clarification of the rules
Discussion
following a full days reading of peter wards case www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=388756, i have spent a while reading the Acpo code of practice
TBH i got confused on the introduction
[quote acpo]
Code of practice for operational use of enforcement equipment
Introduction
The Code of Practice takes precedence where ACPO’s standards vary from those laid down by the manufacturers.
This Code of Practice is for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of alleged offences who wish to satisfy themselves the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence. [quote]
so if it is a code of practice, how can it be used for the guidance of the enforcer, this just contradicts itself
going on further into the document
[quote]Code of practice for operational use of enforcement equipment
14. Laser/Optical Speedmeters
Hand-held devices are capable of measuring vehicle speeds from a minimum range of 50 feet to a maximum of 2,000 feet and recording speeds from a minimum of 5mph to a maximum of 155mph. [quote]
2,000 ft is roughly 618m peter ward was allegedly caught at 700+ metres
minimum speed 5mph how do the operators say they get a 0mph reading from a static object
max speed of 155mph, so www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=389084
how can they prosecute a bike doing 170mph
[quote acpo]
16. Safety Camera Enforcement, Office Procedures
The Road Traffic Act 1991, in amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 and The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, requires that before a conditional offer of fixed penalty can be made the circumstances of the offence must be considered by a police constable as suitable for such an offer to be made. Any audit trail must be robust enough to withstand any challenge this has not occurred. [quote]
is this the get out clause that allows civilians to work in camera vans, but not stop vehicles and issue tickets at the roadside
TBH i got confused on the introduction
[quote acpo]
Code of practice for operational use of enforcement equipment
Introduction
The Code of Practice takes precedence where ACPO’s standards vary from those laid down by the manufacturers.
This Code of Practice is for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of alleged offences who wish to satisfy themselves the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence. [quote]
so if it is a code of practice, how can it be used for the guidance of the enforcer, this just contradicts itself
going on further into the document
[quote]Code of practice for operational use of enforcement equipment
14. Laser/Optical Speedmeters
Hand-held devices are capable of measuring vehicle speeds from a minimum range of 50 feet to a maximum of 2,000 feet and recording speeds from a minimum of 5mph to a maximum of 155mph. [quote]
2,000 ft is roughly 618m peter ward was allegedly caught at 700+ metres
minimum speed 5mph how do the operators say they get a 0mph reading from a static object
max speed of 155mph, so www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=389084
how can they prosecute a bike doing 170mph
[quote acpo]
16. Safety Camera Enforcement, Office Procedures
The Road Traffic Act 1991, in amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 and The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, requires that before a conditional offer of fixed penalty can be made the circumstances of the offence must be considered by a police constable as suitable for such an offer to be made. Any audit trail must be robust enough to withstand any challenge this has not occurred. [quote]
is this the get out clause that allows civilians to work in camera vans, but not stop vehicles and issue tickets at the roadside
wonkysid said:
...The Code of Practice takes precedence where ACPO’s standards vary from those laid down by the manufacturers.
This Code of Practice is for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of alleged offences who wish to satisfy themselves the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence.
so if it is a code of practice, how can it be used for the guidance of the enforcer, this just contradicts itself
This Code of Practice is for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of alleged offences who wish to satisfy themselves the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence.
so if it is a code of practice, how can it be used for the guidance of the enforcer, this just contradicts itself
I think it is a symantic issue here. Just because something is there for your guidance, it does not mean it is a set of 'guidelines' or in any way optional. I think the paragraph after this goes onto state that the Code should be adhered to 'scrupulously'.
wonkysid said:
...Hand-held devices are capable of measuring vehicle speeds from a minimum range of 50 feet to a maximum of 2,000 feet and recording speeds from a minimum of 5mph to a maximum of 155mph. [quote]
2,000 ft is roughly 618m peter ward was allegedly caught at 700+ metres
minimum speed 5mph how do the operators say they get a 0mph reading from a static object
max speed of 155mph, so www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=389084
how can they prosecute a bike doing 170mph
You are quite correct! If Peter gets convicted, or anyone else it will be *outside* the ACPO Code.
IMHO and in my experience the Code is unknown or ignored or flounted. But, what percentage of people have the guts to plead not guilty and risk thousands of quid saving £60 exposing this? Not many. Thus the practice continues.
The other factor is that the ACPO Code is supposed to take precedence over the manufacturers instructions. So although the LTI2020 for example 'can' take readings from zero to 200mph or whatever at 10m to 999m distance, the ACPO Code is produced with the collaboration of the Home Office and *they* have recommended the further rules, where as you rightly state it should not be pushed to the limits.
What is interesting is that the manufacturers blurb makes no mention of these kind of limitations. Indeed the only reason why there is a 999m limit is because the display cannot fit another digit on! What is even more interesting is that the Home Office when it was tested properly *have* introduced the limitations which leaves the question open as to why they need to be set if the device supposedly works perfectly throughout its full range without being tested each year through that full range...
wonkysid said:
16. Safety Camera Enforcement, Office Procedures
The Road Traffic Act 1991, in amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 and The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, requires that before a conditional offer of fixed penalty can be made the circumstances of the offence must be considered by a police constable as suitable for such an offer to be made. Any audit trail must be robust enough to withstand any challenge this has not occurred. [quote]
is this the get out clause that allows civilians to work in camera vans, but not stop vehicles and issue tickets at the roadside
I guess so. When the NIP comes through, it is on behalf of the chief superintendant or another *real* police officer so they get around it.
Edited by justinp1 on Tuesday 15th May 20:25
justinp1 said:
You are quite correct! If Peter gets convicted, or anyone else it will be *outside* the ACPO Code.
Edited by justinp1 on Tuesday 15th May 20:25
thanks for the reply it is starting to make sense, its very intriguing
so basically if you get caught outside the ACPO code of practice you cannot get prosecuted
the other thing i question is the forming of an opinion that the device then corroborates, how many vehicles can get zapped in a session and if i can prove that say the majority were not prosecuted then i would imagine the operator is not working to ACPO
wonkysid said:
justinp1 said:
You are quite correct! If Peter gets convicted, or anyone else it will be *outside* the ACPO Code.
Edited by justinp1 on Tuesday 15th May 20:25
thanks for the reply it is starting to make sense, its very intriguing
so basically if you get caught outside the ACPO code of practice you cannot get prosecuted
the other thing i question is the forming of an opinion that the device then corroborates, how many vehicles can get zapped in a session and if i can prove that say the majority were not prosecuted then i would imagine the operator is not working to ACPO
In theory, you are quite correct.
However, many people are convicted whre the device has been used outside of the ACPO Code, myself included. What it comes down to is if the court believed that the change in procedure is bad enough to discredit the evidence. In my case the device was only half tested before use, not tested at all after use, there was no records of testing, the device was used in a position which was not approved, and the operator didnt aim the device properly.
Yet I have been found guilty at magistrates court and at appeal. Go figure.
If you are thinking about fighting a case what you have to get around is that at court the magistrates see 95% or more cases where the defendant is guilty, usually petty scrotes and their crimes.
Even if you have all the paperwork in the world to back up your case, what you are explaining to a magistrate is that someone who has been gathering evidence which has been convicting people for some time, maybe even years is negligent and as such they are producing sub-standard evidence which should not be convicting people.
Despite every common sense argument, the above statement is *just too big for them to believe actually happens* - surely a properly trained police officer wouldnt be getting evidence like this, and *surely* they are not convicting innocent people!!??
If there is a video then you have half a chance, as you can back up what you are saying with the hard evidence on the video - and as you say, if the operator should only be targeting speeders, then if there are a number of people who are being zapped at below the limit, then either the device isnt accurate, or the operator cannot correctly give a valid opinion of speed. If you have read Peter's case, you will already know how fun it can be trying to get it!
Edited by justinp1 on Wednesday 16th May 01:22
wonkysid said:
justinp1 said:
You are quite correct! If Peter gets convicted, or anyone else it will be *outside* the ACPO Code.
Edited by justinp1 on Tuesday 15th May 20:25
thanks for the reply it is starting to make sense, its very intriguing
so basically if you get caught outside the ACPO code of practice you cannot get prosecuted
the other thing i question is the forming of an opinion that the device then corroborates, how many vehicles can get zapped in a session and if i can prove that say the majority were not prosecuted then i would imagine the operator is not working to ACPO
No, I don't think that works, because those who see the camera van will slow down so the speed reading will be below the limit even though prior opinion suggests otherwise. I know other people don't agree with me.
justinp1 said:
wonkysid said:
...The Code of Practice takes precedence where ACPO’s standards vary from those laid down by the manufacturers.
This Code of Practice is for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of alleged offences who wish to satisfy themselves the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence.
so if it is a code of practice, how can it be used for the guidance of the enforcer, this just contradicts itself
This Code of Practice is for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of alleged offences who wish to satisfy themselves the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence.
so if it is a code of practice, how can it be used for the guidance of the enforcer, this just contradicts itself
I think it is a symantic issue here. Just because something is there for your guidance, it does not mean it is a set of 'guidelines' or in any way optional. I think the paragraph after this goes onto state that the Code should be adhered to 'scrupulously'.
wonkysid said:
...Hand-held devices are capable of measuring vehicle speeds from a minimum range of 50 feet to a maximum of 2,000 feet and recording speeds from a minimum of 5mph to a maximum of 155mph. [quote]
2,000 ft is roughly 618m peter ward was allegedly caught at 700+ metres
minimum speed 5mph how do the operators say they get a 0mph reading from a static object
max speed of 155mph, so www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=389084
how can they prosecute a bike doing 170mph
You are quite correct! If Peter gets convicted, or anyone else it will be *outside* the ACPO Code.
IMHO and in my experience the Code is unknown or ignored or flounted. But, what percentage of people have the guts to plead not guilty and risk thousands of quid saving £60 exposing this? Not many. Thus the practice continues.
The other factor is that the ACPO Code is supposed to take precedence over the manufacturers instructions. So although the LTI2020 for example 'can' take readings from zero to 200mph or whatever at 10m to 999m distance, the ACPO Code is produced with the collaboration of the Home Office and *they* have recommended the further rules, where as you rightly state it should not be pushed to the limits.
What is interesting is that the manufacturers blurb makes no mention of these kind of limitations. Indeed the only reason why there is a 999m limit is because the display cannot fit another digit on! What is even more interesting is that the Home Office when it was tested properly *have* introduced the limitations which leaves the question open as to why they need to be set if the device supposedly works perfectly throughout its full range without being tested each year through that full range...
wonkysid said:
16. Safety Camera Enforcement, Office Procedures
The Road Traffic Act 1991, in amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 and The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, requires that before a conditional offer of fixed penalty can be made the circumstances of the offence must be considered by a police constable as suitable for such an offer to be made. Any audit trail must be robust enough to withstand any challenge this has not occurred. [quote]
is this the get out clause that allows civilians to work in camera vans, but not stop vehicles and issue tickets at the roadside
I guess so. When the NIP comes through, it is on behalf of the chief superintendant or another *real* police officer so they get around it.
Edited by justinp1 on Tuesday 15th May 20:25
You said "should be adhered to scrupulously", not MUST BE. Was that deliberate? Do we not know if the Code of Practice is mandatory or not? Obviously if it is mandatory then no charges should be brought for any cases above 2000 ft but if not mandatory then the equipment can be used to it's limits and maybe every other rule in the book can ignored as well.
Let's be clear about this; what Gruppenfuhrer Briunstrom wrote in the forward is, to my mind, completely unambiguous.
He wrote:-
While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.
The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.
These standards are in your hands.
I would agree that there are many inconsistencies in the code of practice.
To take one oft questioned requirement re the wearing of hi-viz clothing. (Note personally I think this is a red herring as whether someone is wearing hi-viz is irrelevant to the accuracy of the measurements etc etc)
iirc the wearing of hi-viz clothing is only mentioned in one section, operating hand held radar. it is not mentioned in the section relating to other equipment. Reading it literally therefore it means that hi-viz is not required for laser based detection.
There are a number of other such anomalies, I simply mention a very minor one above.
Again elsewhere the CoP makes it quite clear that:-
The evidence from attended actively operated equipment corroborates the operator's prior opinion the target vehicle was travelling in excess of the permitted speed limit for the road or class of vehicle.
If the operator has any doubt as to the validity of the reading obtained by the device in comparison to their personal estimation of the speed of the target vehicle, then they will stop the check.
That is not my bold above it is ACPO's formatting.
Again in the same section:-
A trained police operator must be aware of the basic technical functions of the device. However, it is not necessary for them be technically qualified to give evidence on principles of the system nor the internal workings of the device. If such evidence is required, then the CPS should ensure an expert witness is called from the manufacturer or their agent.
The operator must be in a position to produce evidence, which supports their opinion that, at the time a device produced a record (for example on the visual display unit) the device was working correctly.
The proper application of all checking procedures coupled with the officers prior qualification and knowledge of the device, will satisfy a court that the device was working correctly.
There is no question in my mind that devices are operated outside the CofP and just on justinp1's account from his case the court system let him down very very badly.
FiF
edited several times
for formatting and typos.
He wrote:-
CC Richard Brunstrom said:
While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.
The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.
These standards are in your hands.
I would agree that there are many inconsistencies in the code of practice.
To take one oft questioned requirement re the wearing of hi-viz clothing. (Note personally I think this is a red herring as whether someone is wearing hi-viz is irrelevant to the accuracy of the measurements etc etc)
iirc the wearing of hi-viz clothing is only mentioned in one section, operating hand held radar. it is not mentioned in the section relating to other equipment. Reading it literally therefore it means that hi-viz is not required for laser based detection.
There are a number of other such anomalies, I simply mention a very minor one above.
Again elsewhere the CoP makes it quite clear that:-
ACPO CofP said:
The evidence from attended actively operated equipment corroborates the operator's prior opinion the target vehicle was travelling in excess of the permitted speed limit for the road or class of vehicle.
If the operator has any doubt as to the validity of the reading obtained by the device in comparison to their personal estimation of the speed of the target vehicle, then they will stop the check.
That is not my bold above it is ACPO's formatting.
Again in the same section:-
ACPO CofP said:
A trained police operator must be aware of the basic technical functions of the device. However, it is not necessary for them be technically qualified to give evidence on principles of the system nor the internal workings of the device. If such evidence is required, then the CPS should ensure an expert witness is called from the manufacturer or their agent.
The operator must be in a position to produce evidence, which supports their opinion that, at the time a device produced a record (for example on the visual display unit) the device was working correctly.
The proper application of all checking procedures coupled with the officers prior qualification and knowledge of the device, will satisfy a court that the device was working correctly.
There is no question in my mind that devices are operated outside the CofP and just on justinp1's account from his case the court system let him down very very badly.
FiF
edited several times
for formatting and typos. Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 16th May 10:04
What confuses me in that document is that it specifies it's for guidance only, and yet it mentions rules that are clearly orders and not guidance (for example not pointing it at fighter jets and tanks to enable their ECM weapons). It seems that the word guidance is just a get-out clause to let them catch people in any way possible and then weedle their way out of being challenged in court by saying, well it's only a guidline.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
Flat in Fifth said:
Let's be clear about this; what Gruppenfuhrer Briunstrom wrote in the forward is, to my mind, completely unambiguous.
He wrote:-
While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.
The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.
These standards are in your hands.
I would agree that there are many inconsistencies in the code of practice.
To take one oft questioned requirement re the wearing of hi-viz clothing. (Note personally I think this is a red herring as whether someone is wearing hi-viz is irrelevant to the accuracy of the measurements etc etc)
iirc the wearing of hi-viz clothing is only mentioned in one section, operating hand held radar. it is not mentioned in the section relating to other equipment. Reading it literally therefore it means that hi-viz is not required for laser based detection.
He wrote:-
CC Richard Brunstrom said:
While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.
The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.
These standards are in your hands.
I would agree that there are many inconsistencies in the code of practice.
To take one oft questioned requirement re the wearing of hi-viz clothing. (Note personally I think this is a red herring as whether someone is wearing hi-viz is irrelevant to the accuracy of the measurements etc etc)
iirc the wearing of hi-viz clothing is only mentioned in one section, operating hand held radar. it is not mentioned in the section relating to other equipment. Reading it literally therefore it means that hi-viz is not required for laser based detection.
In any case, as someone else has explained, the high-vis is for operator protection, not speed check warning and therefore has no relevance to the validity of the operation of the equipment.
nobleguy said:
What confuses me in that document is that it specifies it's for guidance only, and yet it mentions rules that are clearly orders and not guidance (for example not pointing it at fighter jets and tanks to enable their ECM weapons). It seems that the word guidance is just a get-out clause to let them catch people in any way possible and then weedle their way out of being challenged in court by saying, well it's only a guidline.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
Well if one looks in a more general way at the document store at ACPO where the Code of Practice is kept, you find some documents which are clearly labelled guidelines, some declared as policy, strategy, a manual for guidance and some declared code of practice.
Eg on Work related deaths you have 1) An investigators guide, and 2) A protocol for liasion.
The document we are discussing here is entitled "Road Policing Enforcement Technology Code of Practice For Operational Use" and coupled with the wording quoted above is clearly intended as an operational standard.
Merely a guideline it is not.
nobleguy said:
What confuses me in that document is that it specifies it's for guidance only, and yet it mentions rules that are clearly orders and not guidance (for example not pointing it at fighter jets and tanks to enable their ECM weapons). It seems that the word guidance is just a get-out clause to let them catch people in any way possible and then weedle their way out of being challenged in court by saying, well it's only a guidline.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
I'm not surprised you're confused. I think it's because there is a divergence between the tone of the document as quoted and eloquently analysed by FiF, and its use in the real world including the courtroom.
In theory, any operator not scrupulously following the CoP would not submit his/her results for prosecution. In reality, it appears that operators -- and the Partnerships -- leave it to those prosecuted to push back if they feel wronged. This may result in the odd lost conviction but their primary goal is met.
I guess what seems to emerge from this is that it appears that operators and Partnerships are so convinced of the "speed = death" causation that the end justifies almost any means.
Edited by Peter Ward on Wednesday 16th May 12:49
Flat in Fifth said:
nobleguy said:
What confuses me in that document is that it specifies it's for guidance only, and yet it mentions rules that are clearly orders and not guidance (for example not pointing it at fighter jets and tanks to enable their ECM weapons). It seems that the word guidance is just a get-out clause to let them catch people in any way possible and then weedle their way out of being challenged in court by saying, well it's only a guidline.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
Well if one looks in a more general way at the document store at ACPO where the Code of Practice is kept, you find some documents which are clearly labelled guidelines, some declared as policy, strategy, a manual for guidance and some declared code of practice.
Eg on Work related deaths you have 1) An investigators guide, and 2) A protocol for liasion.
The document we are discussing here is entitled "Road Policing Enforcement Technology Code of Practice For Operational Use" and coupled with the wording quoted above is clearly intended as an operational standard.
Merely a guideline it is not.
You're absolutely right.
How is it though that they consistently break these 'rules' but the courts don't listen when people protest?
nobleguy said:
What confuses me in that document is that it specifies it's for guidance only, and yet it mentions rules that are clearly orders and not guidance (for example not pointing it at fighter jets and tanks to enable their ECM weapons). It seems that the word guidance is just a get-out clause to let them catch people in any way possible and then weedle their way out of being challenged in court by saying, well it's only a guidline.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
in Stephen the Irish warrior's tone of voice from Braveheart "exactly if you are confused then i am f##cked"
wonkysid said:
nobleguy said:
What confuses me in that document is that it specifies it's for guidance only, and yet it mentions rules that are clearly orders and not guidance (for example not pointing it at fighter jets and tanks to enable their ECM weapons). It seems that the word guidance is just a get-out clause to let them catch people in any way possible and then weedle their way out of being challenged in court by saying, well it's only a guidline.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
I want to know which items in the document are rules, and which are guidance. For example, does the camera actually have to be working properly, or tested or calibrated (after all it's only guidance innit)? According to the ACPO document, the answer is No.
in Stephen the Irish warrior's tone of voice from Braveheart "exactly if you are confused then i am f##cked"
LOL!
wonkysid said:
so if it is a code of practice, how can it be used for the guidance of the enforcer, this just contradicts itself
As I understand it (this is how it works in my industry) a code of practice IS just a set of guidelines. However, if you decide not to follow those guidelines then the onus is on you to show that your way is to the same standard.I think I've been here before, but let's analyse the key words. Firstly: "Code of Practice". A "code" is a set of rules or principles or laws. Certainly "rules" and "laws" must be complied with, and in English law (at least) "principles" must also be complied with. Secondly, "practice". In context, "Practice" is a customary way of doing things. Thus a "Code of Practice" is a set of rules that must ordinarily be followed. Lastly, "guidelines" - a statement of procedures by which to determine a course of action. Thus, whilst "guidelines" may not be mandatory, a "Code of Practice" - by definition - most certainly is.
The wording in the Code is ambiguous in places, but the overall intent is very clear: that it must be used to support the operation of the speed detection equipment covered by the Code otherwise that operation and all results achieved therefrom are at least highly questionable, and more probably, disallowable.
Streaky
The wording in the Code is ambiguous in places, but the overall intent is very clear: that it must be used to support the operation of the speed detection equipment covered by the Code otherwise that operation and all results achieved therefrom are at least highly questionable, and more probably, disallowable.
Streaky
Flat in Fifth said:
The document we are discussing here is entitled "Road Policing Enforcement Technology Code of Practice For Operational Use" and coupled with the wording quoted above is clearly intended as an operational standard.
Merely a guideline it is not.
Which would all be well and good if ACPO ran any Police Forces, but it doesn't. It's members do, and it is the operational standards of their Forces which may or may not be adopted from ACPO that count.Merely a guideline it is not.
I think some national standards are good thing, but I recognise that it cuts both ways. I can't imagine the UK safety camera partnership being welcomed with open arms by all here.
7db said:
Flat in Fifth said:
The document we are discussing here is entitled "Road Policing Enforcement Technology Code of Practice For Operational Use" and coupled with the wording quoted above is clearly intended as an operational standard.
Merely a guideline it is not.
Which would all be well and good if ACPO ran any Police Forces, but it doesn't. It's members do, and it is the operational standards of their Forces which may or may not be adopted from ACPO that count.Merely a guideline it is not.
I think some national standards are good thing, but I recognise that it cuts both ways. I can't imagine the UK safety camera partnership being welcomed with open arms by all here.
That should be a laugh.
LC's office been having a dig has it? Could be way off beam, no offence intended.
7db said:
Which would all be well and good if ACPO ran any Police Forces, but it doesn't.
No, ACPO appears to be a private cartel of racketeers, and as it is exempt from the FoI Act it is impossible to discover whether it might have some legitimate aim.Its members should be suspended, ideally without pay, pending a public enquiry.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff