LTI 20-20 UltraLyte 100 Calibration checks
Discussion
HantsRat said:
Also to note. You don't have to be verbally cautioned for a speeding offence. Instead a NIP must be issued which was probably issued verbally. I would take a guess that the NIP and Caution are wrote on the ticket too. We do in Hampshire.
No 'now' caution when pointing the offence out any more then? before giving verbal NIP
Durzel said:
Your OP suggests you don't know how the device works, how it is calibrated or the significance thereof. Running a technical defence would likely prompt the CPS to haul in an expert at your expense to counter your arguments.
The fact you highlighted that you were pinged on a road which is "a very busy "A road" but NOT at that time on a Sunday night" would suggest that it is quite possible you drifted over the limit in such circumstances/attitude.
You appear to be trading on a matter of principal alone what is quite a simple offence for what is likely to be an expensive court visit with the same outcome. Under the normal run of things if you were absolutely sure of not breaking the limit, or the circumstances were such that the measured speed was mechanically impossible (e.g. cars being pinged at speeds faster than they're listed as being able to do - has happened) then I would've thought you'd have a shout.. but going into court not knowing how the device works or the process or significance of its calibration and daily checks - you're risking a lot I think.
I know exactly how the device works and have a copy of the instruction manual that comes with the said device. The fact you highlighted that you were pinged on a road which is "a very busy "A road" but NOT at that time on a Sunday night" would suggest that it is quite possible you drifted over the limit in such circumstances/attitude.
You appear to be trading on a matter of principal alone what is quite a simple offence for what is likely to be an expensive court visit with the same outcome. Under the normal run of things if you were absolutely sure of not breaking the limit, or the circumstances were such that the measured speed was mechanically impossible (e.g. cars being pinged at speeds faster than they're listed as being able to do - has happened) then I would've thought you'd have a shout.. but going into court not knowing how the device works or the process or significance of its calibration and daily checks - you're risking a lot I think.
Davo93 said:
A question re signage.
In the officers statement, he states that the 30mph limit is not regularly posted along the road but indicated at either far end of the change of limit and that the limit should "be taken" by the residential built up area and spacing of street lamps no more than 200 yards apart, as illustrated by the highway code.
Where I was caught, the limit goes from a 40mph to a 30mph. I have found this on the net
It is a general principle that, where there is a change of speed limit, there must be sufficient notice of the new limit so as to allow the motorist to reduce his or her speed and comply with that limit.
It appears that there may be valid grounds of appeal. In Coombes v DPP [2006] EWHC 3263
(Admin) Mr Justice Walker stated (at paragraph 27):
‘There is a requirement that at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the requisite signs could reasonably be expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for the motorist to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit.’
The signage must, therefore, be visible and of sufficient quality. If you were allegedly caught
speeding at a spot just after the speed limit has changed, you may have a successful defence if there was inadequate signage.
Surely the Officers reliance on the Highway Code is insufficient on its own?
So you start a thread on calibration of equipment because you weren't speeding, and now you're looking into technicalities because it's possible you were speeding? In the officers statement, he states that the 30mph limit is not regularly posted along the road but indicated at either far end of the change of limit and that the limit should "be taken" by the residential built up area and spacing of street lamps no more than 200 yards apart, as illustrated by the highway code.
Where I was caught, the limit goes from a 40mph to a 30mph. I have found this on the net
It is a general principle that, where there is a change of speed limit, there must be sufficient notice of the new limit so as to allow the motorist to reduce his or her speed and comply with that limit.
It appears that there may be valid grounds of appeal. In Coombes v DPP [2006] EWHC 3263
(Admin) Mr Justice Walker stated (at paragraph 27):
‘There is a requirement that at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the requisite signs could reasonably be expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for the motorist to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit.’
The signage must, therefore, be visible and of sufficient quality. If you were allegedly caught
speeding at a spot just after the speed limit has changed, you may have a successful defence if there was inadequate signage.
Surely the Officers reliance on the Highway Code is insufficient on its own?
HantsRat said:
You seem to be challenging purely based on an admin error of not writing down your speed on a piece of paper? I personally don't think you will be successful. Ultimately if the officer has the speed written down in his PNB and statement, I think this will be enough for a conviction.
As I have said previously, as this was a hand held device with no recording hardware attached to it, it ultimately boils down to the court siding with the officers evidence or my defence. It is their word against mine. Without any physical evidence (photos, video evidence), it is an offence which is based purely on the accuracy of the officers evidence. If that accuracy can be questioned and highlights a technicality which can find me not guilty, then I believe that it is right to challenge the evidence offered. I believe that there is a significant "reasonable doubt" in relation to the evidence offered by the officers.
Edited by Davo93 on Monday 17th August 13:08
Davo93 said:
HantsRat said:
You seem to be challenging purely based on an admin error of not writing down your speed on a piece of paper? I personally don't think you will be successful. Ultimately if the officer has the speed written down in his PNB and statement, I think this will be enough for a conviction.
As I have said previously, as this was a hand held device with no recording hardware attached to it, it ultimately boils down to the court siding with the officers evidence or my defence. It is their word against mine. Without any physical evidence (photos, video evidence), it is an offence which is based purely on the accuracy of the officers evidence. If that accuracy can be questioned and highlights a technicality which can find me not guilty, then I believe that it is right to challenge the evidence offered.
When I stop people for speeding, I don't print out a photo or issue them a video. If it goes to court, I simply just submit my statement detailing what happened and what the speed was. I have never lost a case yet despite a few trying to wiggle out of it.
The last one I had to go to court for tried to get out of it by saying I was stood next to a traffic light and that the electric current to the light could interfere with the laser beam! haha.
HantsRat said:
This is how it works up and down the country every single day. 99% of hand held laser guns do not store evidence when used by an officer at the roadside.
This case aside, with the increasing use of body mounted video cameras, the reducing cost of technology and data storage, it's possible that the next generation of devices will have this built in?Or would the cost of maintaining such a volume of evidence outweigh the benefits?
Vaud said:
HantsRat said:
This is how it works up and down the country every single day. 99% of hand held laser guns do not store evidence when used by an officer at the roadside.
This case aside, with the increasing use of body mounted video cameras, the reducing cost of technology and data storage, it's possible that the next generation of devices will have this built in?I don't know if any Police forces in the UK are using this, or if it's even approved for use in the UK as yet.
Puddenchucker said:
It already exists: www.teletrafficuk.com/products/speed-enforcements/...
I don't know if any Police forces in the UK are using this, or if it's even approved for use in the UK as yet.
It is approved. We have 3 on trial. At £6k a pop though I doubt you will see them in use for a good few years. Especially with the lack of government funding at the moment.I don't know if any Police forces in the UK are using this, or if it's even approved for use in the UK as yet.
Davo93 said:
I know exactly how the device works and have a copy of the instruction manual that comes with the said device.
Having the manual and understanding how it is used are two separate things really. Your questions in the OP suggest you don't know what the significance is of certain things - e.g. calibration checks ("calibration" is a misnomer in any event), or whether or not the "horizontal and vertical site checks" would result in an inaccurate readings.If you challenge the validity of the evidence, or the capabilities of the device, the CPS will wheel out expert(s) at some considerable expense to demonstrate how it works. It is conceivable that you could chance upon a defect in the evidence, but it'll be just that - chance, and it's a hell of a risk to take with such a routine speeding prosecution.
Obviously no one should accept guilt for something they are absolutely certain of being innocent of, but you've got a mountain to climb even on a good day. The device is type approved for use in speed enforcement, the officer will have been trained and his statement assumed to be truthful unless proven otherwise, etc. It can easily be a very expensive principled stance to take.
Again, thank you for the answers/opinions I have received.
There are serious issues with both officers statements i.e. whether ACPO guidelines have been followed. In the guidelines (which can be found on line) it clearly states
The type-approval process acknowledges the accuracy of the device together
with its self-checking systems. In that respect, it is vital that at the start and conclusion of a tour of duty, all laser devices are checked in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and will include alignment and distance checks. These checks will be recorded and noted as part of the evidence as to the integrity of the machine and the data so produced.
I don`t believe these checks were done. Now maybe on its own this is not enough but as I said, there are other issues which I don`t want to go into on here (I will at the end of the case, irrespective of the verdict).
Thanks again for all the help/opinions received.
There are serious issues with both officers statements i.e. whether ACPO guidelines have been followed. In the guidelines (which can be found on line) it clearly states
The type-approval process acknowledges the accuracy of the device together
with its self-checking systems. In that respect, it is vital that at the start and conclusion of a tour of duty, all laser devices are checked in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and will include alignment and distance checks. These checks will be recorded and noted as part of the evidence as to the integrity of the machine and the data so produced.
I don`t believe these checks were done. Now maybe on its own this is not enough but as I said, there are other issues which I don`t want to go into on here (I will at the end of the case, irrespective of the verdict).
Thanks again for all the help/opinions received.
Edited by Davo93 on Thursday 20th August 03:17
Davo93 said:
Again, thank you for the answers/opinions I have received.
There are serious issues with both officers statements i.e. whether ACPO guidelines have been followed. In the guidelines (which can be found on line that were withdrawn in 2008) it clearly states
The type-approval process acknowledges the accuracy of the device together
with its self-checking systems. In that respect, it is vital that at the start and conclusion of a tour of duty, all laser devices are checked in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and will include alignment and distance checks. These checks will be recorded and noted as part of the evidence as to the integrity of the machine and the data so produced.
I don`t believe these checks were done. Now maybe on its own this is not enough but as I said, there are other issues which I don`t want to go into on here (I will at the end of the case, irrespective of the verdict).
Thanks again for all the help/opinions received.
...however, in the current guidance it says nothing of the sort. Oh how the Internet can mislead.There are serious issues with both officers statements i.e. whether ACPO guidelines have been followed. In the guidelines (
The type-approval process acknowledges the accuracy of the device together
with its self-checking systems. In that respect, it is vital that at the start and conclusion of a tour of duty, all laser devices are checked in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and will include alignment and distance checks. These checks will be recorded and noted as part of the evidence as to the integrity of the machine and the data so produced.
I don`t believe these checks were done. Now maybe on its own this is not enough but as I said, there are other issues which I don`t want to go into on here (I will at the end of the case, irrespective of the verdict).
Thanks again for all the help/opinions received.
AA999 said:
Maybe worth a read:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-365563/The...
Nothing from the Daily Mail is ever worth a read. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-365563/The...
Davo93 said:
There are serious issues with both officers statements i.e. whether ACPO guidelines have been followed. In the guidelines (which can be found on line) it clearly states...
Thanks again for all the help/opinions received.
About 8 years ago I was in a similar position.Thanks again for all the help/opinions received.
At the mags court, when they went out to deliberate, the clerk came over to be hand outstretched to shake mine and congratulated me on the best self represented case he had seen in his 20 years there. He then turned to the police officer and said that whatever the outcome he needed to look at what he was doing again.
In my case, under cross-examination, the officer admitted:
1) Only one of the two plane checks were performed before the duty started.
2) No checks were performed at the end of duty.
3) Nothing was recorded about checks in his notebook.
4) No site checks were carried out.
5) That he did not know the ACPO Code of Practice existed - a document which stated that to ensure integrity of evidence all of the above needed to be completed.
It should be noted that since that time, the foreword of it has been changed to 'Guidance'.
Compare the strength of my case, and compare it to yours. I was found guilty at mags court.
I appealed to Crown Court, and was represented by a specialist solicitor and barrister.
The prosecution case, as weak as it was was based on the memory of the police officer. His final question in cross-examination was if he could remember what colour my car was. He could not. This would be bad enough, except my car was a bright yellow TVR.
Despite all that, I was found guilty again.
Also note that things in terms of how the officers are prepped and the CPS briefs are aware of the issues have got a lot better.
From this, I hope you could perhaps reassess your chances here and whether you should save yourself a few hundred quid.
JustinP1 said:
About 8 years ago I was in a similar position.
At the mags court, when they went out to deliberate, the clerk came over to be hand outstretched to shake mine and congratulated me on the best self represented case he had seen in his 20 years there. He then turned to the police officer and said that whatever the outcome he needed to look at what he was doing again.
In my case, under cross-examination, the officer admitted:
1) Only one of the two plane checks were performed before the duty started.
2) No checks were performed at the end of duty.
3) Nothing was recorded about checks in his notebook.
4) No site checks were carried out.
5) That he did not know the ACPO Code of Practice existed - a document which stated that to ensure integrity of evidence all of the above needed to be completed.
It should be noted that since that time, the foreword of it has been changed to 'Guidance'.
Compare the strength of my case, and compare it to yours. I was found guilty at mags court.
I appealed to Crown Court, and was represented by a specialist solicitor and barrister.
The prosecution case, as weak as it was was based on the memory of the police officer. His final question in cross-examination was if he could remember what colour my car was. He could not. This would be bad enough, except my car was a bright yellow TVR.
Despite all that, I was found guilty again.
Also note that things in terms of how the officers are prepped and the CPS briefs are aware of the issues have got a lot better.
From this, I hope you could perhaps reassess your chances here and whether you should save yourself a few hundred quid.
If that is all genuinely trueAt the mags court, when they went out to deliberate, the clerk came over to be hand outstretched to shake mine and congratulated me on the best self represented case he had seen in his 20 years there. He then turned to the police officer and said that whatever the outcome he needed to look at what he was doing again.
In my case, under cross-examination, the officer admitted:
1) Only one of the two plane checks were performed before the duty started.
2) No checks were performed at the end of duty.
3) Nothing was recorded about checks in his notebook.
4) No site checks were carried out.
5) That he did not know the ACPO Code of Practice existed - a document which stated that to ensure integrity of evidence all of the above needed to be completed.
It should be noted that since that time, the foreword of it has been changed to 'Guidance'.
Compare the strength of my case, and compare it to yours. I was found guilty at mags court.
I appealed to Crown Court, and was represented by a specialist solicitor and barrister.
The prosecution case, as weak as it was was based on the memory of the police officer. His final question in cross-examination was if he could remember what colour my car was. He could not. This would be bad enough, except my car was a bright yellow TVR.
Despite all that, I was found guilty again.
Also note that things in terms of how the officers are prepped and the CPS briefs are aware of the issues have got a lot better.
From this, I hope you could perhaps reassess your chances here and whether you should save yourself a few hundred quid.
what is the f
king point in having courts at all Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff