient justification for it that they know the court would require it. Don't forget that the CPS was told by the court to provide material back in April and they didn't. I don't think this has resulted in any chastisement to date.
I know I've said this before, but I think all evidence should be held centrally so that both parties can see it. Having the prosecution holding onto all the evidence and only letting the defence see it if they are forced to disclose is not, to me, the way to achieve justice. I don't understand this approach and I can't imagine that it happens in "real" trials?
Where I struggle is with your last statement about the CPS having to release anything that weakens their case. This is manifestly not happening except with the utmost reluctance and only when they think my solicitor has submitted sufficient justification for it that they know the court would require it. Don't forget that the CPS was told by the court to provide material back in April and they didn't. I don't think this has resulted in any chastisement to date.
I know I've said this before, but I think all evidence should be held centrally so that both parties can see it. Having the prosecution holding onto all the evidence and only letting the defence see it if they are forced to disclose is not, to me, the way to achieve justice. I don't understand this approach and I can't imagine that it happens in "real" trials?
lord summerisle said:
vonhossen said:
If you request it for your defence, then they can give it all, give an edited version (because some parts are sensitive) or refuse (if it's all too sensitive).
Is this under the Data protection Act your meaning, or other rules?
Further up this thread (somewhere!) it is made clear that the DP Act has an explicit exclusion for material that is used in legal cases.
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.
justinp1 said:
Von, P45 of this thread:
So I take it that in *this situation*, my assertation is correct as far as you can see?
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?
Sorry, guys. I've been away this w/e so I've not been able to contribute before now.
The summons that arrived back in November 2006 had as attachments, according to the covering letter (headed "Section 20..."
: "1. Section 20 certificate
"2. Copy images of the offence
"3. Driver acknowledgement form (NIP/S172 form)."
Item 2 was a page with the 2 pictures as shown at the top of this thread. In an early discussion with the Partnership the lady there made clear that they normally only needed 2 pictures like this to obtain a prosecution, and my guess is it was/is the same thinking in my case too.
Item 3 was NOT actually a NIP/S172, but my "witness statement". I have never completed a NIP except to say "Please see the attached <witness statement>", and I am unaware that I have ever seen an "S172 form". However, I presume my witness statement will be construed to be equivalent to me having filled in the NIP to state I was the driver -- I actually said that I was in the second picture but couldn't tell in the first.
From this discussion, I think the view is that if the CPS take any pictures whatsoever from the video then the complete video becomes part of the case and they can't ultimately refuse to supply it. I guess the important thing here is whether the magistrate takes the same view.
jith said:
...The partnerships then do what they want with it, they have NEVER been given approval or even permission officially to use non police operatives, they just get away with it because we do not challenge and shout enough about it.
I still don't know whether using a civilian operator is legal or not. I can't see how a civilian is legally competent to offer an opinion on speed. If they are, then anyone who has been trained to use an LTI20/20 could create legally valid speeding prosecutions.
I realise of course that competence and legal competence are not the same thing, but the original intention was that police -- who are legally competent -- form the opinion and then the LTI corroborates that. I fail to see how a civilian could be legally competent, but I guess that as the mags, CPS and Police are all part of the same Partnership then it's not been highlighted as an issue....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff