Speeding case dropped
Discussion
But,but, but.....
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
But,but, but.....
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Y'don't mean that Aunty Beeb altered the story to suit their own ends do you and perhaps 'plug' the guy's new gadget?..A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
But,but, but.....
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Couldn't they have called the officer as a witness even though he'd retired?A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
But,but, but.....
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Hmm, so the CPS can now only call active police officers as witnesses!? Thats new to me!A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Indeed, I am guessing if this had as much riding on it as Peter Ward's case, the operator would have been wheeled in on life support if needed!
I think it is most likely that the CPS realised that to fight the case would have cost them thousands with a very good chance of a very embarrassing loss!
JustinP1 said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
But,but, but.....
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Hmm, so the CPS can now only call active police officers as witnesses!? Thats new to me!A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Indeed, I am guessing if this had as much riding on it as Peter Ward's case, the operator would have been wheeled in on life support if needed!
I think it is most likely that the CPS realised that to fight the case would have cost them thousands with a very good chance of a very embarrassing loss!
cptsideways said:
Plenty of Civillian scamera operators are retired coppers 
Plenty of witnesses called to trials are never coppers at all... ever! Seems to be a convenient 'issue' in this case though.
I am waiting for the time where the case is dropped to the sneaky 'loophole' solicitor who forced the SCP to hand over the full and unedited session enforcement video only to conveniently find that the SCP have 'recycled' it... thus they weedle out of another one and the overall message is to morally blame the 'loophole' and evil solicitor.
JustinP1 said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
But,but, but.....
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Hmm, so the CPS can now only call active police officers as witnesses!? Thats new to me!A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Indeed, I am guessing if this had as much riding on it as Peter Ward's case, the operator would have been wheeled in on life support if needed!
I think it is most likely that the CPS realised that to fight the case would have cost them thousands with a very good chance of a very embarrassing loss!
Some suggestion the 'retired officer' was on jollies out of the country.
They could have issued a witness summons and thereby have to pay his costs to travel to Court.
Would a £1000 bill incurred worth a £100 fine?
Plus wasn't Dr Tanns calculation over a longer distance hence and average speed. For an average one goes higher, one goes lower?
dvd
They could have issued a witness summons and thereby have to pay his costs to travel to Court.
Would a £1000 bill incurred worth a £100 fine?
Plus wasn't Dr Tanns calculation over a longer distance hence and average speed. For an average one goes higher, one goes lower?
dvd
Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 9th October 09:17
Dwight VanDriver said:
Some suggestion the 'retired officer' was on jollies out of the country.
Couldn't they have just delayed the case until he'd got back from his cruise or holiday or whatever? Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 9th October 09:17
A crime is a crime - the £1000/£100 argument is totally irrelevant compared to seeing proper justice done; that is priceless.
JustinP1 said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
...Would a £1000 bill incurred worth a £100 fine?
I think that was exactly the principle ignored when 'pursuing' Peter Ward's case! In that case, the defendant lost and was hit with £4,500 of prosecution costs, IIRC..
SS2. said:
JustinP1 said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
...Would a £1000 bill incurred worth a £100 fine?
I think that was exactly the principle ignored when 'pursuing' Peter Ward's case! In that case, the defendant lost and was hit with £4,500 of prosecution costs, IIRC..
It really annoys me.
If I were the defence brief my first question would be:
"Is there any question which I could ask in any way in which you would admit your device has any faults or limitations?"
I have to say that in the case where Frank Garatt (sp?) was cross examined and the judge called a halt to his exorbitant fees and biased and unqualified opinion, the defence brief royally ripped him apart...
Dwight VanDriver said:
But,but, but.....
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
Eaxactly right, I hope Dr Tann isn't trying to use this as a marketing campaign as there is a serious flaw in his method.A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "The officer who operated the camera has since retired.
"Without his verbal evidence, we could not prove the case to the required standard."
As I understand it the case never took off. CPS dropped before going into the whys and wherefores so what Dr Tann alleges was never tested on ITS accuracy or, contested at Court.
How does he 'get off' if the case was never held?
dvd
The time on the speed enforcement device is not synchronised to the time on GPS so there is effectively no evidence for the defence, it is at minimum seriously flawed. This is similar to HGV tacho's that have also been found to fail for the defence as speeds consistent with the speed enforcement reading were found to be on the tacho close to the time of the speed enforcement reading.
As well as the speed from the GPS device being an average rather than instantanous, I believe the average is calculated on a varying time/distance depending on satelite coverage, I can't see this as being as tight a defence as the BBC has twisted it!
I think if it was presented in court that the prosecution could use it against the defence quite easily to confirm that the target vehicle had indeed been travelling at the offence speed at the time of the offence.
JustinP1 said:
If I were the defence brief my first question would be:
"Is there any question which I could ask in any way in which you would admit your device has any faults or limitations?"
I have to say that in the case where Frank Garatt (sp?) was cross examined and the judge called a halt to his exorbitant fees and biased and unqualified opinion, the defence brief royally ripped him apart...
I can't imagine it is possible to have a fair trial when the witness has such a bias in terms of the evidence he is giving, and I cannot see how any defence counsel can possibly go wrong.."Is there any question which I could ask in any way in which you would admit your device has any faults or limitations?"
I have to say that in the case where Frank Garatt (sp?) was cross examined and the judge called a halt to his exorbitant fees and biased and unqualified opinion, the defence brief royally ripped him apart...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff