Interesting NIP scenario

[cptsideways]

Friend of mine out on his bike a few days ago, got zapped whilst passing through Templecombe by the somerset £ash £artnership.

He stopped & spoke to the gents in the van, yes he did get zapped doing 40 (in a 30 limit) & his comrade checked his plate & made a note.

Now both of these guys appeared to be civvies

10 days later Nip arrives

Exceeding 50mph in a 40 limit!!!!!


1) Civvies
2) Video evidence might not show plate
3) Civvies can give evidence in court yeah?
4) Nip says exceeding 50mph which he was'nt
5) Nip says 40 limit when it was a 30


Shall we have a laugh & follow his fortune?

[princeperch]

without a doubt we shall, but he may be buggered with regards to the id of the bike pinged, as they use a negative reading when targeting bikes, and ping them from the back as it were, so it would be a picture of the rear of his cycle with the reg plate in full view?

[parrot of doom]

Civvies = no offence committed.

[Demolay]

parrot of doom said:

Civvies = no offence committed.

Authority please. I don't disagree with your statement, but our opinion is of no legal consequence. Where are you getting this from?

[streaky]

See Mika's posting here

[Dwight VanDriver]

All that says Streaky is that there maybe a possible appeal outstanding.

I have not come across this "urban myth" that a civvy employed by Police or SCP cannot operate a device. To be one they will have undergone a certain amount or recorded training.

Wish someone would come up with a stated case to stop the confusion.

DVD

[streaky]

Dwight VanDriver said:

All that says Streaky is that there maybe a possible appeal outstanding. I have not come across this "urban myth" that a civvy employed by Police or SCP cannot operate a device. To be one they will have undergone a certain amount or recorded training. Wish someone would come up with a stated case to stop the confusion. DVD

DVD - I only pointed to the link, I didn't suggest otherwise. I too would like a definitive ruling - Streaky

[voyds9]

Brunstrom's daughter got away with speeding when she was ping by a newspaper reporter.

[victormeldrew]

I don't think it's a tried and tested defence, but stand to be corrected; the laser device is meant to be used as corroborative evidence to back up the expert opinion of a police officer that a speeding offence has been committed. The (afaik) untested argument is that a civvie's opinion is just that, and not submissable evidence, so the laser reading alone is uncorroborated.

[DeMolay]

victormeldrew said:

I don't think it's a tried and tested defence, but stand to be corrected; the laser device is meant to be used as corroborative evidence to back up the expert opinion of a police officer that a speeding offence has been committed. The (afaik) untested argument is that a civvie's opinion is just that, and not submissable evidence, so the laser reading alone is uncorroborated.

Agreed. I think it'll need to be tested at High Court level to settle it.

[telecat]

Believe that camera Partnerships drop the cases before they come to court as courts DO NOT recognise any but Police Officers as being able to give an opinion as to speed. The Laser is used to confirm, hence the laser is useless in the hands of a civilian operator.