LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me
Discussion
Globulator said:
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
Completely agreed.
I feel the point is that the CPS in these situations either deliberately reject supplying the full tape, or possibly some of their staff dont think about the situation laterally enough to realise that they have in fact used the full tape. This may be because in the first instance the SCP will only provide the defendant and the CPS two photos. If they introduce these photos as evidence - which happens in the 'van' tpye cases then by default they have opened up the original source of the photos to disclosure.
As you say, certainly anyone really cannot effectively fight their case without the full video.
The Crown will introduce how the operator is properly trained, uses the device to the Code of Practice, the device works correctly and so on and so forth, and without the full video you have nothing to argue against these points as you have no evidence to disprove this.
I think what myself and most people are disappointed in is that the CPS knows the score and defendants know the score and the CPS actions are no more than a charade funded by taxpayers money against another taxpayer who is just seeking justice in fighting a fair case.
Edited to add:
If there is any doubt that the video is the sticking point my LTI2020 case with no video evidence came to trial within a few weeks of first seeing the evidence against me. The CPS have now spent almost a full year messing around since Peter asked for the full unedited video!
Edited by justinp1 on Sunday 6th May 10:58
Playing devil's advocate for a second and looking at this from the CPS's point of view, if Peter wins this case (and I sincerely hope he does) and sets a precedent, will this not open the floodgates for many others to offer the same sort of defence, create a heck of a lot of extra work for the CPS and extra cost to the taxpayer, not to mention the fall in revenue from the evil, donkey raping scamera partnerships.
I'd imagine the prosecution team will be under a fair bit of pressure to secure a result, though I'm sure that fact won't have any bearing on the fair and impartial judicial process.
I'd imagine the prosecution team will be under a fair bit of pressure to secure a result, though I'm sure that fact won't have any bearing on the fair and impartial judicial process.
Globulator said:
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
I think the operator would just say that people typically slow down when they see the van, so although they appear to be speeding when first seen, by the time a speed reading is taken the drivers have dropped to near the limit. This couldn't apply if the van was hidden of course.
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.
DJFish said:
Playing devil's advocate for a second and looking at this from the CPS's point of view, if Peter wins this case (and I sincerely hope he does) and sets a precedent, will this not open the floodgates for many others to offer the same sort of defence, create a heck of a lot of extra work for the CPS and extra cost to the taxpayer, not to mention the fall in revenue from the evil, donkey raping scamera partnerships.
I'd imagine the prosecution team will be under a fair bit of pressure to secure a result, though I'm sure that fact won't have any bearing on the fair and impartial judicial process.
I'd imagine the prosecution team will be under a fair bit of pressure to secure a result, though I'm sure that fact won't have any bearing on the fair and impartial judicial process.
Precedents are only legally set at the higher courts.
Von or DvD may be able to chip in but I think it is only at the Divisional Court and above. This will mean that people can only rely on the 'Case Law' if they go to magistrates court and lose, appeal and go to Crown Court and lose, and then go to the higher court and win.
That is why of course in every case I have ever seen the CPS choose to not supply the tape at the very first stage, or if they do, admit defeat even before the ruling at magistrates court. No-one yet has been able to take a case far enough to actually make a precedent - as you quite rightly say that if there was a precedent set that maybe the judge decides that the full tape *must* be supplied at a certain stage, or the case failed as the operator is not follow the Code etc then this would seriously weaken the stranglehold over being able to really frustrate the legal system in order to win.
With regard to the disclosure of the tape, I haven't reread the whole thread.
What I think Von is trying to say is that it will not need to be disclosed if it does not form part of the actual prosecution case. I know Peter says a few posts above that he has received a couple of photos, but are these merely so that the driver can be identified? If so, it does not necessarily mean that the tape is being used evidentially.
The evidence may just be the operator and his/her witness statement, covering the use of the LTI 20-20. The video (and subsequent photos) could just be unused material.
As I say, I'm not sure what is and isn't being used to form part of the prosecution case.
Keep your chin up, Peter.
What I think Von is trying to say is that it will not need to be disclosed if it does not form part of the actual prosecution case. I know Peter says a few posts above that he has received a couple of photos, but are these merely so that the driver can be identified? If so, it does not necessarily mean that the tape is being used evidentially.
The evidence may just be the operator and his/her witness statement, covering the use of the LTI 20-20. The video (and subsequent photos) could just be unused material.
As I say, I'm not sure what is and isn't being used to form part of the prosecution case.
Keep your chin up, Peter.
cuneus said:
BUT (and this is a big one)
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
The laser provides the reading of speed & corroboration, the process just happens to be on video but it doesn't have to be to provide enough evidence.
Officers stand at the roadside doing exactly the same thing without it being on video & have no problem providing both primary & secondary evidence. Video is surplus to requirements.
vonhosen said:
cuneus said:
BUT (and this is a big one)
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
The laser provides the reading of speed & corroboration, the process just happens to be on video but it doesn't have to be to provide enough evidence.
Officers stand at the roadside doing exactly the same thing without it being on video & have no problem providing both primary & secondary evidence. Video is surplus to requirements.
Although the officer/operator would have to record the speed somewhere, so unless he has written the speed down in a log, the video becomes the log?
Isn't there an issue with the photographs originally being part of a tape and then changing medium in some way to then become a photograph? (Im thinking back to digital images not being admissable as evidence back in the 90s?) Surely if they have evidence "acrued" in some way then it should only be presented as evidence in that same way, anything else is open to tampering?
vonhosen said:
cuneus said:
BUT (and this is a big one)
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
The laser provides the reading of speed & corroboration, the process just happens to be on video but it doesn't have to be to provide enough evidence.
Officers stand at the roadside doing exactly the same thing without it being on video & have no problem providing both primary & secondary evidence. Video is surplus to requirements.
The laser is BOTH primary evidence and the corroboration? I'm a bit lost on that one.
The still images were produced from a video. Should there therefore not be an audit trail, and the opportunity for the defendent to "recreate" the reporduction of those images, in an effort to check they *are* what they are claimed to be (accurate reproductions)?
tigger1 said:
vonhosen said:
cuneus said:
BUT (and this is a big one)
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
The laser provides the reading of speed & corroboration, the process just happens to be on video but it doesn't have to be to provide enough evidence.
Officers stand at the roadside doing exactly the same thing without it being on video & have no problem providing both primary & secondary evidence. Video is surplus to requirements.
The laser is BOTH primary evidence and the corroboration? I'm a bit lost on that one.
The still images were produced from a video. Should there therefore not be an audit trail, and the opportunity for the defendent to "recreate" the reporduction of those images, in an effort to check they *are* what they are claimed to be (accurate reproductions)?
No, primary evidence of speeding is operator assessment.
Secondary (& corroboration to the primary) is the reading from laser.
The video isn't a requirement to prosecute for speeding, afterall it isn't on video when a Police officer does exactly that with a handheld laser at the roadside.
vonhosen said:
cuneus said:
So does each and every offence have a written record in a Safety camera van ?
I don't know what they do, I'm just saying that video evidence isn't a prerequisite for speeding prosecutions.
I think we are supposed to be dealing with one particular prosecution on this thread
cuneus said:
vonhosen said:
cuneus said:
So does each and every offence have a written record in a Safety camera van ?
I don't know what they do, I'm just saying that video evidence isn't a prerequisite for speeding prosecutions.
I think we are supposed to be dealing with one particular prosecution on this thread
I don't know what they did in this prosecution, do you ?
cuneus said:
BUT (and this is a big one)
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
I agree with the respondents.
The snag here is that the secondary evidence is via the video, which need not be the case.
The use of a log book or the thermal printer would be enough.
justinp1 said:
herewego said:
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.
Did you know the Lastec system is being replaced with a new model with an MPEG2 algorithm based DVD writer?
Concept Features:
Lightweight design
Easy to use menu system
Shortcut keys to certain menu functions
Manual video mark for additional point processing
High quality digital video recording
Provides a DVD with video clips of offences
Separate extended clip creation and generation
Small, low cost removable media
Easy to use touch screen system
vonhosen said:
tigger1 said:
vonhosen said:
cuneus said:
BUT (and this is a big one)
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
Primary evidence police forms an opinion of excess speed over limit
Secondary evidence is the video
No corroboration - case dismissed
The laser provides the reading of speed & corroboration, the process just happens to be on video but it doesn't have to be to provide enough evidence.
Officers stand at the roadside doing exactly the same thing without it being on video & have no problem providing both primary & secondary evidence. Video is surplus to requirements.
The laser is BOTH primary evidence and the corroboration? I'm a bit lost on that one.
The still images were produced from a video. Should there therefore not be an audit trail, and the opportunity for the defendent to "recreate" the reporduction of those images, in an effort to check they *are* what they are claimed to be (accurate reproductions)?
No, primary evidence of speeding is operator assessment.
Secondary (& corroboration to the primary) is the reading from laser.
The video isn't a requirement to prosecute for speeding, afterall it isn't on video when a Police officer does exactly that with a handheld laser at the roadside.
So we have a system that (for some reason unbeknown to me) has been type- spproved that allows a non-police officer to make a judgment on speed (something that full tape may show them to be very bad at), and then take a laser reading, which they need give no evidence of (via video)? And a positive reading would be in their (SCP's) interests....all it needs is for an operative to print out the pre-filled letter saying they saw the car driving, in their opinion quickly, lasered it and *bang* it was indeed speeding. Book him Danno?
Doesn't look at all like a fair and just system.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff