LTI 20/20 thwarted again.

Author
Discussion

F i F

43,960 posts

250 months

Friday 6th May 2011
quotequote all
Mill Wheel said:
JustinP1 said:
Going back to the OP this case has nothing to do with the merits of the LTI2020

It has everything to go with the fact that the operator had not followed the right procedure to make it worthy of supplying evidence.

I gave the same argument at court, and then at appeal at Crown court, however, in effect the Judges rules that it did not matter if or how the device is tested, neither does it have to be.

So, these cases go either way.

I was very shocked to find that despite being supposedly qualified to use the device, in my case not only did the operator not test it in the way he should, he didn't know how to test it. Further to that not only had he not followed the ACPO Code in using it, he had not read it, and furthermore he did not know it even existed.

Yet seemingly, the same guy had produced evidence which has convicted hundreds or even thousands of people and this was the first time he was brought into question.

The clerk of the court was so shocked by what he heard that in deliberation, he made a point of saying to the police officer that he really should be reading up on this stuff or he would be back here again... However, there was no need because for me they effectively supported his actions to go back and do it again.

It is my opinion that if properly questioned, maybe 50% or more occasions the device is not set up to the evidential standards set.
yes

Going to court is a lottery - many magistrates are as clueless as your operator, and some judges too.
It's also everything to do with the CPS and the other powers that be doing everything to try and hinder the person who feels they may be innocent of the charge investigating the veracity of the facts presented against them without incurring high legal costs.

Being objective this has been brought about by a long string of previous chancers who know they are actually guilty simply trying to trip them up and the CPS have no way of distinguishing genuine doubters from the chancers.

smeggy

3,241 posts

238 months

Friday 6th May 2011
quotequote all
streaky said:
I should have thought that the scatter from a spoke might well result in a nul or severely attenuated return at some or all of the measuring instances, which would complicate the calculation more than a tad.
From my experience, if the wheel was fairly close to the LTI, then I expect that the LTI should be able to get a good set of detectable reflections.
The issue of some pulses being lost is somewhat offset by the fact the LTI can tolerate some lost pulses (up to 5 I believe) without voiding the speed measurement.

Folks would do well to discard the claim of "not worth consideration", from the man whose profession is acting for the prosecution in speed camera court cases.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Friday 6th May 2011
quotequote all
F i F has it.

At the Mags case, the CPS brief was as clueless as the operator as to the ACPO Code. He really was quite inept. The costs of that case because it was low key was about £65 because I defended myself.

At the Crown Court appeal, I was interested to find that along with the CPS Barrister there was a third part of the team who I found was some kind of 'liaison officer'. I don't know what they did, well actually I do, because the operator went from not knowing the ACPO Code existed in the first trial to be being a pseudo-expert witness able to trot out is 'superior' knowledge and every time the Code was referred to he would answer 'Only guidelines...'


All that said, it is a lottery. Soon after that I helped a PHer who would have lost his licence and his job as a driver. He had no money for representation to I outlined for him a set of questions. He rolled up to court with a copy of the Daily Mail in his hands outlining the problems with the LTI2020 and used my questions to get the officer to admit that there was no way of telling for 100% which car or if any car was targeted.

He was found NG and obviously was very pleased.