Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:20

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 20:58 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Spee ... 3793165.jp

Quote:
Speed cam battler to fight on despite losing






A speed camera campaigner has refused to admit defeat after a long-running court wrangle failed.

Motorist Lynn Robson launched a bid to overturn a speeding fine in December 2006.

The now 61-year-old claimed mobile mounted speed cameras were illegal, after he was caught doing 34mph in 30mph zone.

Mr Robson, of Sunny Blunts, Peterlee, took his battle to Sunderland Magistrates' Court, where the case was brought before the bench 10 times.

But last month, magistrates found him guilty of exceeding a 30mph speed limit at North Road, Hetton.

And now Mr Robson – who represented himself in court yesterday – has been left with a £2,427 bill for court costs.

He was also slapped with a £100 fine and three penalty points.

Now he is considering launching an appeal against the court's decision, claiming expert witnesses :rolleyes: were biased against his cause.

He said: "It certainly was not the result I was hoping for. I want to appeal, but I'm not sure how I will do it."

He says he is not against speed cameras. :wink:

He said: "They are a very useful means of reducing speeding. But they catch doctors and lawyers – the people who go on speed awareness courses tend to be in this category – not the boy racers, as they are on back lanes where there are no cameras.

:yesyes:

"Motorists are easy picking, no doubt about it. It falls to us to prove our innocence. The idea of innocent until proven guilty is out of the window."

The original speeding ticket for the offence on February 20, 2006 imposed a fine of £60 and three penalty points.

Mr Robson was snapped in his Citroen C5 estate on North Road in Hetton.
He was adamant he had not been speeding and set out to prove mobile cameras were illegal.

Mr Robson said evidence from the Home Office showed the Gatso 24 radar speed camera which caught him should not have been filming from inside a van.

Guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) also state that type of camera should not be mounted inside a vehicle.

But experts said the Acpo guidelines refer to Gatso radars used from a moving vehicle.


Road safety groups have welcomed news of the court's decision.

Ray King from Safe Speed for Life, said: "We are pleased with the verdict as we think he has wasted a lot of people's time, but the court has reached a verdict on the fact that we use our equipment properly.

"All our operations are weighted on the side of the motorist.

"If someone is caught speeding then all the evidence is available online. We have speed awareness courses for motorists that are just over the speed limit and all our equipment is monitored by the Home Office."




In 2006 :scratchchin: they all calimed to abide by the "guidelines of 10%+2" which means at 34 mph . he is not at prosecution level levied by most. This variation alone is unjust with some being offered speed aware courses at hugely different margins - which makes a post code lottery and mockery of road safety policy in any case.

:banghead:

Consistency in justice.. consistency in accident stats.. proper record keeping to establish whether or not the cams worked (and Profs Pilkington and Mountain both agreed and complained about this failure skewing and compromising any research in the appendices to their papers. :popcorn:)

I wish him luck. I wonder if it would be worth Claire's and Ern's time in contacting this bloke? :scratchchin:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 00:08 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
Quote:
But experts said the Acpo guidelines refer to Gatso radars used from a moving vehicle.


Presumably they were all reading from the top secret Expert Edition Guidelines, as opposed to the readily available Public Edition, because the latter is quite clear:


10.2 Setting up the Radar Meter and Operation

The device must not be operated from within a vehicle.


A simple, matter of fact statement, which makes no reference to whether or not the device is stationary. Indeed, as far as I know, the only speed measurement devices approved for use in a moving vehicle are calibrated speedos, Vascar, and the good old Mk.1 eyeball... Something doesn't add up here :scratchchin:

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 08:14 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Quote:
And now Mr Robson – who represented himself in court yesterday – has been left with a £2,427 bill for court costs.

He was also slapped with a £100 fine and three penalty points.


a. gatso in vehicle... total breach of type approval
B court costs breach magistraites guidelines of more than twice the fine
as determoned in the dove case.

Anyone know how I can contact this gent?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 08:46 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Quote:
... Ray King from Safe Speed for Life...

Who is this?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 21:02 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
http://www.safespeedforlife.co.uk/

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 00:09 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 15:01
Posts: 28
Judicial review application in the process.
1st point is Wednesbury unreasonable on the costs.
2nd point is Wednesbury unreasonable that the magistrates decided that a Home Office FOI answer "No type approved speedmeter has been tested or approved for use affixed within a vehicle" meant that the device was approved. Something that they would need to do in order to convict.
3rd point is human rights violation in calling an expert witness who served his report 5 days before trial with no disclosure of the documents he mentioned so that my ability to cross examine him was impossible. Further to this his testimony on the witness stand was inconsistent with that in his report. The report made the comment that it was his opinion that the Gatso would have been operated within Type aproval only if it had been used in accordance with the Speedmeter Handbook, the Manufacturers Handbook and the ACPO Code of Practice. I was denied a copy of the Speedmeter handbook and the manufacturers handbook and we all know that ACPO says "Must not be used from within a vehicle". When he (Trevor Hall of NRSS Ltd) took the stand he told the court that it was his opinion that the use from within a vehicle would be satisfactory. See the case of McVicar V The United Kingdom in the ECHR Judgements. A similar case to this in the use of an expert witness was involved and the ECHR ruled that there had been a breach of human rights as the applicant had been denied the opportunity to properly cross examine the witness due to conflicting opinion in court to that in a previous statement.
4th Point is the use of an expert witness in contravention to the rules for an expert witness. As he is a director of NRSS Ltd, whose Memorandum of Association states the aim "to assist safety camera partnerships and supplier manufacturers in defending legal challenges and test cases. NRSS Ltd is also in partership with several SCP's taking tens of thousands of £'s each from each of them in partnership subscriptions. There is a duty to be impartial and independant according to the rules for expert witnesses. Not only must he be impartial and independant, he must be perceived to be so (Ikarian Reefer case).
5th Point is on the calling of a policesergeant as a witness. He made a "Proof by written statement" which was served o me only 4 days before trial which referred to testing carried out by Newcasle University. He was called as a witness without any prior notification and without any copy of the university report being disclosed. Human rights issue again. No opportunity to properly prepare for cross examination of this witness. In any case the only testing worth anything at all is the Home Office Type Approval tests done by the Home Office Scientific Development Branch.
5th point is that a certain Crown Advocate who has been instructed by the local CPS team to continue the case at appeal is also a member, a very senior one, of the CPS who is seconded to NRSS Ltd, the same organisaion as the expert witness. Not only is at odds with the necessity for a perception of independance and impartiality of the expert witness but it smacks of collusion.
So, that's the nutshell of it right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 06:11 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
You have my full support and if you need any help shout by pm.
Anton

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 13:28 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 15:01
Posts: 28
Oh, did I mention that the Gatso Handbook is now available by FOI to the Home Office?
Just in case you should need a copy send them an email and you'll have one arrive pretty quickly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 15:01
Posts: 28
The case continues.
As suspected the involvement of RSS's Trevor Hall and Andrew Perry was a conflict of interest.
Pattersons Law is now involved.https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/rss-ltd-and-road-traffic-offence-enforcement/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:29 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Still going on ten years later!!

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:30 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 15:01
Posts: 28
malcolmw wrote:
Still going on ten years later!!

Not at my behest. I was contacted by the senior lawyer at the named firm who has also been trying to "out" the RSS involvement in prosecutions for as long as I have.
Although they don't have any intention of doing any sort of legal appeal against the conviction, if it were possible - which it ain't, they are going after a refund of costs based on the fact that RSS is already funded by the very police forces who have taken the case to court. A duplicity of costs is therefore happening.

I have spoken to them about the way RSS is incapable of providing expert witness opinion due to their too close for comfort relationship with both the police and the CPS and the stated aims of their Articles of Association to provide police with a service which is akin to, as Med Hughes said "We are going to demonstrate that spurious cases get a slap. This team will defend the integrity of enforcement equipment and help us win high-profile cases.” and “We are saying to drivers who think they can try it on, ‘Come and get us if you think you are hard enough’

The senior legal person in the firm has been chasing the same things as myself for over 10 years and has made some progress but is stonewlled by a lot people who should be providing answers.

Anyway, the case is that if a double costs payment was the result of the police and/or CPS already funding RSS then a refund is due. With interest.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.210s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]