LTI 20/20, Police admit wrong reading, conviction overturned
Discussion
wn3 has already posted it with different thread title,
but in case of missing it, here it is again
Conviction overturned because "Lancashire Police admitted the officer failed to check the device before use"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/la
Police speed gun's wrong reading
Police officer with laser speed gun
Police say they are confident with the gun's reliability
A driver's speeding conviction has been overturned, after he disputed the findings of a hand-held speed gun.
Brian Wiltshire, 48, from Caton, Lancs, said he was travelling at less than 30mph, despite being recorded at 39mph.
Lancashire Police admitted the officer failed to check the device before use.
A Preston Crown Court judge overturned the conviction after hearing evidence that laser devices can give faulty readings if not aligned properly.
Judge Andrew Woolman said the ruling did not set a precedent.
He said he would give a full ruling on his decision at a later date.
Mr Wiltshire was driving home nearly a year ago when he was pulled to the side of the road by officers using an LTI 20/20 laser device.
Routine check
The designer clothes shop owner pleaded not guilty to the offence before magistrates, but was convicted in June.
He then took the case to Preston Crown Court.
Mr Wiltshire said he felt vindicated following the appeal ruling.
"Initially I thought I was being pulled over in a routine check but was shocked to learn I had supposedly broken the speed limit.
"Although the judge has not explained his ruling I believe it shows that such laser devices can be wildly inaccurate."
A spokesman for Lancashire Police said: "We remain confident with the use of the equipment and its reliability.
"In this instance the case was lost because an officer failed to carry out an administrative function."
but in case of missing it, here it is again
Conviction overturned because "Lancashire Police admitted the officer failed to check the device before use"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/la
BBC NEWS REPORT said:
Police speed gun's wrong reading
Police officer with laser speed gun
Police say they are confident with the gun's reliability
A driver's speeding conviction has been overturned, after he disputed the findings of a hand-held speed gun.
Brian Wiltshire, 48, from Caton, Lancs, said he was travelling at less than 30mph, despite being recorded at 39mph.
Lancashire Police admitted the officer failed to check the device before use.
A Preston Crown Court judge overturned the conviction after hearing evidence that laser devices can give faulty readings if not aligned properly.
Judge Andrew Woolman said the ruling did not set a precedent.
He said he would give a full ruling on his decision at a later date.
Mr Wiltshire was driving home nearly a year ago when he was pulled to the side of the road by officers using an LTI 20/20 laser device.
Routine check
The designer clothes shop owner pleaded not guilty to the offence before magistrates, but was convicted in June.
He then took the case to Preston Crown Court.
Mr Wiltshire said he felt vindicated following the appeal ruling.
"Initially I thought I was being pulled over in a routine check but was shocked to learn I had supposedly broken the speed limit.
"Although the judge has not explained his ruling I believe it shows that such laser devices can be wildly inaccurate."
A spokesman for Lancashire Police said: "We remain confident with the use of the equipment and its reliability.
"In this instance the case was lost because an officer failed to carry out an administrative function."
Interesting in both my case, and the Crown Court appeal the court heard that the checks were not completed too.
Still lost though...
It bloody well *should* set a precedent even though the judge says it shouldnt. It would save a lot of people wasting time at magistrates court. It should be as simple as if the operator cannot show that they tested the equipment before and after use *and* record the results - then it should be deemed untested and the evidence deemed fundamentally flawed.
In my case the officer admitted not testing the device after use at all, and only half the tests before use. He made no record of performing these tests even though he should and the only evidence he could put forward that on June 12th last year he could 'remember' performing them.
I am sure these cases come down the 'bias' involved with the magistrates/judges involved. If they decide that the defendant is guilty then the testing is seen as a mere 'loophole defence'. Yet if the court is actually interested in making the CPS prove the case then they find they cannot.
Still lost though...
It bloody well *should* set a precedent even though the judge says it shouldnt. It would save a lot of people wasting time at magistrates court. It should be as simple as if the operator cannot show that they tested the equipment before and after use *and* record the results - then it should be deemed untested and the evidence deemed fundamentally flawed.
In my case the officer admitted not testing the device after use at all, and only half the tests before use. He made no record of performing these tests even though he should and the only evidence he could put forward that on June 12th last year he could 'remember' performing them.
I am sure these cases come down the 'bias' involved with the magistrates/judges involved. If they decide that the defendant is guilty then the testing is seen as a mere 'loophole defence'. Yet if the court is actually interested in making the CPS prove the case then they find they cannot.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff