Caught by Laser Gun, is there any hope?
Discussion
There are various possibilities to consider here.
The first is that, even though it's only considered by many as a 'minor' offence (compared to, say, murder!), the CPS still has to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" to a court in order to find you guilty. Hence your target is to introduce any "reasonable doubt", and it will be impossible to find you guilty.
If you genuinely believe there is an error in the reading (irrespective of whether you were exceeding the limit or not), you should try and find out why this error occurred. That, then, will become your element of reasonable doubt - i.e. if it can be wrong even a little bit, then it's entirely feasible that it can be wrong a lot...
For instance, using www.speed-trap.co.uk, I discovered the beam width of the laser gun is at least 3 feet wide at 100ft distance (ignore films that show a tiny red dot a mile away!). That's almost half a car's width, so can easily "include" information from things around you, especially other cars in the next lane. The evidence photo will say how far away the picture was taken - on a motorway, you can bet it was probably a fair distance.
I once averted a prosecution because the photograph included another car tailgating me. I argued, using the above data, that it was impossible to prove it was my car that triggered the reading, and the CPS dropped the case. Be warned though, they only did this five minutes before the second court hearing, so you have to be prepared to play a lot of brinksmanship...
Study www.speed-trap.co.uk extensively and don't be afraid of challenging the prosecution if you believe there's even the slightest chance of success - a surprising number of cases that go to court never make it, especially as the magistrates tend to only convict if there's a really strong case against you (they are getting a bit fed up with how many cases they hear are for minor speeding offences!).
As long as you can construct a clear, logical, well researched and simple-to-understand argument, I reckon you won't need a lawyer.
The first is that, even though it's only considered by many as a 'minor' offence (compared to, say, murder!), the CPS still has to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" to a court in order to find you guilty. Hence your target is to introduce any "reasonable doubt", and it will be impossible to find you guilty.
If you genuinely believe there is an error in the reading (irrespective of whether you were exceeding the limit or not), you should try and find out why this error occurred. That, then, will become your element of reasonable doubt - i.e. if it can be wrong even a little bit, then it's entirely feasible that it can be wrong a lot...
For instance, using www.speed-trap.co.uk, I discovered the beam width of the laser gun is at least 3 feet wide at 100ft distance (ignore films that show a tiny red dot a mile away!). That's almost half a car's width, so can easily "include" information from things around you, especially other cars in the next lane. The evidence photo will say how far away the picture was taken - on a motorway, you can bet it was probably a fair distance.
I once averted a prosecution because the photograph included another car tailgating me. I argued, using the above data, that it was impossible to prove it was my car that triggered the reading, and the CPS dropped the case. Be warned though, they only did this five minutes before the second court hearing, so you have to be prepared to play a lot of brinksmanship...
Study www.speed-trap.co.uk extensively and don't be afraid of challenging the prosecution if you believe there's even the slightest chance of success - a surprising number of cases that go to court never make it, especially as the magistrates tend to only convict if there's a really strong case against you (they are getting a bit fed up with how many cases they hear are for minor speeding offences!).
As long as you can construct a clear, logical, well researched and simple-to-understand argument, I reckon you won't need a lawyer.
Hallmark said:
For instance, using www.speed-trap.co.uk, I discovered the beam width of the laser gun is at least 3 feet wide at 100ft distance (ignore films that show a tiny red dot a mile away!). That's almost half a car's width, so can easily "include" information from things around you, especially other cars in the next lane. The evidence photo will say how far away the picture was taken - on a motorway, you can bet it was probably a fair distance.
me from another thread said:
“The usual description of the laser beam is four feet in diameter at 1000 feet”
“In 1995, three German engineers at the university in Erlangen tested the LTI 20-20 and two European laser guns. They found that the LTI had three beams side by side instead of a single beam, which raises doubts about what spot on the car is actually being tracked.”
(this makes sense considering the laser diode may be a 3 layer stacked type)
That article can be read via the link below, it is a very interesting read indeed. It should be made compulsory reading for all PHers!
www.moederdegans.nl/de_bologna_slice_kwestie.htm
Hi!
Your case seem remarkably similar to mine. Through cross examination it was found that:
The PC made no record of any testing of the LTI20-20 that day. Could not even remember what colour my car was. Yet, without a tripod can successfully pick out my car from 400m away after assessing my speed from 600+ metres away.
Needless to say Robocop appears in court. NEITHER THE MAGISTRATES COURT OR CROWN COURT ACCECPT THE ACPO GUIDELINES AS ANYTHING MORE THAN GUIDELINES. So I am sorry to say, dont even bother. Despite what the forward from Brunstrom says about 'these guidelines need to be scrupulously adhered to to show the quality of evidence and the standards of the police force are in your (the officers) hands'
Sorry to be cynical however despite the clerk telling me that I had offered up the best self-defence in 20 years he had seen, still lost. Also after spending £800 of representation at corwn court, still lost.
I await whatever is shown on this program and would really appreciate someone posting here what is said as I live in the north and it could be important if I decide to appeal again!
Your case seem remarkably similar to mine. Through cross examination it was found that:
The PC made no record of any testing of the LTI20-20 that day. Could not even remember what colour my car was. Yet, without a tripod can successfully pick out my car from 400m away after assessing my speed from 600+ metres away.
Needless to say Robocop appears in court. NEITHER THE MAGISTRATES COURT OR CROWN COURT ACCECPT THE ACPO GUIDELINES AS ANYTHING MORE THAN GUIDELINES. So I am sorry to say, dont even bother. Despite what the forward from Brunstrom says about 'these guidelines need to be scrupulously adhered to to show the quality of evidence and the standards of the police force are in your (the officers) hands'
Sorry to be cynical however despite the clerk telling me that I had offered up the best self-defence in 20 years he had seen, still lost. Also after spending £800 of representation at corwn court, still lost.
I await whatever is shown on this program and would really appreciate someone posting here what is said as I live in the north and it could be important if I decide to appeal again!
:quote: don't be afraid of challenging the prosecution if you believe there's even the slightest chance of success - a surprising number of cases that go to court never make it, especially as the magistrates tend to only convict if there's a really strong case against you (they are getting a bit fed up with how many cases they hear are for minor speeding offences!).
:quote:
So its starting to work
at last 
just goes to show that the more people who challenge the scamerateri the more effective we all will be
to that
:quote:
So its starting to work
at last just goes to show that the more people who challenge the scamerateri the more effective we all will be
to thatantispeed said:
:quote: don't be afraid of challenging the prosecution if you believe there's even the slightest chance of success - a surprising number of cases that go to court never make it, especially as the magistrates tend to only convict if there's a really strong case against you (they are getting a bit fed up with how many cases they hear are for minor speeding offences!).
:quote:
So its starting to work
just goes to show that the more people who challenge the scamerateri the more effective we all will be
I would love to agree with that statement, however from a number of experiences in Magistrates and Crown court, this is not the way it goes. In fact one Judge in hearing the basis of my appeal at Crown court actually shook his head with disbelief when he found that my defense had the audacity to accuse that the Laser device might give a reading which is 22mph out.
This is before any of the evidence was heard whatsoever, but not the start to a trial with Judges with an open mind!!!
In fact Magistrates and Judges are bored and frustrated with similar cases. The bottom line is that as long as the PC is trained to use the device you wont win. The devices are type approved, as is the training. The police DO NOT need to adhere to any of the ACPO guidelines for the evidence to stand.
This has been the case with Magistrates and two sets of Judges at crown court. You will be easy pickings for them to increase the fine from £60 to £200 plus £200 costs.
There is a couple of options. To give yourself a chance, find Dr Mike Clark who is an expert witness. Or hire Nick Freeman who is an excelling motoring offences lawyer with an almost perfect record. However be prepared to fund the £4000 a day fee.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff