ACPO guidlines
Discussion
Hey guys,
Just found this: www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf - some interesting words
? Seriously though, are civil and military aircraft exempt from the law? If their 'target acquisition detectors' with 'automatic counter measures' are the same as a laser jammer, isn't that obstructing the course of justice?
Also...
Anyway, lots more to read but let's see what people can find
Just found this: www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf - some interesting words
It said:... Hmm, now can I fit one of thse 'target acquisition detectors'
Never point a laser speedmeter at a civil or military aircraft, vessel or armoured vehicle. Many military aircraft, vehicles or vessels have target acquisition detectors, some of which can initiate automatic counter measures.
? Seriously though, are civil and military aircraft exempt from the law? If their 'target acquisition detectors' with 'automatic counter measures' are the same as a laser jammer, isn't that obstructing the course of justice? Also...
It said:I know a few plod and I also happen to know many of them DO leave their mobiles on most of the time 'cos they can't be bothered to switch them off. Don't know if traffic police do aswell?
GSM phones must not be switched on when a laser speedmeter is in use.
Anyway, lots more to read but let's see what people can find
Hi Jared,
The most interesting thing is what you 'read between the lines'.
Notice how easy it is to refer to them as 'ACPO Guidelines'?
The word guideline is only mentioned in the document with regard to safety and laser emmissions. Rather than being 'guidelines' the document is in fact a Code of Practice which by it's own instructions for use says it must be 'scrupulously adhered to' and supercedes any of the instruments own instructions for use.
It is easy to do so. The CPS often downgrade the document to guidelines to cover over the fact that many operators not only do not follow them, have not even read them!
I do believe however that the Home Office statement which authorises the use of the devices is on the proviso that the ACPO document IS being scrupulously adhered to.
I have a lot of info from my case if anyone else is in that situation.
The most interesting thing is what you 'read between the lines'.
Notice how easy it is to refer to them as 'ACPO Guidelines'?
The word guideline is only mentioned in the document with regard to safety and laser emmissions. Rather than being 'guidelines' the document is in fact a Code of Practice which by it's own instructions for use says it must be 'scrupulously adhered to' and supercedes any of the instruments own instructions for use.
It is easy to do so. The CPS often downgrade the document to guidelines to cover over the fact that many operators not only do not follow them, have not even read them!
I do believe however that the Home Office statement which authorises the use of the devices is on the proviso that the ACPO document IS being scrupulously adhered to.
I have a lot of info from my case if anyone else is in that situation.
If a force didn't adhere to these guidelines you could go to court and say those guidelines exist to minimise the risks of inaccurately classing someone to be a speeder. If they weren't adhered to then the evidence against you could be inaccurate and that is accepted by ACPO/Home Office. If its accepted by ACPO/Home Office then surely a court would have to accept it too?
So whether its a guideline or not, it can be used to help drivers wanting to prove their case in court?
So whether its a guideline or not, it can be used to help drivers wanting to prove their case in court?
Jared_m said:
If a force didn't adhere to these guidelines you could go to court and say those guidelines exist to minimise the risks of inaccurately classing someone to be a speeder. If they weren't adhered to then the evidence against you could be inaccurate and that is accepted by ACPO/Home Office. If its accepted by ACPO/Home Office then surely a court would have to accept it too?
So whether its a guideline or not, it can be used to help drivers wanting to prove their case in court?
It SHOULD do.
But in practice, the CPS lawyers and the PC just repeat that 'they are only guidelines' and that the device has been shown to be accurate by the home office, the operator has been trained, the device was tested (on stationary objects at up to 100m...) each year, and that if there was a mistake then the device would tell them.
Basically it is well known that the Magistrates and Judges do not like these cases as they see it as speeders who have no doubt they were speeding looking for a loophole to 'get off'. I must say that I do believe that both Crown court judges had this opinion before my case had started. One even shook his head as I had the audacity to accuse the device of being 22mph out...
tombaron said:
Seriously though, are civil and military aircraft exempt from the law?
Well unless they're using the road network?!?!?
But if they are using the road network then how can they not be the subject of laser device speed checks for threat of a counter measure? How is that any less illegal than using a laser jammer?
gingerpaul said:
GSM phones must not be switched on when a laser speedmeter is in use.
Don't the new police radios use mobile phone technology, or similar at least? That would mean any police officer wanting to use a laser speedmeter would have to turn their radios off first!
The ACPO document also states that tetra radios should also be turned off.
Jared_m said:
Seriously though, are civil and military aircraft exempt from the law?
Well unless they're using the road network?!?!?
But if they are using the road network then how can they not be the subject of laser device speed checks for threat of a counter measure? How is that any less illegal than using a laser jammer?
Sorry, how many AIRcraft have you seen trundling down the road?
tombaron said:
There was a story going around the other year about a copper pointing his radar gun at an RAF Tornado. The electronics on the jet responded, messing up the radar gun, and, if there had been an ALARM missile fitted it would have gone for the copper automatically!
Urban myth that one.
Jared_m said:
Hey guys,
Just found this: www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf - some interesting words
Anyway, lots more to read but let's see what people can find
This link is very useful. I had only seen the older version which was called a Guidance Manual and referred to "operational standards"
Now we have a Code of Practice"
Many thanks.
Reminds me of the time when I was auditing a manufacturing facility where quality of its product was of paramount importance. The facility had a set of operating procedures that were auditable, and a set of guidelines that were not because these (according to the operator) did not affect product quality directly. When we reviewed the guidelines, surprise surprise, we found that the operators had deliberately slimmed down the auditable procedures and put many things in the guidelines that should have been in the procedures as they affected product quality. Quite rightly, we gave the operator a hammering for it and forced them to do the job properly.
Has anyone actually carried out an independent audit of these ACPO guidelines to confirm that they can be classified as such and that they don't affect the quality of the result?
Now wouldn't that be interesting?
Has anyone actually carried out an independent audit of these ACPO guidelines to confirm that they can be classified as such and that they don't affect the quality of the result?
Now wouldn't that be interesting?
justinp1 said:
Basically it is well known that the Magistrates and Judges do not like these cases as they see it as speeders who have no doubt they were speeding looking for a loophole to 'get off'. I must say that I do believe that both Crown court judges had this opinion before my case had started. One even shook his head as I had the audacity to accuse the device of being 22mph out...
This sounds as if they had made their minds up straight away, i.e. the assused is presumed guilty.
That's both sad and dangerous.
james_j said:
Basically it is well known that the Magistrates and Judges do not like these cases as they see it as speeders who have no doubt they were speeding looking for a loophole to 'get off'. I must say that I do believe that both Crown court judges had this opinion before my case had started. One even shook his head as I had the audacity to accuse the device of being 22mph out...
This sounds as if they had made their minds up straight away, i.e. the assused is presumed guilty.
That's both sad and dangerous.
Very much so. It seems as if Judges now have the technical knowledge on how much a device can reasonably be out...
Tafia said:
Hey guys,
Just found this: www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf - some interesting words
Anyway, lots more to read but let's see what people can find
This link is very useful. I had only seen the older version which was called a Guidance Manual and referred to "operational standards"
Now we have a Code of Practice"
Many thanks.
It doesn't matter what it's called. It's function is PR ; to make it look as if "things are being done right".
Because it is "advice" "guidelines" or whatever it can be ignored.
julianc said:
Reminds me of the time when I was auditing a manufacturing facility where quality of its product was of paramount importance. The facility had a set of operating procedures that were auditable, and a set of guidelines that were not because these (according to the operator) did not affect product quality directly. When we reviewed the guidelines, surprise surprise, we found that the operators had deliberately slimmed down the auditable procedures and put many things in the guidelines that should have been in the procedures as they affected product quality. Quite rightly, we gave the operator a hammering for it and forced them to do the job properly.
Has anyone actually carried out an independent audit of these ACPO guidelines to confirm that they can be classified as such and that they don't affect the quality of the result?
Now wouldn't that be interesting?
The interesting thing is that the 'ACPO Guidelines' is a figment of the CPS's imagination. The only document is the ACPO Code of Practice. I am in the firm belief that the term 'ACPO Guidelines' which refers to exactly the same document has been slowly and slyly introduced by the CPS in cases they would otherwise lose to obviously pervert the magistrates and judges opion of the validity and necessity of the document. What is more interesting is that the misnomer has become so widespread it has now become the 'name of choice' by the general public.
To answer your question, the devices have type approval on the proviso that the manufacturers instructions and the ACPO Code of Practice has been followed. So the goverment have already decided that the ACPO instructions should be followed at all times to prove the validity of the evidence.
In practice however, in court the CPS downgrade the title of the document to 'guidelines' and reiterate that the device is type approved and that the operator has been adequately trained.
The judges and magistrates have heard the same 'schtick' so many times before that this situation has been pretty much accepted, and thus the situation arising in my other post of the judge already knowing the outcome and such is a waste of the courts time.
>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 24th November 18:08
[quote=justinp1To answer your question, the devices have type approval on the proviso that the manufacturers instructions and the ACPO Code of Practice has been followed. So the goverment have already decided that the ACPO instructions should be followed at all times to prove the validity of the evidence.
>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 24th November 18:08[/quote]
How did you show this in your case? Have you got a copy of the type approval? Is there a web link?
>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 24th November 18:08[/quote]
How did you show this in your case? Have you got a copy of the type approval? Is there a web link?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff