ABD to challenge civilian talivan operators
Discussion
puggit said:
Article in current ABD newsletter (On The Road) - They are looking for someone to be a guinea-pig challenging civilian Talivan operators.
Haven't got the article on me, but does JA or DVD know anything on the legality of this?
A clue: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=80585&f=10&h=0&p=2
I believe that someone's ahead of them in the game.
Up in Bristol Crown Court (I think) in a couple of months. (As usual, the magistrates weren't interested in the law).
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 10th February 10:57
OK lets run this past you and it is on the presumption that a precedent which I have missed has not altered things.
Sect 89 RTRAct 1984 creates an offence of speeding, BUT goes on to say " a person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to conviction solely on the evidence of ONE WITNESS to the effect that, in the opinion of THE WITNESS, the person prosecuted was speeding.
So what that says is that corroboration is required.
If a person states (generally we accept this as BiB) "saw vehicle travelling at what appeared to be a fast speed" and confirms the speed from a certified speedo, VASCAR or HR8, then this later is the Corroboration. So one witness and corroboration - case can be proved.
Nowhere does it state that only BiB can be THE WITNESS.
So that means anybody does it not?
But in relation to specialized equipment then ACPO gave guidelines as to what training operators would receive to achieve a set standard and only such trained persons would be used. If this training is given by the Police to civilians then it is back to my submission that they can be used.
Imagine this: Two members of the local village Watch Committee take it upon themselves to monitor speed of vehicle going through their village. Using a certified tape they mark out two points 2.10th mile apart and using a certified correct stopwatch and hand signals, they time vehicles and come up with an average speed well in excess of the limit. If Plod took, or they submitted statements from them then I would submit an offence of speeding can be prosecuted.
Now I am not going to be drawn as to what happens when they give their evidence and cross examined by a Solicitor.
Now with cameras I understand that the device is fired after a set speed (WITNESS ) and corroborated by photo/distances.(Corroboration) so where does the civilian come in?
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 10th February 16:49
Sect 89 RTRAct 1984 creates an offence of speeding, BUT goes on to say " a person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to conviction solely on the evidence of ONE WITNESS to the effect that, in the opinion of THE WITNESS, the person prosecuted was speeding.
So what that says is that corroboration is required.
If a person states (generally we accept this as BiB) "saw vehicle travelling at what appeared to be a fast speed" and confirms the speed from a certified speedo, VASCAR or HR8, then this later is the Corroboration. So one witness and corroboration - case can be proved.
Nowhere does it state that only BiB can be THE WITNESS.
So that means anybody does it not?
But in relation to specialized equipment then ACPO gave guidelines as to what training operators would receive to achieve a set standard and only such trained persons would be used. If this training is given by the Police to civilians then it is back to my submission that they can be used.
Imagine this: Two members of the local village Watch Committee take it upon themselves to monitor speed of vehicle going through their village. Using a certified tape they mark out two points 2.10th mile apart and using a certified correct stopwatch and hand signals, they time vehicles and come up with an average speed well in excess of the limit. If Plod took, or they submitted statements from them then I would submit an offence of speeding can be prosecuted.
Now I am not going to be drawn as to what happens when they give their evidence and cross examined by a Solicitor.
Now with cameras I understand that the device is fired after a set speed (WITNESS ) and corroborated by photo/distances.(Corroboration) so where does the civilian come in?
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 10th February 16:49
So why were the Old Bill so against 'security groups' of local people patrolling housing estates to deter and catch burglars?
I guess that burglary is a lesser offence than speeding these days!
If local vigilantes report me for any offence, they can expect to spend a very uncomfortable day in court with my barrister!
I guess that burglary is a lesser offence than speeding these days!
If local vigilantes report me for any offence, they can expect to spend a very uncomfortable day in court with my barrister!
IIRC it has been stated that police are considered to be experts in speeding (and drinking), are we now saying that civilian operators are also experts.
Do talivans target only certain cars or are all cars targetted? If all cars are targetted (or even most) then is must call into question the expertness of the operator (unless most of those targetted are prosecured)as they are not making any assessment of speed before targetting them.
Do talivans target only certain cars or are all cars targetted? If all cars are targetted (or even most) then is must call into question the expertness of the operator (unless most of those targetted are prosecured)as they are not making any assessment of speed before targetting them.
I think there is a real danger here of overcomplicating an issue regarding 'witnesses'. Broadly speaking you do not require a 'witness' to prosecute anybody for any offence (you rarely get a witness to a murder). The specific mention in RTR 1984 is historic because in the past (prior to speed cameras and laser guns) Police Officer used to give a subjective opinion ('in my opinion Bloggs was excedding the speed limit'). The sec retains the 'subjective opinion' but in order for it to have any weight you must have more than one 'subjective' opinion (two subjective opinions will do).
A camera fired at a set speed is NOT a witness and line markings are NOT corroboration, they are simply evidence.
A camera fired at a set speed is NOT a witness and line markings are NOT corroboration, they are simply evidence.
Stooz:
Notes made at the time i.e. VRM etc held to be good evidence from which to refresh memory.
Cooperman:
But they don't. Community Service Officers patrol all over the place. Not true Police. Sedgefield Council one of the first pure non Police patrols. Many branches of Plod now civilianised : Custody Officers, Statement takers, File Preparers etc. Soon Highways Agency patrolling M ways. Dare I say it Neighbourhood watch, Farmwatch etc etc.
Barrister eh = top dosh - any spare?
Voyd9;
Where does it say at Law that only Police are considered experts in speed detection.?
DVD
Notes made at the time i.e. VRM etc held to be good evidence from which to refresh memory.
Cooperman:
But they don't. Community Service Officers patrol all over the place. Not true Police. Sedgefield Council one of the first pure non Police patrols. Many branches of Plod now civilianised : Custody Officers, Statement takers, File Preparers etc. Soon Highways Agency patrolling M ways. Dare I say it Neighbourhood watch, Farmwatch etc etc.
Barrister eh = top dosh - any spare?
Voyd9;
Where does it say at Law that only Police are considered experts in speed detection.?
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
Stooz:
Notes made at the time i.e. VRM etc held to be good evidence from which to refresh memory.
Cooperman:
But they don't. Community Service Officers patrol all over the place. Not true Police. Sedgefield Council one of the first pure non Police patrols. Many branches of Plod now civilianised : Custody Officers, Statement takers, File Preparers etc. Soon Highways Agency patrolling M ways. Dare I say it Neighbourhood watch, Farmwatch etc etc.
Barrister eh = top dosh - any spare?
Voyd9;
Where does it say at Law that only Police are considered experts in speed detection.?
DVD
I quite agree but at what point are they experts? Does the act of put them in the van make them experts? Do they receive extensive training or is a two day intensive course.
Quite willing to be shot down in flames I don't know how it works but I consider these questions to be asked by a sensible person.
I was going thru a little lane today where the local vigilantes had installed a mobile speed monitor that indicated your speed as you approached it. I went thru doing bang on 30mph. (Given that a Lotus Elise's Stack speedo is reputed to be 100% accurate at that speed, it said I was doing 33mph, but thats besides the point).
As i went around the gradual left hand bend I was confornted by an old vigilante/test pilot for the local broomstick factory standing in the road waving 3 fingers at me. Naturally I slowed down, to be treated to a loadx of aggro.
I stopped and woud down my passenger window. She screamed at me that the speed limit was 30mph.
I told her,' thats ok then, cos I was only doing 30mph.'
Her staggering response was - 'No you weren't, I've lived here 18 years and you were going nearly 35 mph.I know what 30mph is.'
You might as well run over folk like that and say I saw her, but thought she was an apparition, possibly Brunsties demented granny.
Anyway, she finished the conversation by telling me to **** off.
Charming.
As i went around the gradual left hand bend I was confornted by an old vigilante/test pilot for the local broomstick factory standing in the road waving 3 fingers at me. Naturally I slowed down, to be treated to a loadx of aggro.
I stopped and woud down my passenger window. She screamed at me that the speed limit was 30mph.
I told her,' thats ok then, cos I was only doing 30mph.'
Her staggering response was - 'No you weren't, I've lived here 18 years and you were going nearly 35 mph.I know what 30mph is.'
You might as well run over folk like that and say I saw her, but thought she was an apparition, possibly Brunsties demented granny.
Anyway, she finished the conversation by telling me to **** off.
Charming.
Here we go, just got in from pub 
Stolen from On The Road, issue 62:
---------------------------------
Malcolm Heymer has got his teeth into a project about the issue of speed camera enforcement by civilians working for camera partnerships. This came about after a contact of his within the police sector tipped him off by saying that this is quite without any legal foundation and is clearly contrary to law. The office concerned was aware of several counties who, in the rare event of a not guilty plea, had dropped the case to prevent the employee having to give evidence.
He continued by suggesting that anyone caught on camera should ask the partnership for the evidence of the police officer involved in commencing the procedure. If this 'advance disclosure' is refused then a phone call to the partnership should establish whether civilians are used as camera operators. If they are, the course of action should be to automatically plead not guilty. The chances of such a case ever getting anywhere near the courts is slim to say the least...
Of course all this is currently full of unknowns, and Malcolm is now trying to find somebody who is prepared to be part of a test case - he reckons he has the services of a good solicitor already confirmed, who will fight the action for virtually nothing. The main problem is that anyone who questions the camera partnership is likely to win without going to court, raise the issue there as a defencem ad then be prepared to appeal to the High Court.
Now is the time to question the validity of the processes adopted by some of the camera partnerships so if you'd like to help out, please take a look at www.pepipoo.com/newforums2/viewtopic.php?t=782 or email malcolm (address on www.ABD.org.uk - I won't paste on here).
Stolen from On The Road, issue 62:
---------------------------------
Malcolm Heymer has got his teeth into a project about the issue of speed camera enforcement by civilians working for camera partnerships. This came about after a contact of his within the police sector tipped him off by saying that this is quite without any legal foundation and is clearly contrary to law. The office concerned was aware of several counties who, in the rare event of a not guilty plea, had dropped the case to prevent the employee having to give evidence.
He continued by suggesting that anyone caught on camera should ask the partnership for the evidence of the police officer involved in commencing the procedure. If this 'advance disclosure' is refused then a phone call to the partnership should establish whether civilians are used as camera operators. If they are, the course of action should be to automatically plead not guilty. The chances of such a case ever getting anywhere near the courts is slim to say the least...
Of course all this is currently full of unknowns, and Malcolm is now trying to find somebody who is prepared to be part of a test case - he reckons he has the services of a good solicitor already confirmed, who will fight the action for virtually nothing. The main problem is that anyone who questions the camera partnership is likely to win without going to court, raise the issue there as a defencem ad then be prepared to appeal to the High Court.
Now is the time to question the validity of the processes adopted by some of the camera partnerships so if you'd like to help out, please take a look at www.pepipoo.com/newforums2/viewtopic.php?t=782 or email malcolm (address on www.ABD.org.uk - I won't paste on here).
andygo said:
I was going thru a little lane today where the local vigilantes had installed a mobile speed monitor that indicated your speed as you approached it. I went thru doing bang on 30mph. (Given that a Lotus Elise's Stack speedo is reputed to be 100% accurate at that speed, it said I was doing 33mph, but thats besides the point).
As i went around the gradual left hand bend I was confornted by an old vigilante/test pilot for the local broomstick factory standing in the road waving 3 fingers at me. Naturally I slowed down, to be treated to a loadx of aggro.
I stopped and woud down my passenger window. She screamed at me that the speed limit was 30mph.
I told her,' thats ok then, cos I was only doing 30mph.'
Her staggering response was - 'No you weren't, I've lived here 18 years and you were going nearly 35 mph.I know what 30mph is.'
You might as well run over folk like that and say I saw her, but thought she was an apparition, possibly Brunsties demented granny.
Anyway, she finished the conversation by telling me to **** off.
Charming.
So you phoned the police and claimed to be being harrased? It will only take a few complaints about the hysterical menopausal maniacs and this whole nonsense will be stopped. Good technique if on a one to one with them is to claim you were attempting to kill their offspring in a bout of ethnic cleansing, this should be followed with children can easily be reproduced by unskilled labour. You then of course deny it when the cops come. Practice looking shocked and amazed in the mirror before leaving the house.
puggit said:
Here we go, just got in from pub
Stolen from On The Road, issue 62:
He continued by suggesting that anyone caught on camera should ask the partnership for the evidence of the police officer involved in commencing the procedure. If this 'advance disclosure' is refused then a phone call to the partnership should establish whether civilians are used as camera operators. If they are, the course of action should be to automatically plead not guilty. The chances of such a case ever getting anywhere near the courts is slim to say the least...
I've just been informed, challenges to the accuracy of teh equipment, and "Details of the enforcement officer involved are only available as evidence in a 'not Guilty' trial."
andygo said:
test pilot for the local broomstick factory
They let my mother out for the day?
Seriously, do the rules/guidelines state that the operator should first determine that 'in his opinion' there is excessive speed, and then use the equipment to check it.
Watching something on the news last night (foaming at the mouth as usual) and they showed a talivan just blindly checking every car.
I now drive past them at bang on 30 or 60. In 1st or 2nd.....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff