'Automated' Witness Statements
Discussion
North Wales Daily Post, Saturday 23rd October 2004, p. 7
"Slow down your speed trap paperwork"
Judge attacks computerised 'signatures' of PCs
By ELWYN ROBERTS
THE controversial speed campaign pioneered by North Wales' top cop Richard Brunstrom suffered a severe setback last night.
A judge warned a new streamlined system of preparing officers' statements must stop.
Judge Derek Halbert, sitting at Mold Crown Court, said he would refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions if another such case came before him.
The statements are prepared under a new automated procedure using the latest technology.
They purport to show police officers have signed a legal declaration and that their statements are honest and true.
But the officers have never seen them and their signatures are scanned in.
The practice came to light during a speeding appeal which was dismissed by Judge Halbert, sitting with two magistrates. Upholsterer Ian Edward Smith, 42, of Seaforth, Liverpool, appealed against his Prestatyn Magistrates' Court speeding conviction.
The judge branded it an unusual and disturbing case.
The bench was "unanimously and firmly" of the view the officer involved had given truthful evidence in court.
But the judge added: "Having said that, this court is unanimously of the view that the procedure adopted of preparing witness statements is utterly inappropriate.
"This procedure will stop. If it comes before me again I shall report the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions," the judge said.
Last night, Supt Michelle Williams, head of the force's criminal justice department, said the automated processes had been developed with the CPS and the courts."
"Slow down your speed trap paperwork"
Judge attacks computerised 'signatures' of PCs
By ELWYN ROBERTS
THE controversial speed campaign pioneered by North Wales' top cop Richard Brunstrom suffered a severe setback last night.
A judge warned a new streamlined system of preparing officers' statements must stop.
Judge Derek Halbert, sitting at Mold Crown Court, said he would refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions if another such case came before him.
The statements are prepared under a new automated procedure using the latest technology.
They purport to show police officers have signed a legal declaration and that their statements are honest and true.
But the officers have never seen them and their signatures are scanned in.
The practice came to light during a speeding appeal which was dismissed by Judge Halbert, sitting with two magistrates. Upholsterer Ian Edward Smith, 42, of Seaforth, Liverpool, appealed against his Prestatyn Magistrates' Court speeding conviction.
The judge branded it an unusual and disturbing case.
The bench was "unanimously and firmly" of the view the officer involved had given truthful evidence in court.
But the judge added: "Having said that, this court is unanimously of the view that the procedure adopted of preparing witness statements is utterly inappropriate.
"This procedure will stop. If it comes before me again I shall report the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions," the judge said.
Last night, Supt Michelle Williams, head of the force's criminal justice department, said the automated processes had been developed with the CPS and the courts."
Alex said:I read the following to mean that the officer was present to give evidence which tallied with the prepared statement.
How can the judge declare the statement writing method "utterly inappropriate" and still deny the appeal?
jeffreyarcher said:
The bench was "unanimously and firmly" of the view the officer involved had given truthful evidence in court.
It doesn't make the practise any less scarey though.
Dibble said:
Have you any more info on this ja?
We use proforma statements for minor motoring matters, but they're more of a "fill in the blanks and sign" style.
Nice to see you back, BTW.
What I take it to mean is that you guys have your signatures scanned in to a computer. Then when you report a speeding offence your whole "statement" is written automatically and "signed" automatically by having your signature printed on the end of it from this scan, and sent off direct to wherever it should go.
Thus your "witness statement" is "signed" by you, but you have not ever seen it.
It is not the "latest technology" either ; it's no harder than printing your name in the document.
It is an interesting comment on Policing and "evidence" standards.
autismuk said:
Have you any more info on this ja?
We use proforma statements for minor motoring matters, but they're more of a "fill in the blanks and sign" style.
Nice to see you back, BTW.
What I take it to mean is that you guys have your signatures scanned in to a computer. Then when you report a speeding offence your whole "statement" is written automatically and "signed" automatically by having your signature printed on the end of it from this scan, and sent off direct to wherever it should go.
Thus your "witness statement" is "signed" by you, but you have not ever seen it.
It is not the "latest technology" either ; it's no harder than printing your name in the document.
It is an interesting comment on Policing and "evidence" standards.
That's how I read the thread too. Just to clarify, in our Force, we get the process details back from the central ticket office with a preprinted statement. This contains a number of parts that can be deleted if they are not necessary, and are most commonly used for non production of documents. There is also space for "free text". We fill in the blanks/delete parts as necessary, and physically sign each page of the statement. This is no different really to the statement I use for any matter, as a lot of the detail in the introduction and qualifications is the same, as is the process for things like screening and substantive breath tests. I just cut and paste as appropriate, then type in the evidence for that particular statement, print it off and sign it. This saves some time, as it would have to be typed later anyway, and like any written document, it is easier to do on a word processor.
Dibble said:
Have you any more info on this ja?
http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?p=26981#26981
Dibble said:
We use proforma statements for minor motoring matters, but they're more of a "fill in the blanks and sign" style.
There's a world of difference between filling in the blanks yourself, reviewing the completed item, and signing it and this.
Dibble said:
Nice to see you back, BTW.
Thanks.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 26th October 01:01
Those of you that are long in the tooth will remember the kerfuffel that occurred in relation to Informations and Summons which had to be signed by a JP.
Mags Clerk Official had a stamp made of the signature of the JP which was rubber stamped on docs in office instead of taking a pile round for pen signature.
Initially said that this was a no no but now accepted at law as standard practice.
Mind you in the current case with the declaration containing "if tendered in evidence I shall be liable to prosecution etc" then I would not allow my name to be involved.
Federation toothless again?
DVD
Mags Clerk Official had a stamp made of the signature of the JP which was rubber stamped on docs in office instead of taking a pile round for pen signature.
Initially said that this was a no no but now accepted at law as standard practice.
Mind you in the current case with the declaration containing "if tendered in evidence I shall be liable to prosecution etc" then I would not allow my name to be involved.
Federation toothless again?
DVD
As Dibble says, we also use a proforma type statement for certain things....
I am PC ...... of the .............. (Force), currently stationed at................
At ........... Time on ....... day of ...... ........ I was on uniformed patrol monitoring the bla bla bla.... When at ..... (time) I was operating the ........(insert calibrated device whatever it may be) which was calibrated on........... I observed ........(index no) travelling at ........ (mph) on ......... Road..... The limit on this road (or wherever) is ........ MPH. The conditions were....... and I had a clear unobstructed view of the vehicle. I spoke to the driver who identified him,herself as ...............
This is roughly a proforma statement, it goes on to cautioning, and reporting etc, after caution the driver said etc etc.
I don't see a problem with this as all it is doing is cutting down on having to re-write the whole lot. As for automated and scanned statements with signatures, if that emerges, I will not be a fan as it is only too easy for some boffin to send one out on your behalf.
Look how easy it was for fellow officers having a 'jape' by altering the declaration on top of an MG11 for a case a few years ago.
It normally reads that the statement is the truth and signed as that, and can be read out in court etc......However, they altered it to say something like "It s all rubbish,and he deserves a long stay in the pokey etc etc...."
I am PC ...... of the .............. (Force), currently stationed at................
At ........... Time on ....... day of ...... ........ I was on uniformed patrol monitoring the bla bla bla.... When at ..... (time) I was operating the ........(insert calibrated device whatever it may be) which was calibrated on........... I observed ........(index no) travelling at ........ (mph) on ......... Road..... The limit on this road (or wherever) is ........ MPH. The conditions were....... and I had a clear unobstructed view of the vehicle. I spoke to the driver who identified him,herself as ...............
This is roughly a proforma statement, it goes on to cautioning, and reporting etc, after caution the driver said etc etc.
I don't see a problem with this as all it is doing is cutting down on having to re-write the whole lot. As for automated and scanned statements with signatures, if that emerges, I will not be a fan as it is only too easy for some boffin to send one out on your behalf.
Look how easy it was for fellow officers having a 'jape' by altering the declaration on top of an MG11 for a case a few years ago.
It normally reads that the statement is the truth and signed as that, and can be read out in court etc......However, they altered it to say something like "It s all rubbish,and he deserves a long stay in the pokey etc etc...."
silverback mike said:
I will not be a fan as it is only too easy for some boffin to send one out on your behalf.
Stick a video camera over the M6. Back at the nick, download all the reg details of every vehicle that goes past . Send a summons to every driver, stating that they were "speeding" that day. No police required, just a camera and a smart bit of programming. All signed, sealed and delivered with no human intervention. How many would just pay up?
Cynical - you BET!
mondeoman said:
I will not be a fan as it is only too easy for some boffin to send one out on your behalf.
Stick a video camera over the M6. Back at the nick, download all the reg details of every vehicle that goes past . Send a summons to every driver, stating that they were "speeding" that day. No police required, just a camera and a smart bit of programming. All signed, sealed and delivered with no human intervention. How many would just pay up?
Cynical - you BET!
Good point MrMondeo.
Dibble said:
Have you any more info on this ja?
We use proforma statements for minor motoring matters, but they're more of a "fill in the blanks and sign" style.
Nice to see you back, BTW.
I don't think pro forma is the issue here. That is in order. It is the scanning of a signature on the proforma when the OIC has not signed it in person which is the issue!
mondeoman said:
I will not be a fan as it is only too easy for some boffin to send one out on your behalf.
Stick a video camera over the M6. Back at the nick, download all the reg details of every vehicle that goes past . Send a summons to every driver, stating that they were "speeding" that day. No police required, just a camera and a smart bit of programming. All signed, sealed and delivered with no human intervention. How many would just pay up?
Cynical - you BET!
I have been going on about this for years.
In all fairness to you and your colleagues Mike, this is something that has been perpetrated more by the Fiscal Service here, and it would appear the police have no control over it.
The letters they send out have to be viewed as legal documents because they contain accusatory statements and a notice to prosecute.
The last case I did up here involved the Fiscal replying to an enquiry from myself about the quality of the evidence they had against the accused. They sent out a "standard" letter containing the statement, "the evidence in my posession constitutes sufficient information for me to commence proceedings in a criminal court."
They actually had a wrinkled copy of a Fixed Penalty that stated, "not obeying white lines".
That was it; not another thing, and this was after a request for written statements or officer names to enable a precognition; they hadn't even contacted the police to obtain written statements or anything else, but had actually commenced prosecution.
The automated systems however suffer even more abuse, because both the Fiscal and the police are removed from the system; most of the work is done by totally unqualified, inexperienced office staff; digraceful!
!!!
I've nothing aginst a "cut and paste" standard form. However with a signature being stamped or faked by computer they are genuinely suspect. NO stamps or imitation signatures should ever be allowed ever, IMHO.
As there is always the chance that the BiB could be put in a position where he actually did not write the said protocol or witness statement...you all know as well as I do how quickly a computer can be "cracked" by the people with the intent....
As there is always the chance that the BiB could be put in a position where he actually did not write the said protocol or witness statement...you all know as well as I do how quickly a computer can be "cracked" by the people with the intent....
JMGS4 said:
I've nothing aginst a "cut and paste" standard form. However with a signature being stamped or faked by computer they are genuinely suspect. NO stamps or imitation signatures should ever be allowed ever, IMHO.
As there is always the chance that the BiB could be put in a position where he actually did not write the said protocol or witness statement...you all know as well as I do how quickly a computer can be "cracked" by the people with the intent....
That is exactly what is happening in North Wales.
The statements were not written by the Police Officer, not viewed and not signed. However they were used in evidence as if they had been prepared by the Officer.
I'd say that this is not only rather bad practice "perversion of the course of justice". Brunstrom should go to jail for this.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff