calibrated speedometers
Discussion
PB , thanks for the clarification .
The point I was wondering about is that Scotland normally requires testimony of two people who corroborate each other . I also understand that a mobile speed camera van can only take readings if the operator forms an opinion that a particular vehicle may be speeding , rather than to check every vehicle that comes along a road ?
My question is whether it is valid for a single person to form that opinion ( under Scots Law ) before carrying out the speed check , or ought there to be two operators present ?
I agree that a properly approved , calibrated and operated recording device should in itself generate acceptable evidence . Arising from that , I might also imagine that under Scots Law a second operator ought to be present to confirm that the equipment was operated correctly and evidence gathered in the correct manner ?
The point I was wondering about is that Scotland normally requires testimony of two people who corroborate each other . I also understand that a mobile speed camera van can only take readings if the operator forms an opinion that a particular vehicle may be speeding , rather than to check every vehicle that comes along a road ?
My question is whether it is valid for a single person to form that opinion ( under Scots Law ) before carrying out the speed check , or ought there to be two operators present ?
I agree that a properly approved , calibrated and operated recording device should in itself generate acceptable evidence . Arising from that , I might also imagine that under Scots Law a second operator ought to be present to confirm that the equipment was operated correctly and evidence gathered in the correct manner ?
Pontoneer said:
PB , thanks for the clarification .
The point I was wondering about is that Scotland normally requires testimony of two people who corroborate each other . I also understand that a mobile speed camera van can only take readings if the operator forms an opinion that a particular vehicle may be speeding , rather than to check every vehicle that comes along a road ?
My question is whether it is valid for a single person to form that opinion ( under Scots Law ) before carrying out the speed check , or ought there to be two operators present ?
I agree that a properly approved , calibrated and operated recording device should in itself generate acceptable evidence . Arising from that , I might also imagine that under Scots Law a second operator ought to be present to confirm that the equipment was operated correctly and evidence gathered in the correct manner ?
There is no second operator required as it only takes one operator to pull the trigger.The point I was wondering about is that Scotland normally requires testimony of two people who corroborate each other . I also understand that a mobile speed camera van can only take readings if the operator forms an opinion that a particular vehicle may be speeding , rather than to check every vehicle that comes along a road ?
My question is whether it is valid for a single person to form that opinion ( under Scots Law ) before carrying out the speed check , or ought there to be two operators present ?
I agree that a properly approved , calibrated and operated recording device should in itself generate acceptable evidence . Arising from that , I might also imagine that under Scots Law a second operator ought to be present to confirm that the equipment was operated correctly and evidence gathered in the correct manner ?
The operator can, if he so chooses, measure every vehicle that passes, he can form an opinion that the vehicle is slower than the limit as well as faster than that limit. The operator must be in agreement with the reading the instrument has made; that is sufficient opinion.
The way in which the operator made the certified record can be challenged in court but even when that is challenged the certified record remains in evidence unless the device can be shown to be defective or not of the type that has been approved.
The Act specifically mentions Scotland to allow the record to be admitted without the need for Scots corroboration rules otherwise why mention Scotland.
Pontoneer, unfortunately I need to make you aware of an individual who has intruded into this post and is most definitely not welcome. I make it a rule never to respond to this individual. The poster known as pitmansboots is actually Steve Callaghan, the ex boss of an infamous camera partnership. I will waste no more words on him but suggest you Google his name and pay particular attention to the court appearance where he claimed to be an "expert" witness.
To clarify:- This post is not about speed cameras, mobile or otherwise, but as the subject has arisen I will address it. I have no knowledge or experience of a traffic offence being prosecuted in Scotland without corroboration. Clearly the statute in the law that permits speed cameras to be used overrides this principle, and this is the only exception I am aware of. I still stand by what I stated earlier, and that is I have no idea why this statute was permitted in Scotland other than the fact it suited the government to introduce these devices for fiscal reasons.
There are numerous incidents of substantial discrepancies in procedure,i.e. operator error; absolutely no evidence on the video of the operator, I use that word deliberately because few of them now are even police officers, forming a prior opinion of speed, but simply targetting every vehicle; the blatant refusal of the prosecution, whether it be in Scotland or England, to supply unedited video evidence; the many and varied problems with the devices resulting in gross inaccuracies, etc, etc. The list of problems is endless, but that's the way it is.
The issues surrounding the calibrated speedometer is of course completely separate from, and is the whole point of, this thread.
Hope that is clear enough.
J
To clarify:- This post is not about speed cameras, mobile or otherwise, but as the subject has arisen I will address it. I have no knowledge or experience of a traffic offence being prosecuted in Scotland without corroboration. Clearly the statute in the law that permits speed cameras to be used overrides this principle, and this is the only exception I am aware of. I still stand by what I stated earlier, and that is I have no idea why this statute was permitted in Scotland other than the fact it suited the government to introduce these devices for fiscal reasons.
There are numerous incidents of substantial discrepancies in procedure,i.e. operator error; absolutely no evidence on the video of the operator, I use that word deliberately because few of them now are even police officers, forming a prior opinion of speed, but simply targetting every vehicle; the blatant refusal of the prosecution, whether it be in Scotland or England, to supply unedited video evidence; the many and varied problems with the devices resulting in gross inaccuracies, etc, etc. The list of problems is endless, but that's the way it is.
The issues surrounding the calibrated speedometer is of course completely separate from, and is the whole point of, this thread.
Hope that is clear enough.
J
you have no evidence of inaccuracies, you only have contrived denials.
misuse is unforgivable I agree but the method you are opposing is capable of producing very accurate measurements of speed.
when you have evidence of inaccuracy you would have a case for opposing the method otherwise you don't have credible case for preventing the use of speedometers, calibrated or otherwise.
misuse is unforgivable I agree but the method you are opposing is capable of producing very accurate measurements of speed.
when you have evidence of inaccuracy you would have a case for opposing the method otherwise you don't have credible case for preventing the use of speedometers, calibrated or otherwise.
Pontoneer said:
The point I was wondering about is that Scotland normally requires testimony of two people who corroborate each other
Pontoneer, you have misunderstood the principle of corroboration in Scots law. There is no requirement for two people to corroborate each other. What is needed is corroboration of the key facts from at least two independent sources. This could take the form of testimony from a second eye witness, but equally could be in the form of CCTV, forensics, circumstantial evidence etc. Cat
Jith said:
I have never come across a case in Scotland where there was prosecution of a traffic offence without corroboration. I don't think the Fiscal would go to court with that.
Cases do proceed on the evidence of a single witness in Scotland. There is legislation (eg s21 RTOA) which explicitly removes the requirement for corroboration in certain limited cases. Cat
jith said:
We have argued this point before and vonhosen has raised it. That is the comparison between an officer's spoken testimony in an assault case and that of a speeding case using a speedometer. In the case of an assault there is always material evidence to corroborate the very existence of the crime: a weapon, the victim's wounds, DNA from the victim on the accused, etc. In cases of assaults in busy places there are often many other witnesses, and in most cases the police did not actually witness the crime, they are there after the complaint is made. In the case of one officer and a speedo he has utterly nothing to show the court, absolutely not a thing.
THere is certainly NOT always material evidence in the case on an assault - nor are there always other witnesses.
As others have said, it comes down to whether the prosecution case is proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' - that is a stern test. Why add in extra hurdles of corroboration?
Ms Demeanor said:
I have experience of similar cases where officer's have chosen to rely on calibrated speedo's rather than use the more accurate speed detection devices fitted to their vehicles.
Where an officer choses to switch off more reliable and transparent methods of detection the first question in cross examination should be, "Why didn't you use the more sophisticated and transparent device fitted to your vehicle, why was it switched off?"
I don't know if this is relevant but it reminds me of the many instances where officer's have asked to see clients at there home addresses in order to take a statement in relation to criminal allegations. They claim to have an open mind, but from the moment they arrive it is apparent that they have made up their mind already and the client is in fact a suspect. By doing the interview at the accused's home address the officer avoids the obligation to provide free independant legal advice and many of the Police codes of practice. I suppose the relevance of this is the issue of transparency. Old style policing (avoiding using more sophisticated methods of detection) can sometimes lead to old style miscarriages of justice.
Surely in a modern society we should be using the safest and most reliable methods of investigation. Police officer's evidence should stand up to scrutiny. It's there job! If I give unreliable advice or a service lacking in transparency the SRA come down on me like a tonne of bricks.
We need to get away from presumption that there is no smoke without fire and accept that wherever possible the police should be obliged to use the most modern and reliable methods of investigation.
But, but, but, but.Where an officer choses to switch off more reliable and transparent methods of detection the first question in cross examination should be, "Why didn't you use the more sophisticated and transparent device fitted to your vehicle, why was it switched off?"
I don't know if this is relevant but it reminds me of the many instances where officer's have asked to see clients at there home addresses in order to take a statement in relation to criminal allegations. They claim to have an open mind, but from the moment they arrive it is apparent that they have made up their mind already and the client is in fact a suspect. By doing the interview at the accused's home address the officer avoids the obligation to provide free independant legal advice and many of the Police codes of practice. I suppose the relevance of this is the issue of transparency. Old style policing (avoiding using more sophisticated methods of detection) can sometimes lead to old style miscarriages of justice.
Surely in a modern society we should be using the safest and most reliable methods of investigation. Police officer's evidence should stand up to scrutiny. It's there job! If I give unreliable advice or a service lacking in transparency the SRA come down on me like a tonne of bricks.
We need to get away from presumption that there is no smoke without fire and accept that wherever possible the police should be obliged to use the most modern and reliable methods of investigation.
There is a massive logical fallacy in this post - not MSDem per se (hi there!) but in the whole 'because they didn't use the latest technology, the conviction is somehow unsafe.'
So they didn't use the latest technology. Jith asks "Why not? Surely that is proof of innocence." Logically, no, not at all.
Suppose the incident had played out identically, but with a car that didn't have the extra hi tech VASCAR etc etc. The evidence presented would be the same. The chances of conviction would also be the same. The police would have f
ked up their court appearances the same.This is not an AMerican procedural - UK/Scottish mags courts are simpler than that. Who cares about what the police didn't do - let's just hear about the evidence they *are* presenting and make a decision based on that.
The additional technology is a bit of a red herring in court. The court doesn't care that much about that - it is only really interested in the evidence presented. Does it prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? If the defendant is credible and contradicts the police, that can well introduce reasonable doubt. You are not deemed perfect and incapable of either mistakes or mendacity as a policeman - although there is a (quite accurate and pragmatic) assumption that you are truthful.
The reality is that a convincing lie from a copper and a shifty defendant can result in guilt being allocated incorrectly - but that's the way of the world, and there is little you can do to avoid it.
In this case, it was a very poor performance by the police. We don't know if the defendant was guilty or not - was he speeding at 100mph. Only he and the police know. The police asserted he was, but failed to do what they needed to do in order to have their testimony corroborated adequately. So he was acquitted. That's how the system work.
As before, the bar is high for a conviction - the bench must be 'certain'. And I have certainly seen cases where a defendant has said "That is simply not what happened" and it has introduced enough doubt, even when contradicted by more than one witness (in the case I'm thinking of, the witnesses were all associates), that they have been acquitted. Adding in more rules about different types of evidence - as VH so rightly says, testimony is evidence - will not help.
I fail to see why you believe the sky is about to fall in on the legal system.
RtdRacer said:
mark1970 said:
what if your vehicle is tracked and recorded by GPS? Would the magistrates take the word of an impartial computer over a Police officer?
Would it introduce reasonable doubt? Of course it would.the doubt is not always reasonable:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-1218232...
Devon driving instructor jailed for sat-nav speed fraud
Shaun Richards outside Plymouth Crown Court Richards feared a speeding conviction would stop him from becoming a driving instructor
A driving instructor who falsified sat-nav data to evade a speeding charge has been jailed for four months.
Shaun Richards, 49, of Exeter, Devon, was caught speeding on the A386 on 1 June 2009, Plymouth Crown Court heard.
He drove the same route in January 2010 at the correct speed and changed the date on the sat-nav data to 1 June, but forgot to change the time back to BST.
He admitted perverting the course of justice.
The court heard he had used software on his computer to doctor the data on his sat-nav system.
'Planned manipulation'
He had been accused of speeding at 54mph in a 40mph zone while driving between Exeter and Tavistock.
Pc Dave Williams, of Devon and Cornwall Police, said Richards had gone to "extreme lengths" to try to prove his innocence.
He added: "The big problem he had was that he forgot about the clock change [from BST to GMT] and there was an hour difference in the time."
During a police interview, when asked why he had not accepted the original speeding penalty, Richards said he had started training as a driving instructor and feared he would not be able to complete his course if he had a motoring conviction.
Sentencing Richards, Recorder Stephen Parish said it had been a very carefully planned manipulation.
"You deliberately manufactured data to show you weren't speeding," he said.
The judge said had Richards not admitted the charge, his sentence would have been longer.
Cat said:
Jith said:
I have never come across a case in Scotland where there was prosecution of a traffic offence without corroboration. I don't think the Fiscal would go to court with that.
Cases do proceed on the evidence of a single witness in Scotland. There is legislation (eg s21 RTOA) which explicitly removes the requirement for corroboration in certain limited cases. Cat
J
jith said:
Cat said:
Jith said:
I have never come across a case in Scotland where there was prosecution of a traffic offence without corroboration. I don't think the Fiscal would go to court with that.
Cases do proceed on the evidence of a single witness in Scotland. There is legislation (eg s21 RTOA) which explicitly removes the requirement for corroboration in certain limited cases. Cat
J
I have been personally involved in cases, and am aware of others, where the evidence of a single witness has been sufficient to convict in Scotland.
Cat
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff