Photographic Evidence

[Brigadier]

A work-mate has been caught by a Talivan in Howden, East Yorkshire. 37mph in a 30 zone. He telephoned the Ticket Office in Hull asking for the photographic evidence. They told him he can only see it in Hull, but the problem is he lives 60 miles away. They've told him to write in, following which they'll make arrangements for him to see it at his local plice station. If you're snapped in South Yorkshire the Police seem more than happy to post the photos. Also, how does he go on with the 28 day rule whilst all this is being sorted out. I believe South Yorks put the 28 days on hold until you've had chance to see the pics.

Why isn't there a level playing field with regards to seeing the evidence. It seems there's a wide variation, with some constabularies just doing what they want.

Cheers
Brigadier

>>> Edited by Brigadier on Monday 9th June 20:35

>>> Edited by Brigadier on Monday 9th June 20:37

[madcop]

Basically the Police are not under any obligaton to disclose any evidence including photgraphs unless the accused person pleads not guilty.

Where NIP and provisional FPT are concerned, the fact that they have been received by the accused does not give them the right to look at the photos to see if there is no chance of them getting away with it by suggesting the photo is inconclusive as to the driver.

Some forces will assist an accused person by disclosing the photographic evidence if they ask for it before hearing whether the accused would like to be heard by a court or accept the FPT. They do not have to!

[Deadly Dog]

There is another twist to this. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 may actually prevent photographic evidence being used to identify the driver. Try this link for more info.

[pesty]

madcop said: Basically the Police are not under any obligaton to disclose any evidence including photgraphs unless the accused person pleads not guilty.

Where NIP and provisional FPT are concerned, the fact that they have been received by the accused does not give them the right to look at the photos to see if there is no chance of them getting away with it by suggesting the photo is inconclusive as to the driver.

Thanks mad cop that actualy makes sense to me now, have been wondering about this for a while.

The problem I have ( and this isnt a go at the police)

Is that machines go out of calibration (and I should know)and people make mistakes.
Isnt that why we have the white lines on the road?
Is it posible that whoever looks at the picture forgets to check or makes a mistake or just beleives the gatso when it could be wrong?
And we cant check for ourselves until we see the picture.

[brigadier]

I believe there are two cases where senior police officers have had the luxury of viewing the video/photographic evidence.

One was a Chief Constable who studied the pics for six months, trying to find out which members of his force had been snapped by a gatso. The vehicle was an unmarked CID Fiesta and no-one would own up to being the driver. Unfortunately I'm unable to find the BBC News web link. Maybe someone could help here. I recall he ended up in court himself.

The other is the officer mentioned in this link. He didn't go to court but apparently had chance to see the evidence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1505000/1505534.stm

One rule for them - another for us ??

Cheers
Brigadier

[madcop]

brigadier said: I believe there are two cases where senior police officers have had the luxury of viewing the video/photographic evidence.

One was a Chief Constable who studied the pics for six months, trying to find out which members of his force had been snapped by a gatso. The vehicle was an unmarked CID Fiesta and no-one would own up to being the driver. Unfortunately I'm unable to find the BBC News web link. Maybe someone could help here. I recall he ended up in court himself.

The other is the officer mentioned in this link. He didn't go to court but apparently had chance to see the evidence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1505000/1505534.stm

One rule for them - another for us ??

Cheers
Brigadier

The rules are the same for everyone. The chief constable you refer to in the first instance was prosecuted and convicted for not disclosing the driver. The driver of the CID car decided to keep the information to himself. This was a dodgy course for him/her to take as if they had been identified by investigative work, they would probably have faced the sack.

When this sort of situation occurs, the professional standards department get to work to identify the driver. They have wide ranging power and use of technical methods to enhance the photograph which would never be used on a member of the public having difficulty remembering who was driving.

You are right. There is one rule for Police officers and one rule for the public. We get the whole works thrown at us if something like this happens. All you have to do as a member of the public is either admit it (as should the errant driver have done) or state you do not know. An investigation by another branch of the Police service will not follow if you decide you cannot remember. Where a Police officer is concerned, it most definately is.

Police vehicles have journey and time log books which cater for the specific user to record the date time mileage and use for which the vehicle was involved during that duty. Not only would the errant officer in this case have been prosecuted for failing to identify himself, and for the actual speed itself but under a discipline offence internally for failing to fill in the log book. Do you really blame them for risking not identifying themselves.

One rule for you, one rule for us. I would rather have it your way around

[voyds9]

madcop said: Basically the Police are not under any obligaton to disclose any evidence including photgraphs unless the accused person pleads not guilty.

Where NIP and provisional FPT are concerned, the fact that they have been received by the accused does not give them the right to look at the photos to see if there is no chance of them getting away with it by suggesting the photo is inconclusive as to the driver.

Some forces will assist an accused person by disclosing the photographic evidence if they ask for it before hearing whether the accused would like to be heard by a court or accept the FPT. They do not have to!

I can't remember how the new caution goes but I seem to remember 'that it may harm your defence if you fail to disclose any information which you rely on in court' however the police seem to be able to with hold information that says they may not have a chance of conviction if you don't own up

[madcop]

voyds9 said:

madcop said: Basically the Police are not I can't remember how the new caution goes but I seem to remember 'that it may harm your defence if you fail to disclose any information which you rely on in court' however the police seem to be able to with hold information that says they may not have a chance of conviction if you don't own up

you are right, You cannot remember how the caution goes, its nothing like that (you have got some bits close though).

[nubbin]

Not very good for your defence if you can recite the NEW caution word for word, is it?!