Flood Gates Open?
Discussion
BBC News Lancashire Reports.....
A driver's speeding conviction has been overturned, after he disputed the findings of a hand-held speed gun.
Brian Wiltshire, 48, from Caton, Lancs, said he was travelling at less than 30mph, despite being recorded at 39mph.
Lancashire Police admitted the officer failed to check the device before use.
A Preston Crown Court judge overturned the conviction after hearing evidence that laser devices can give faulty readings if not aligned properly.
Judge Andrew Woolman said the ruling did not set a precedent.
He said he would give a full ruling on his decision at a later date.
Mr Wiltshire was driving home nearly a year ago when he was pulled to the side of the road by officers using an LTI 20/20 laser device.
Routine check
The designer clothes shop owner pleaded not guilty to the offence before magistrates, but was convicted in June.
He then took the case to Preston Crown Court.
Mr Wiltshire said he felt vindicated following the appeal ruling.
"Initially I thought I was being pulled over in a routine check but was shocked to learn I had supposedly broken the speed limit.
"Although the judge has not explained his ruling I believe it shows that such laser devices can be wildly inaccurate."
A spokesman for Lancashire Police said: "We remain confident with the use of the equipment and its reliability.
"In this instance the case was lost because an officer failed to carry out an administrative function."
A driver's speeding conviction has been overturned, after he disputed the findings of a hand-held speed gun.
Brian Wiltshire, 48, from Caton, Lancs, said he was travelling at less than 30mph, despite being recorded at 39mph.
Lancashire Police admitted the officer failed to check the device before use.
A Preston Crown Court judge overturned the conviction after hearing evidence that laser devices can give faulty readings if not aligned properly.
Judge Andrew Woolman said the ruling did not set a precedent.
He said he would give a full ruling on his decision at a later date.
Mr Wiltshire was driving home nearly a year ago when he was pulled to the side of the road by officers using an LTI 20/20 laser device.
Routine check
The designer clothes shop owner pleaded not guilty to the offence before magistrates, but was convicted in June.
He then took the case to Preston Crown Court.
Mr Wiltshire said he felt vindicated following the appeal ruling.
"Initially I thought I was being pulled over in a routine check but was shocked to learn I had supposedly broken the speed limit.
"Although the judge has not explained his ruling I believe it shows that such laser devices can be wildly inaccurate."
A spokesman for Lancashire Police said: "We remain confident with the use of the equipment and its reliability.
"In this instance the case was lost because an officer failed to carry out an administrative function."
LongQ said:
gargamel said:
Great result - don't know much legal stuff, but would think other cases can use this as a reference case
"Judge Andrew Woolman said the ruling did not set a precedent. "
So not officially, no.
So it's OK for the police to not check their equipment on any other occassion?
Why don't judges use more common sense? I know they are quite far removed from government policy and they tend to be free from political pressures (and to be honest they are the last kind of officialdom I have any respect for), but why can't they read the evidence that suggests that poor operation of these things leads to inaccurate results? They seem to blindly accept any old crap from the police that say things like:
"We remain confident with the use of the equipment and its reliability."
Blah blah blah blah.......
LongQ said:
gargamel said:
Great result - don't know much legal stuff, but would think other cases can use this as a reference case
"Judge Andrew Woolman said the ruling did not set a precedent. "
So not officially, no.
Indeed - this decision has nothing to do with any perceived (likely!) problems with the device, just that "procedure" wasn't followed, and therefore the evidence of the device cannot be considered.
I think.
Rob-C said:
"In this instance the case was lost because an officer failed to carry out an administrative function."
My arse are calibration and alignment merely "administrative" functions!
My arse are calibration and alignment merely "administrative" functions!
I am surprised he didnt get the 'The officer was fully trained but on this occasion didnt totally complete an administrative function as set out in the 'Guidelines'"
If the judge said that the case was NOT setting a precedent, then one can conclude that the judge was 'following' precedent, since no judge can decide a 'precedent' issue. The usual rider is that the case was decided on its own unique facts. Most cases have unique facts but are still required to comply with the prevailing interpretation of the law.
Clearly the burden of proof needs to change - at the moment you are sent a NIP that says "we have evidence, plead guilty, pay £60 or go to court" - surely they should be complelled to provide at least basic evidence such as calibration certificates, photos etc before you have to enter a plea, not after.
The law is an ass, and I defy any BiB on here who can disagree.
Also, what has happened to all the other people cayght by that same device that day, week, month or year - will they get their points, fines and potentially livelihoods back if they totted up???
The law is an ass, and I defy any BiB on here who can disagree.
Also, what has happened to all the other people cayght by that same device that day, week, month or year - will they get their points, fines and potentially livelihoods back if they totted up???
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff