Another Q for the Bib!

[jezzaaa]

Chaps,

Sorry to keep asking stupid questions!

I had a chat with a friend of mine (who is a DC) who in turn had a word with a mate of his who is a very experienced traffic WPC. She said that she thought two constables could corroborate each other without the need for corroboration with any sort of speed measuring device....provided the officers in question could be described as 'expert witnesses' in court. Otherwise, they would have to rely on some other device (e.g. a calibrated speedometer etc). She added that, since I had the registration mark of the police car concerned, I should check to see if that vehicle has a calibrated speedo fitted. She seemed to suggest that only certain police cars have a calibrated speedo fitted.

We are now in the realms of finding out how much training and experience the officers in question have regarding speed enforcement. This particular friendly Traffic WPC went on to say that it is likely that only a trained member of the traffic police would be regarded as an expert witness.

Would any of our resident BiB care to comment on this?

Cheers,
J.

[vonhosen]

jezzaaa said:

Chaps,

Sorry to keep asking stupid questions!

I had a chat with a friend of mine (who is a DC) who in turn had a word with a mate of his who is a very experienced traffic WPC. She said that she thought two constables could corroborate each other without the need for corroboration with any sort of speed measuring device....provided the officers in question could be described as 'expert witnesses' in court.

A Police officer can give expert opinion of speed. They don't have to be a traffic officer. Where two Police officers form an opinion, indpendently at the same time, that a vehicles speed is in excess of the limit, that is sufficient evidence without cooroboration from any measurement device.
(Bright v Pearson 1938 & Swain v Gillette 1974 apply)

jezzaaa said:

Otherwise, they would have to rely on some other device (e.g. a calibrated speedometer etc). She added that, since I had the registration mark of the police car concerned, I should check to see if that vehicle has a calibrated speedo fitted. She seemed to suggest that only certain police cars have a calibrated speedo fitted.

We are now in the realms of finding out how much training and experience the officers in question have regarding speed enforcement. This particular friendly Traffic WPC went on to say that it is likely that only a trained member of the traffic police would be regarded as an expert witness.

Would any of our resident BiB care to comment on this?

Cheers,
J.

It doesn't have to be a calibrated speedo, if the margin over the limit is not small.
(Nicholas v Penny 1950 applies)

It is however good practice to confirm the accuracy of the speedo where using a reading from it as evidence. The Police vehicle wouldn't have to have a calibrated speedo & where it hasn't the speedo could just be checked to provide evidence of it's accuracy.

[justinp1]

vonhosen said:

jezzaaa said:

Chaps,

Sorry to keep asking stupid questions!

I had a chat with a friend of mine (who is a DC) who in turn had a word with a mate of his who is a very experienced traffic WPC. She said that she thought two constables could corroborate each other without the need for corroboration with any sort of speed measuring device....provided the officers in question could be described as 'expert witnesses' in court.

A Police officer can give expert opinion of speed. They don't have to be a traffic officer. Where two Police officers form an opinion, indpendently at the same time, that a vehicles speed is in excess of the limit, that is sufficient evidence without cooroboration from any measurement device.
(Bright v Pearson 1938 & Swain v Gillette 1974 apply)

jezzaaa said:

Otherwise, they would have to rely on some other device (e.g. a calibrated speedometer etc). She added that, since I had the registration mark of the police car concerned, I should check to see if that vehicle has a calibrated speedo fitted. She seemed to suggest that only certain police cars have a calibrated speedo fitted.

We are now in the realms of finding out how much training and experience the officers in question have regarding speed enforcement. This particular friendly Traffic WPC went on to say that it is likely that only a trained member of the traffic police would be regarded as an expert witness.

Would any of our resident BiB care to comment on this?

Cheers,
J.

It doesn't have to be a calibrated speedo, if the margin over the limit is not small.
(Nicholas v Penny 1950 applies)

It is however good practice to confirm the accuracy of the speedo where using a reading from it as evidence. The Police vehicle wouldn't have to have a calibrated speedo & where it hasn't the speedo could just be checked to provide evidence of it's accuracy.

I believe Von's technical argument on the basis of case law is correct.

However, in practice this may have a very different outcome in the courtroom.

I do believe that in this situation that the definition of the 'expert' witness is paramount. I do know that it is the commonplace opinion in court that police evidence is 'expert' evidence however, this can also be cross-examined.

For example, I do not believe that the WPC in this case was any better at being an expert witness as to a vehicles speed on her first day any more than she was on the day before she became a police officer.

A definition of an expert witness I have just found is:

expert witness - a witness who has knowledge not normally possessed by the average person concerning the topic that he is to testify about

It would be interesting to find out what this knowledge the WPC has apart from a freely expressed bias against people in 'flash cars'!

It could be argued that in this case, if the WPC has been traffic trained then she would indeed be truly an 'expert witness', however her assessment of someones speed in this case is just as good as Joe Bloggs. Except Joe Bloggs has not made it clear that they have something to prove against people they think are 'taking the p1ss' in 'flash cars'!

[jezzaaa]

Ok guys, thanks!

VH - as always, you're not telling me what I want to hear!! But thanks for your candour! ;-)

While I completely believe/accept what you're saying Von, it does highlight the bias with which the public can be treated in a Mags court, if the officers concerned are less than honourable or have an axe to grind. Basically the bench believes whatever the officers say, thus removing any burden of real proof from the prosecution. And it takes some nerve for the accused to gainsay them. In this case, I think the WPC concerned just had a log up her arse about my daring to overtake her police car, regardless of the fact that I did so without breaking the limits because, to start with, she was driving slightly under the limit according to my speedo.

Anyway, thanks again.

Cheers,

J.

Edited by jezzaaa on Saturday 23 September 11:00

[vonhosen]

jezzaaa said:

Ok guys, thanks!

VH - as always, you're not telling me what I want to hear!! But thanks for your candour! ;-)

While I completely believe/accept what you're saying Von, it does highlight the bias with which the public can be treated in a Mags court, if the officers concerned are less than honourable or have an axe to grind. Basically the bench believes whatever the officers say, thus removing any burden of real proof from the prosecution. And it takes some nerve for the accused to gainsay them. In this case, I think the WPC concerned just had a log up her arse about my daring to overtake her police car, regardless of the fact that I did so without breaking the limits because, to start with, she was driving slightly under the limit according to my speedo.

Anyway, thanks again.

Cheers,

J.

We have to have a honest honourable Police service that we can rely on. Integrity is non negotiable. The Police work hard to root out dishonest officers. They damage the service.

Of course the public aren't absolved from any requirement to be honest.
Did you exceed the limit at all where it is alleged you did ?

[Chrispy Porker]

I have given evidence that convicted a speeder, who was driving past me and a colleague when we were on foot patrol. The opinion of 2 of us was sufficient to convict.This has been the case for many years.

[vonhosen]

Chrispy Porker said:

I have given evidence that convicted a speeder, who was driving past me and a colleague when we were on foot patrol. The opinion of 2 of us was sufficient to convict.This has been the case for many years.

[stubby pete]

I was always under the impression that the expert witness precedent set by Bright v Pearson was only when the "expert witnesses" were stationary (or at pedestrian pace). The speed observed from such a position is such that the relative difference could be taken as to the actual speed of the vehicle. However, if in a car travelling at around 50mph, it is not possible to identify both your actual speed and the relative difference of a car overtaking you without knowing your speed (by speedo).

[blueyes]

Chrispy Porker said:

I have given evidence that convicted a speeder, who was driving past me and a colleague when we were on foot patrol. The opinion of 2 of us was sufficient to convict.This has been the case for many years.

Amazing why they bother to spend all that money on Laser guns then.

Just hide two plod in a hedge and let them start writing down numbers.


Guilty until proven innocent.

[justinp1]

blueyes said:

Chrispy Porker said:

I have given evidence that convicted a speeder, who was driving past me and a colleague when we were on foot patrol. The opinion of 2 of us was sufficient to convict.This has been the case for many years.

Amazing why they bother to spend all that money on Laser guns then.

Just hide two plod in a hedge and let them start writing down numbers.


Guilty until proven innocent.

Exactly.

However just because two police officers can give 'an opinion' it does not mean it is right!

Thus there is the use of the laser equipment, otherwise every case could and would be taken to court and cross examined. Whilst I have no doubt that it is possible to tell on foot if someone is doing 45 or 50 in a 30, I defy that fact that two people on foot could *for evidential purposes* could convict someone for doing 77 in a 70.

I do not doubt the ability for someone to make an opinion of speed, but in the right circumstances *with* the caveat of a margin of error clearly expressed.

[vonhosen]

justinp1 said:

blueyes said:

Chrispy Porker said:

I have given evidence that convicted a speeder, who was driving past me and a colleague when we were on foot patrol. The opinion of 2 of us was sufficient to convict.This has been the case for many years.

Amazing why they bother to spend all that money on Laser guns then.

Just hide two plod in a hedge and let them start writing down numbers.


Guilty until proven innocent.

Exactly.

However just because two police officers can give 'an opinion' it does not mean it is right!

Thus there is the use of the laser equipment, otherwise every case could and would be taken to court and cross examined. Whilst I have no doubt that it is possible to tell on foot if someone is doing 45 or 50 in a 30, I defy that fact that two people on foot could *for evidential purposes* could convict someone for doing 77 in a 70.

I do not doubt the ability for someone to make an opinion of speed, but in the right circumstances *with* the caveat of a margin of error clearly expressed.

You are innocent until proven guilty. It's just that a court may well (they have in the past as the stated cases quoted upheld) that the opinion of two officers (don't have to be trafpol) is sufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you were exceeding the limit.
You weren't guilty until that evidence was given, accepted by the court & they convicted in the absence of enough evidence capable of refuting the opinions expressed.

Clearly opinion like this isn't used for tight margins over the limit.

It's using of calibrated measurement devices that allow for tighter margins being prosecuted.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 23 September 16:40

[blueyes]

vonhosen said:

It's using of calibrated measurement devices that allow for tighter margins being prosecuted.

"It's the misuse of calibrated measurement devices that allow many innocent motorists to be prosecuted."

[vonhosen]

blueyes said:

vonhosen said:

It's using of calibrated measurement devices that allow for tighter margins being prosecuted.

"It's the misuse of calibrated measurement devices that allow many innocent motorists to be prosecuted."

Where's the evidence of that ?

[deva link]

I got done by ONE policeman in traffic car with a calibrated speedo. He claimed to have followed me at well over 70MPH in a 50MPH (he hadn't, I'd seen him coming down a slip road and slowed straightaway) but he would let me off with only a fixed penalty. Clearly he'd simply seen me at in excess of the speed limit, and had just made up the speed to secure the brownie points.

[blueyes]

vonhosen said:

blueyes said:

vonhosen said:

It's using of calibrated measurement devices that allow for tighter margins being prosecuted.

"It's the misuse of calibrated measurement devices that allow many innocent motorists to be prosecuted."

Where's the evidence of that ?

Funny thing, a lot of people say that when pinged by your laser vans but try and get the full video of your alleged offence and the case will be dropped. Yet to hear of one person that has received the full tape.

Last time I checked on

www.pepipoo.com

it was the case. Might have changed recently.

BUT

Here's "the evidence" I can back up with all of the documents:

From personal experience. Local SCP sent an NIP. I requested photos. The only one's they could provide had TIMEOUT stamped across the bottom. I told them what to do with their NIP. They obliged. Had I not requested the photos it would have resulted in:

"an innocent motorist prosecuted due to the misuse of a calibrated measurement device"


QED

[justinp1]

blueyes said:

vonhosen said:

blueyes said:

vonhosen said:

It's using of calibrated measurement devices that allow for tighter margins being prosecuted.

"It's the misuse of calibrated measurement devices that allow many innocent motorists to be prosecuted."

Where's the evidence of that ?

Funny thing, a lot of people say that when pinged by your laser vans but try and get the full video of your alleged offence and the case will be dropped. Yet to hear of one person that has received the full tape.

Last time I checked on

www.pepipoo.com

it was the case. Might have changed recently.

BUT

Here's "the evidence" I can back up with all of the documents:

From personal experience. Local SCP sent an NIP. I requested photos. The only one's they could provide had TIMEOUT stamped across the bottom. I told them what to do with their NIP. They obliged. Had I not requested the photos it would have resulted in:

"an innocent motorist prosecuted due to the misuse of a calibrated measurement device"


QED

That is not an isolated incident by any stretch of the imagination. There is also the factor that only a small percentage that think of ever questioning the accuracy of the evidence against them, because they dont even know they can. From that small percentage the huge majority get bullied away from following up the case as they are then told in a letter, or in some cases over the phone that they will not win their case and that if they do not accept the penalty they will be subject to further costs. From the even smaller percentage that ignore the bullying more just cant be bothered, and from the tiny percentage that is left they get to court.

In court, despite undenied evidence that the device has not been tested or used properly the tactic is for the CPS to tell the court that the ACPO Code of Practice is in fact 'Only Guidelines'. Thus many cases are hoodwinked even at that stage.

For the now extremely small percentage of these cases with people who can afford professional representation and an expert witness, 80% of the time the case gets dropped.

Thus the amount of cases where people are *proven* not guilty are incredibly tiny. However, if you consider the HUGE majority of innocent drivers who were lost along the wayside who never got to that stage this real amount of innocent drivers is more of a true reflection of reality.

And yes, that is personal experience too!

[jezzaaa]

[/quote]

We have to have a honest honourable Police service that we can rely on. Integrity is non negotiable. The Police work hard to root out dishonest officers. They damage the service.

Of course the public aren't absolved from any requirement to be honest.
Did you exceed the limit at all where it is alleged you did ?

[/quote]

In the event I may have done so unconsciously by a few mph, but certainly not to the extend that has been alleged. And yes, I know ignorance is no defence.....but I really think that someone exceeding a limit by a very few mph (and probably not at all if my over reading speedometer is taken into account) on a dry, clear dual carriageway in broad daylight, really doesn't deserve to be prosecuted on a technicality. Especially not a technicality deduced by two inexperienced and biased police officers who had nothing better to do at the time. I feel very confident that had it been a traffic police car containing experienced officers, I would not have been pulled, mainly because they would have measured my speed on accurate equipment and found that I was in fact driving at the limit. I may be wrong, but I see no real reasons for these two WPCs to have pulled me except the two they themselves stated at the time; "Are you taking the piss", i.e. how dare you overtake us, and "Flash car drivers think the law doesn't apply to them", i.e. jealousy mixed with large chip on shoulder.

I was (9 years ago) pulled over for doing 90 on a motorway. The guys were very fair and I was clearly in the wrong by some margin and I have never moaned about it - indeed the things they said to me that day taught me the importance of taking more care when the road's wet. I don't mind admitting that it has changed my habits.

Sorry Von, but the kind of behaviour displayed in this most recent case by certain officers doesn't do anything to promote road safety. All it does do is make members of the public riled and lose further respect for the force - and yes of course the police do all get tarred with the same brush which is why it's such a pity that you all get let down by the two WPCs in question.

J.

[justinp1]

jezzaaa said:

We have to have a honest honourable Police service that we can rely on. Integrity is non negotiable. The Police work hard to root out dishonest officers. They damage the service.

Of course the public aren't absolved from any requirement to be honest.
Did you exceed the limit at all where it is alleged you did ?



In the event I may have done so unconsciously by a few mph, but certainly not to the extend that has been alleged. And yes, I know ignorance is no defence.....but I really think that someone exceeding a limit by a very few mph (and probably not at all if my over reading speedometer is taken into account) on a dry, clear dual carriageway in broad daylight, really doesn't deserve to be prosecuted on a technicality. Especially not a technicality deduced by two inexperienced and biased police officers who had nothing better to do at the time. I feel very confident that had it been a traffic police car containing experienced officers, I would not have been pulled, mainly because they would have measured my speed on accurate equipment and found that I was in fact driving at the limit. I may be wrong, but I see no real reasons for these two WPCs to have pulled me except the two they themselves stated at the time; "Are you taking the piss", i.e. how dare you overtake us, and "Flash car drivers think the law doesn't apply to them", i.e. jealousy mixed with large chip on shoulder.

I was (9 years ago) pulled over for doing 90 on a motorway. The guys were very fair and I was clearly in the wrong by some margin and I have never moaned about it - indeed the things they said to me that day taught me the importance of taking more care when the road's wet. I don't mind admitting that it has changed my habits.

Sorry Von, but the kind of behaviour displayed in this most recent case by certain officers doesn't do anything to promote road safety. All it does do is make members of the public riled and lose further respect for the force - and yes of course the police do all get tarred with the same brush which is why it's such a pity that you all get let down by the two WPCs in question.

J.

[/quote]

Having been on the wrong end of the stick from some policing with a lot less integrity that Vonhosen represents, I also have to agree.

Heres an interesting thought:

It seems reasonably obvious that from the account given that jezaaa has been victimised due to the car he was driving as this obviously riled the WPC in question. There is no doubt that even *if* jezaa was over the limit it is by a very marginal amount within or around the tolerances of accuracy of two speedometers.

We are under the assumption that both the WPCs and jezaaa are of caucasian origin.... (Well the law of averages may point toward this...)

But what *if* jezaaa were black? And when he was pulled over he was asked 'Are you taking the piss?' 'You ****** (racial comment) think you can drive how you want'.

I think if *this* reason for such bias and selectivity was used then it would be so politically outrageous that I am sure that the officers would not bother.

So why should it be any different if bias is pushed toward jezaaa due to the car that he drives and that he has the audacity to overtake a police car?

When the powers of the police are used for personal muscle flexing and ego massaging as has happened in this case as well as my previous case this is the worst kind of abuse of power, and needs to be stamped out. This was one of my main reasons to go to court even though I was warned that my chances of winning were very slim. I applaud jezaaa for having the guts to do the same. If nothing else if the WPC learns a lesson of humility when *they* are the subject in the dock and thinks twice before abusing their powers then it will be worth is for the people in the future that do not have the abilty to defend themselves.

Edited by justinp1 on Sunday 24th September 13:22

Edited by justinp1 on Sunday 24th September 13:22

Edited by justinp1 on Sunday 24th September 13:24

[blueyes]

vonhosen said:

blueyes said:

vonhosen said:

It's using of calibrated measurement devices that allow for tighter margins being prosecuted.

"It's the misuse of calibrated measurement devices that allow many innocent motorists to be prosecuted."

Where's the evidence of that ?

Given you the evidence Von...

:sings: "It's all gone quite over there."

[vonhosen]

blueyes said:

vonhosen said:

blueyes said:

vonhosen said:

It's using of calibrated measurement devices that allow for tighter margins being prosecuted.

"It's the misuse of calibrated measurement devices that allow many innocent motorists to be prosecuted."

Where's the evidence of that ?

Given you the evidence Von...

:sings: "It's all gone quite over there."

No, you still haven't given evidence of what you claim.
1) Firstly were you innocent (or had you actually been speeding at some point ?)
2) Were the photos they sent you only so that you could ascertain if it was you at the wheel to aid you in nominating the driver, as opposed to providing evidence of the offence itself ?
3) You're not saying you were prosecuted, because the case never made it to court.