ACPO Code of Practice breach?
Discussion
On the A55 at St Asaph, N Wales today, I saw a cop in a T5 parked in a side road targeting westbound cars on the downhill section before the turn-off for St Asaph.
He seemed to have pushed his seat back, had no hat on and was well down behind the door with just his head and the speed gun visible.
He was aiming what looked very like an LT 20 20 at cars on the downhill section of the dual carriageway.
Having read the ACPO Code of Practice some time ago, I recall the instructions were that any cop using lasers to target cars must be outside the vehicle in full view of the public and the target vehicle.
Unless my memory is faulty, it seems this chap was ignoring the ACPO Code of Practice or ACPO Guidelines as the police prefer to call them when they choose to ignore them.
I also seem to recall Mr Brunstrom telling a reporter some time ago that they dont target the A55 with speed traps as it was built to 80mph standards.
So there they were on a jolly Sunday afternoon run to the seaside, driving perfectly safely and some will likely be getting a letter any day soon.
He seemed to have pushed his seat back, had no hat on and was well down behind the door with just his head and the speed gun visible.
He was aiming what looked very like an LT 20 20 at cars on the downhill section of the dual carriageway.
Having read the ACPO Code of Practice some time ago, I recall the instructions were that any cop using lasers to target cars must be outside the vehicle in full view of the public and the target vehicle.
Unless my memory is faulty, it seems this chap was ignoring the ACPO Code of Practice or ACPO Guidelines as the police prefer to call them when they choose to ignore them.
I also seem to recall Mr Brunstrom telling a reporter some time ago that they dont target the A55 with speed traps as it was built to 80mph standards.
So there they were on a jolly Sunday afternoon run to the seaside, driving perfectly safely and some will likely be getting a letter any day soon.
Quinny said:
His mother must be very proud of him 
Out of interest was he firing it through the side window?
Was the window rolled up or down?
Drivers window down, head and gun not visible until very close. I recall I was at about 65 - 68 mph inside lane as I was about to turn off shortly but others were passing me.
Tafia said:
Having read the ACPO Code of Practice some time ago, I recall the instructions were that any cop using lasers to target cars must be outside the vehicle in full view of the public and the target vehicle.
But the Scammers use the 'gun' inside the van.
I once got nicked by a cop using a Radar from inside his car (well it was cold!)
10 working days ago I was overtaking a car on a straight, I may have exceeded the speed limit by about 15 miles per hour on the overtake, pulled back onto my side of the road in time to see a camera van parked on the side of the road. As I went past it I could see the operator sat right back inside the van sighting up through a large hole where I think the o/s rear window should be, it was a large van Transit size. What is annoying it was a nice day, I had been observing the limit before overtaking & after overtaking although on a long straight section of road I was in no hurry. I presume nip means notice of intended prosecution? I have seen that abbreviation on here quite often. If I have been targeted should I still receive notification within 14 days or is that only with fixed cameras? although I am hoping that I may not have been targeted as I was driving sensibly & safely.
The edit on this is to confirm I am not qeuerying the legality of the van, just to wonder about times to receive notification.
>> Edited by medusa on Sunday 20th November 23:01
The edit on this is to confirm I am not qeuerying the legality of the van, just to wonder about times to receive notification.
>> Edited by medusa on Sunday 20th November 23:01
driving home through local village saw mobile camera van in layby, it was pulled right to the end of the layby and I assume the camera was pointing out through the hole in the back doors. Thought occurred to me there was lots of space in the layby, what would happen if a lorry, horsebox or high vehicle pulled right up behind the camera van and obliterated the vision of the camera? They would have every right to park in the layby so what would the police do?
Can't remember the exact wording but the 14 days is just a guideline. Its one of those, "The driver should be informed within 14 days...". I think it goes on to say "unless impracticable to do so."
I only mention it as I got one 35 days after the offence. I went to magistrate court with it and requested that someobody from the process section attend court and explain why it took them so long to initiate the PNC check and secondly for someone from DVLA to attend and explain why they had taken so long to update my owner details on the system as I had sent the V5 off well before the offence. Needless to say, no-one appeared aparet from me on 2 occasions and the CPS offered no evidence.
They have to show that it was unreasonable for them to send it to you within 14 days. It doesn't mean you are off scot free, BUT you should be able to have them explain to the court why it was unreasonable (and to you!)
Best of luck
Scott
I only mention it as I got one 35 days after the offence. I went to magistrate court with it and requested that someobody from the process section attend court and explain why it took them so long to initiate the PNC check and secondly for someone from DVLA to attend and explain why they had taken so long to update my owner details on the system as I had sent the V5 off well before the offence. Needless to say, no-one appeared aparet from me on 2 occasions and the CPS offered no evidence.
They have to show that it was unreasonable for them to send it to you within 14 days. It doesn't mean you are off scot free, BUT you should be able to have them explain to the court why it was unreasonable (and to you!)
Best of luck
Scott
The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section 1.-
1.—(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—
(c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of
the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence
and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed,
was—
(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the
person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time
of the commission of the offence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 6.-(3)
inserted the following sub-section into the RTOA 1988 (as above).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person
may be served on that person—
(a) by delivering it to him;
(b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known
address; or
(c) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or
first class post addressed to him at his last known address.
1.—(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—
(c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of
the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence
and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed,
was—
(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the
person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time
of the commission of the offence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 6.-(3)
inserted the following sub-section into the RTOA 1988 (as above).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person
may be served on that person—
(a) by delivering it to him;
(b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known
address; or
(c) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or
first class post addressed to him at his last known address.
Funny (not!) how "guidelines" are always interpreted in favour of those who set them. Funny too (not!) how "guidelines" are "mandated" when it suits the setter and "advisory" when circumstances don't. A "code of practice" is something that must be followed for the "code" to have any value to all those touched by it ... redefining such "codes" as "guidelines" is mendacious but typical - Streaky
You missed a bit out cuneus:
Failing to comply with the 14 day rule is not a bar to the conviction where the Court is satisfied that neither the name and address of the driver or the Reg keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been asecertained for a summons, or a complaint to be served, or for a notivce to be sent or served in compliance with the requirement, or the driver by his own conduct contributed to the failure.
Section 2 (3) RT Offnders Act 1988.
dvd
Failing to comply with the 14 day rule is not a bar to the conviction where the Court is satisfied that neither the name and address of the driver or the Reg keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been asecertained for a summons, or a complaint to be served, or for a notivce to be sent or served in compliance with the requirement, or the driver by his own conduct contributed to the failure.
Section 2 (3) RT Offnders Act 1988.
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
You missed a bit out cuneus:
Failing to comply with the 14 day rule is not a bar to the conviction where the Court is satisfied that neither the name and address of the driver or the Reg keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been asecertained for a summons, or a complaint to be served, or for a notivce to be sent or served in compliance with the requirement, or the driver by his own conduct contributed to the failure.
Section 2 (3) RT Offnders Act 1988.
dvd
That was it. 'Reasonable dilligence'. I read it in Butterworths a long time ago and couldn't quite remember. My point still applies though. You go to court and make sure 'reasonable dilligence' was applied. That means requesting those people in the relevent chain of actions to attend as witnesses!
Scott
catso said:
Having read the ACPO Code of Practice some time ago, I recall the instructions were that any cop using lasers to target cars must be outside the vehicle in full view of the public and the target vehicle.
But the Scammers use the 'gun' inside the van.
I once got nicked by a cop using a Radar from inside his car (well it was cold!)
Radar used from inside car is breach of ACPO procedures. I now find that laser can be used from inside a car but operator must be in open view of public and target vehicle.
IIRC the ACPO guidelines are clear in the reasons for the officer to be out of the vehicle and in plain view -- namely that the lasergun is easily mistaken for a firearm.
Perhaps you should consider calling your local nick and report the nutter out there with the gun --- and explain that you had to really floor it to get past him as you were terrified of getting shot. It was only as you drew level that you realised he was an officer of the law...
Perhaps you should consider calling your local nick and report the nutter out there with the gun --- and explain that you had to really floor it to get past him as you were terrified of getting shot. It was only as you drew level that you realised he was an officer of the law...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff