LTI 20-20 UltraLyte 100 Calibration checks
Discussion
Hello,
Although still a "lurker", I last posted here about 2 years ago and was given some valuable information and I am hopeful that the forum members can assist again.
In March I was stopped at 10.50pm on a Sunday night, by Kent Trafpol who were using the above speed gun. I was allegedly measured doing 40mph, in a 30mph street ( a very busy "A road" but NOT at that time on a Sunday night). Not relevant but I was travelling home from work and was about 1/4mile from my home address. I know the road is a 30mph and I am adamant that I was not speeding. The matter is now going to court in September. There does appear to be a lot of conflicting evidence on the various internet forums so I`d like to ask
1. What calibration checks must the officer/s complete on the said device at the start/end of their shift? Should these checks be recorded in their notebooks?
2. In his statement, the officer states that he completed the horizontal and vertical site checks using the speed camera on a petrol sign. The garage in question would be about 300 meters from where the officer was, and it would have meant him pointing the camera in the air as the signage is about 30` to 40` up in the air. Would that give an accurate reading?
3. I wasn`t given a FPN but a "Driver Referral" slip, which was generated by a machine one of the officers had and it looks like a long till reciept which contains a number of details (similar to a FPN). Contrary to the officers statement, I was not shown the reading from the speed laser and I was never cautioned. I was just told I was doing 40mph. The whole of the "driver referral" slip has been completed in full but the part marked "recorded Speed MPH)-", has not been completed.
4. Is speeding an absolute offence? Is there a said distance that they should have had the speed gun on me i.e I was travelling at 40mph over 200meters.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Although still a "lurker", I last posted here about 2 years ago and was given some valuable information and I am hopeful that the forum members can assist again.
In March I was stopped at 10.50pm on a Sunday night, by Kent Trafpol who were using the above speed gun. I was allegedly measured doing 40mph, in a 30mph street ( a very busy "A road" but NOT at that time on a Sunday night). Not relevant but I was travelling home from work and was about 1/4mile from my home address. I know the road is a 30mph and I am adamant that I was not speeding. The matter is now going to court in September. There does appear to be a lot of conflicting evidence on the various internet forums so I`d like to ask
1. What calibration checks must the officer/s complete on the said device at the start/end of their shift? Should these checks be recorded in their notebooks?
2. In his statement, the officer states that he completed the horizontal and vertical site checks using the speed camera on a petrol sign. The garage in question would be about 300 meters from where the officer was, and it would have meant him pointing the camera in the air as the signage is about 30` to 40` up in the air. Would that give an accurate reading?
3. I wasn`t given a FPN but a "Driver Referral" slip, which was generated by a machine one of the officers had and it looks like a long till reciept which contains a number of details (similar to a FPN). Contrary to the officers statement, I was not shown the reading from the speed laser and I was never cautioned. I was just told I was doing 40mph. The whole of the "driver referral" slip has been completed in full but the part marked "recorded Speed MPH)-", has not been completed.
4. Is speeding an absolute offence? Is there a said distance that they should have had the speed gun on me i.e I was travelling at 40mph over 200meters.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Thank you all for your answers.
I know some will think it madness but I am pleading not guilty. There are a number of reasons for this. Essentially it will boil down to the officers "word" against mine, as there will be no physical evidence (photos, video evidence), except whatever was written down in their notebooks at the time.
I wasn`t shown the reading on the device, I was never "cautioned" or told I would be reported and I was never informed what speed I was actually driving at. As proof of this, I have the Driver Referral slip which I was given and the Officer completing it has forgotten to fill in what recorded speed I was allegedly caught at.This offence is all about the accuracy of the officers, and there are other parts of their statements (which I have) which are far from accurate and which I can prove without a doubt.
If anyone else can give me further help or assistance I`ll be grateful.
Thanks again.
I know some will think it madness but I am pleading not guilty. There are a number of reasons for this. Essentially it will boil down to the officers "word" against mine, as there will be no physical evidence (photos, video evidence), except whatever was written down in their notebooks at the time.
I wasn`t shown the reading on the device, I was never "cautioned" or told I would be reported and I was never informed what speed I was actually driving at. As proof of this, I have the Driver Referral slip which I was given and the Officer completing it has forgotten to fill in what recorded speed I was allegedly caught at.This offence is all about the accuracy of the officers, and there are other parts of their statements (which I have) which are far from accurate and which I can prove without a doubt.
If anyone else can give me further help or assistance I`ll be grateful.
Thanks again.
Davo93 said:
3. I wasn`t given a FPN but a "Driver Referral" slip, which was generated by a machine one of the officers had and it looks like a long till reciept which contains a number of details (similar to a FPN). Contrary to the officers statement, I was not shown the reading from the speed laser and I was never cautioned. I was just told I was doing 40mph. The whole of the "driver referral" slip has been completed in full but the part marked "recorded Speed MPH)-", has not been completed.
You don't have to be shown the reading but most officers do show it. The referral slip not having a speed marked on it is going to cause an issue in the office it is referred to because that is what they will use to decide on the disposal of the matter. I would think the speed is marked on the form sent to the office. Who is it going to cause an issue for? Me or the CPS? Surely it should have been filled in on the form?
agtlaw said:
Davo93 said:
Thank you all for your answers.
I know some will think it madness but I am pleading not guilty. There are a number of reasons for this....
I'd estimate your chance of success, being generous, at about 10%. You're aware of the cost consequences of a trial?I know some will think it madness but I am pleading not guilty. There are a number of reasons for this....
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?
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?
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.
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
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
HantsRat said:
Congrats!
Do let us know full details. Interested to know what the error was.
Very QuicklyDo let us know full details. Interested to know what the error was.
1. The speed not being written on the ticket
2. No offence, but two absolutely useless Police Officers who clearly had little court experience, ably assisted by an equally useless CPS rep.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff