Impersonating a Police Officer

[joospeed]

Streetcop said:

gh0st-preop said: Streetcop said: I did a training day in a camera van today and thoroughly enjoyed it.... Some drivers were blatting past, despite the livery of the van and the fact we were next to a junior school... As for the operators being 'Scum'...if you feel that way...please stop and tell them that... Street I have done. Did you get locked up? Or were the operators wimps? You'd should have been squealing like a pig Buoy in the footwell of a panda car a couple of minute after your speech... Street

Sadly SC that's not a typical police response time, but i fully understand your point.

..and amazingly I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with everything Towman says, I must be getting old (hi TM )

On the subject of *civilians can't testify in court as to whether a vehical was speeding* .. I would argue that point .. surely someone who is in the motor industry and who works in a hands-on capacity with motors and driving etc would make an excellent witness. I remember a couple of auto engineering college lecturers being in court near me because they'd witnessed and incident where a car hit a child ... because of their *in the trade stauts* i believe they were allowed to give their opinion on the approximate speed of the vehicle .. though presumably that would then have to be backed up with other evidence.?

anyway I'm with Towman .. if you can't do the time etc etc SLOW DOWN!

[gh0st-preop]

Streetcop said:

gh0st-preop said: Streetcop said: I did a training day in a camera van today and thoroughly enjoyed it.... Some drivers were blatting past, despite the livery of the van and the fact we were next to a junior school... As for the operators being 'Scum'...if you feel that way...please stop and tell them that... Street I have done. Did you get locked up? Or were the operators wimps? You'd should have been squealing like a pig Buoy in the footwell of a panda car a couple of minute after your speech... Street

Dont know but the amount of car drives coffee beaning at him and the crowd of yoofs who walked past shouting "WANKKAAAAAA" at him didnt get done either...

[gh0st-preop]

towman said:

A question for the self righteous: Lets say it all came crashing down around you tomorrow and you have a family to house and feed. The only job available is that of scam van operator - would you take it? Steve

No because there is ALWAYS anoter way without sacificing ones moral code.

Im not self-righteous, i just dont like to make my living directly from the pettyness of the law. This rules out some career choices perminantly but at least I can sleep at night knowing that I will not turn into the busybody cretins that I meet day in day out.

[buckshee]

This thread has degenerated from the topic being discussed. Can we get back to the original thread.

Can anyone conclusively state (using case lore and appropriate reference to the legislation) whether a civilian operator can give sufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution against a motorist who pleads"Not Guilty" in the Magistrates Court, where the motorist knows that the evidence produced to bring the prosecution has been collected by a trained civilian Scamera operator and NOT a police officer?

[towman]

joospeed said:

and amazingly I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with everything Towman says, I must be getting old (hi TM )

Morning Joo

[alexf]

towman said:

NugentS said: The man (scum) inside is NOT a police officer Correct. But he is a tax paying member of society. What next, the blokes who are paid to put up speed limit signs are scum? The people who paint the lines on the road? I used to operate a towaway truck for illegal parkers - does that make me scum? Get real.

If you knowingly towed away people who were legitimately parked but had somehow managed to leave themselves open to attack via some obscure law (eg the recent story of the carpark with two halves and seperate tickets required for each), then, names aside, *yes* that was wrong, and you should have let them go free. If however you only towed people who you thought really deserved it because they were causing a public nuisance (eg blocking a junction), then fair enough.

If you do something that is morally reprihensable, you should accept responsibility for that action, instead of attempting to pass the blame by saying that you had to do it to feed your family, or were "just following orders" (the Nazis liked that one).

towman said:

scamvans are not a problem if you are not speeding. If you cant do the time............. Steve

So even though the law is wrong (speed limits are often far lower than they should be), you think it's fair for people to be persecuted for disobeying them?

What about if they lowered the NSL to 60? How about 50? Maybe 40? Would you accept that, drive around the motorways at 40mph and say to anyone caught "speeding", "you've only got yourself to blame - you know the law"?

Sound ridiculous? Think they'll never lower the speed limit on the motorways to 40mph? Try the M6 - it's a 40 limit for several miles where there is *no* alteration to the road in *any* way whatsoever. Of course, if you *pay* you can use the M6 toll which is curiously free of low limit zones.

[gh0st-preop]

at alexf

[MrsMiggins]

buckshee said:

This thread has degenerated from the topic being discussed. Can we get back to the original thread. Can anyone conclusively state (using case lore and appropriate reference to the legislation) whether a civilian operator can give sufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution against a motorist who pleads"Not Guilty" in the Magistrates Court, where the motorist knows that the evidence produced to bring the prosecution has been collected by a trained civilian Scamera operator and NOT a police officer?

AFAIK, there is case law that states that only a Police Officer can offer primary evidence in a speeding case. The cameras are supposed to be used to corroborate the officer's prior opinion that the vehicle is speeding. Since a civvy's prior opinion is not authorised, the camera has nothing that will stand up in court to corroborate. I'm sure the legislation is quoted on PePiPoo; I'll have a fish.

[Dibble]

MrsMiggins said:

buckshee said: This thread has degenerated from the topic being discussed. Can we get back to the original thread. Can anyone conclusively state (using case lore and appropriate reference to the legislation) whether a civilian operator can give sufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution against a motorist who pleads"Not Guilty" in the Magistrates Court, where the motorist knows that the evidence produced to bring the prosecution has been collected by a trained civilian Scamera operator and NOT a police officer? AFAIK, there is case law that states that only a Police Officer can offer primary evidence in a speeding case. The cameras are supposed to be used to corroborate the officer's prior opinion that the vehicle is speeding. Since a civvy's prior opinion is not authorised, the camera has nothing that will stand up in court to corroborate. I'm sure the legislation is quoted on PePiPoo; I'll have a fish.

The Law in relation to camera operatprs is covered as follows:

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides traffic authorities with the authority to regulate traffic within their area. Section 89 of the Act creates an offence of speeding in a motor vehicle. It states:-

89(1) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.

89(2) A person prosecuted for speeding shall not be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the witness's opinion, the person prosecuted was driving at a speed exceeding a specified limit.

However, the evidence of two police officers, unsupported by a speed device, can be sufficient in the right circumstances - R (on the application of Graham) v Crown Court at Chichester 2003.

The regulations do not state that the operator HAS to be a constable, just that they must be a constable or other person authorised by Chief Officer of Police. (My emphasis).

There is apparently a case of DPP v WHELTON, Bristol Crown Court, April 2004, which was discontinued due to the use of a civilian rather than a Constable. However, I've been unable to find any further reference to it, so wouldn't rely on this as a defence just yet.