One to watch...

[puggit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/nort

bbc said:

Police expert disputes speed fine A police video expert who has been given a ticket for driving too fast in Wrexham claims that speed guns are "inaccurate and unreliable". Lee Tracey, 80, is asking North Wales Police for a copy of the video evidence so that he can challenge the booking. Mr Tracey, a forensic imaging consultant from Oswestry, is hoping an organisation will take up the case. North Wales Police said they had "complete confidence" in their officers' ability to use the cameras. Although well past retirement age, Mr Tracey is still used as a consultant by West Midlands Police. The pensioner claims he was "just meandering" on a Saturday afternoon shopping trip to Wrexham when he was booked last month for allegedly travelling at 39 miles an hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. I have every confidence in their ability to record the speeds of moving vehicles Chief Supt Geraint Anwyl He has since been sent an official letter outlining the police offer of a £60 fine and three penalty points on his licence, but has refused to settle. "If I was over the limit, I'd put my hands up immediately, but I don't think I was," he said. But while challenging the reliability of hand-held laser guns, he said he had complete confidence in the accuracy of static speed cameras. "If you're caught by one of them, then you're done and you might as well accept it and pay up," he said. But, referring to hand-held guns, he added: "I could point one at a wall and make it show what speed that wall is doing," he said. "I could show it travelling at 40 miles and hour or even 100 miles an hour. Effective use "This is known to the engineering world, but the courts aren't interested because the purpose of these machines is to make to money, not to cut speeding." Mr Tracey says that most drivers do not bother to challenge the evidence because of the cost involved, but he would like a test case. "I'd like to take one of these hand-held cameras into court and show a judge, sitting on the bench, that he's doing 80 miles an hour." Mr Tracey said he had asked North Wales Police to provide video evidence to support the case against him, but they had replied that they were not obliged to do so. Chief Superintendent Geraint Anwyl, from the operational support division at North Wales Police, said officers were trained in the effective use of these devices. "I have every confidence in their ability to record the speeds of moving vehicles. "However, as this matter is currently awaiting court proceedings, it would be inappropriate to comment further."

[apache]

Surely he could ask for the court to see a practical demonstration?

[esselte]

..."Mr Tracey said he had asked North Wales Police to provide video evidence to support the case against him, but they had replied that they were not obliged to do so...."

I thought if you were going to court and pleading not guilty then you had to be able to see all the evidence against you?

[justinp1]

I took a similar case to the magistrates court, and then to appeal at crown court. I did this on the basis I was innocent, and guessed the failure is correctly assessing my speed was that the device was not used properly.

I checked this against the ACPO Code of Practice, and found that indeed I was right. In court it was found that not only was ther at least five faults which should make the evidence inadmissable, the device should not even have been used at that site, as he had not carried out the appropriate checks.

This may have been for the reason that the PC had never even seen the ACPO Code of Practice, and was therefore not party to how to use the device to standard. Even the clerk of the court told the PC after the case that he *really should* be up to standard.

Spookily enough, this happened to me just outside Wrexham too...

I lost, mind you. Tells you something.


Co-incidence I think not.

Edited to add, with the witholding of evidence:

I asked the CPS in Wrexham on three occasions to furnish me with the operating manual, the certificate of calibration, and the certificate to show the operator was qualified. They failed to do all three.

When I got to court, before the case, in the presence of the clerk to witness it, I was shown the calibration certificate of the wrong device, then was told I could not see the operating manual as they didnt have one, and there was not a manual at the police station across the road. Incidentally, this was the same police station that the operators are taking the devices from...

If I knew more, or had a solicitor with me, perhaps they could have made more of this in court.

Take them all the way!

>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 3rd November 14:41