LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me
Discussion
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 you are completely wrong in this case, and all cases detected by 20/20 Speedscope or similar device operated by a civilian.
The civilian has no training whatever in law, no training in police or enforcement techniques, no training in advanced driving or any other traffic matters.
He/she is trained how to point the scope at oncoming vehicles and pull the trigger.
It really is that disgracefully simple.
Where is the corroborative evidence specifically in these cases?
It does not exist.
The ONLY evidence is the video, and of course the track record of the flawed operation of this device determines that the only real test of the quality of the evidence, i.e. the accuracy of the readings, MUST be the whole video, and nothing but the video!
All of the above is wholly applicable to Peter's case.
tigger1 said:
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.
No, no tigger; you have to be very careful here.
It is NOT the system that has type approval, it is merely the device that has been given approval in what have got to be biased, prejudiced and flawed tests.
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.
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....
havoc said:
Of course it stinks, but what that's come out of this Labour gov't hasn't?!?
Well, we have made the Iraqis safe from the harm of an evil dictator, and captured their weapons of mass destruction.....
Oh...
Anyway, I think we should leave this thread on-topic as much as possible...
Peter Ward said:
I fail to see how a civilian could be legally competent...
[Devil's advocate]
I'd argue that a retired PC with 30 years' service, 25 on traffic, who now works as a civilian camera technician, is "more" competent than a PC on day one of his or her Police service. What the actual statutory position would be, I don't know.
I've not seen anything yet that says a civilian can't operate speed detection devices in law (and I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying I'm unaware of it; the usual caveat that I'm happy to be proved wrong still applies).
[/Devil's advocate]
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff