Discussion
Don't misunderstand this topic please, maybe I'm thick.
In Scamera LT 20/20 cases we frequently hear of the importance of the operator having to form a "prior opinion" of any vehicle believed to be exceeding the limit.
Why can the Scamera operators not simply focus on random vehicles? (yes, it certainly looks like they do)...but.. What is the reasoning behind requiring an operator to acquire targets based on some spurious skill/ training ethos?
Surely there can't be a law which forbids automatic selection of targets or we wouldn't have Gatsos?
Is the requirement due to some lobbying on behalf of the motorist ?
In Scamera LT 20/20 cases we frequently hear of the importance of the operator having to form a "prior opinion" of any vehicle believed to be exceeding the limit.
Why can the Scamera operators not simply focus on random vehicles? (yes, it certainly looks like they do)...but.. What is the reasoning behind requiring an operator to acquire targets based on some spurious skill/ training ethos?
Surely there can't be a law which forbids automatic selection of targets or we wouldn't have Gatsos?
Is the requirement due to some lobbying on behalf of the motorist ?
The requirement for corroborative evidence derives from case law dating back over 60 years.
This provides that both primary and secondary evidence is required before an allegation of excess speed can be proven to the required criminal standard.
In an LTI case, the reading from the 'gun' provides the corroboration of an officer's prior opinion.
In a Gatso case, the primary evidence is provided by the radar (which triggers the camera) and the secondary evidence is provided by the timing marks painted onto the road surface.
This provides that both primary and secondary evidence is required before an allegation of excess speed can be proven to the required criminal standard.
In an LTI case, the reading from the 'gun' provides the corroboration of an officer's prior opinion.
In a Gatso case, the primary evidence is provided by the radar (which triggers the camera) and the secondary evidence is provided by the timing marks painted onto the road surface.
Thanks for that. Vaguely illuminating. Er, what of truvelo? How do you break down the primary and secondary chain of evidence there? And, sorry, but, is this evidential chain only applicable to speeding offences as we often hear of other cases being found for circumstancially.
Obviously I'll never be a Liar... sorry...Lawyer
Obviously I'll never be a Liar... sorry...Lawyer
hemibum said:
Thanks for that. Vaguely illuminating. Er, what of truvelo? How do you break down the primary and secondary chain of evidence there? And, sorry, but, is this evidential chain only applicable to speeding offences as we often hear of other cases being found for circumstancially.
Obviously I'll never be a Liar... sorry...Lawyer
There are markings on the road with truvelo, they are just less obvious.Obviously I'll never be a Liar... sorry...Lawyer
Jules360 said:
What about the average speed cameras ?
Hmm. An interesting one..AIUI, it is claimed that the time stamping of the photograph represents the secondary / corroborative check of the SVDD system.
The manufacturers 'claim' that the clock used for the time stamping is not used within the primary check and, as such, this ensures that an 'independent means of verification' has been achieved.
Dodgy or not ?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff