Safe Speed Forums

Dear Forum members

I am due to attend court on Mon 3 Mar 08 (next Mon) to face a speeding charge (allegedly 46 in a 40 zone). I feel I have been ‘obstructed’ by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in gaining information with which to prepare a defence case – and have just had a request to adjourn the hearing rejected (yesterday, 25 Feb 08). As I see it, I have only two unpalatable choices. Either to go to court with no evidence to defend myself with or to change my plea to guilty and try to limit the size of the costs I will be charged. I have nowhere else to turn, so would appreciate ant advice from forum members over the next couple of days so I can decide on the best course of action.

Here is a narrative of the case – I will try to keep it as succinct as possible:

1 – I was supposedly ‘caught’ traveling at 46 mph in a 40 zone in Apr 07. The device was a LTI 20-20 TS/M SpeedScope.

2 – I didn’t think I was speeding so pleaded not guilty. I then wrote two (similar) letters (Jun/Sep 07) asking for information on which to potentially base a defence case.

3 – The CPS eventually provided some of the information, then a little more after I had followed the issue up (calibration certificate, site map, fixed distance check sheet, type approval certificate and the operators qualification certificate) It was a start, but when asked for the rest of the information, the CPS has refused to provide it.

4 – I was out of the country from the end of Oct 07 to the end of Jan 08, and during this period a letter was sent to me from the CPS informing me that I could provide a ‘defence statement’ if I liked. As I did not view the letter until my return to the UK at the start of Feb 08, I missed the 14-day deadline. On asking what that meant, I was informed by the CPS by that initial disclosure had been served and that no further information needed to be sent to me.

5 – On my return to the UK and looking through my mail, I discovered that only the above information (in point 3) had been provided, so I emailed the CPS with another request for the same information (which was ignored). I then telephoned the CPS office (mid Feb 08) and explained why I needed the information, (and what purpose it would serve for the defence case) and was told that the Senior Prosecutor would be in touch that week to discuss the points – they never did call back!

6 – As a last resort, I contacted the court and requested an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that the CPS had refused to supply me with the information I needed to present a defence case (this was the advice of a specialist motor solicitor who said I was entitled to the information – however if I was to let the firm take on the case it would have cost c. £3000!). The information requested was as follows (I don’t know if you agree, but myself as an ex-military person with experience of complex electronic devices and how fickle they are if not used, looked after or sited properly - I feel the request was not unreasonable!):

a) Please provide me with copies of all maintenance records for the equipment used to record the alleged offence.
b) Please identify the exact location (map of site *** and actual location of equipment within the site) of the equipment used to record the alleged offence, and provide information which shows that the site was one authorised for the use of such equipment at the time of the alleged offence.
c) Please provide documentation that the site was totally suitable for this type of equipment and free from any type of contamination.
d) Please provide documentation that shows the site used fulfils any guidelines set down in legislation, i.e. length of site, eight or more injury accidents in the preceding three years, etc.
e) Please provide documentation that the 85th percentile speed was greater than the ACPO guidelines. (I DON’T THINK FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD ELSEWHERE THAT IT WAS)
f) Please provide me with a copy of the force’s/Safety Partnership’s procedures for the use of generic radar/portable camera systems, and those for the actual equipment used to record the alleged offence (and a copy of the manufacturer’s procedural use guidelines for the actual equipment used).
g) Please provide documentation describing (and showing the recording of) all 'built-in' checks (as found on the FORM MG11(T) as sent to me) for the equipment used to record the alleged offence.
h) Please provide documentation showing the frequency a CEO has to re-qualify/re-train (on the equipment used to record the alleged offence) to remain current and qualified.
i)Please provide documentation showing what the maintenance checks are for the equipment used to record the alleged offence, and the required frequency of maintenance.
j)Please provide an explanation of the terms 'time-out' and 'error 3' found on the video tape used to record the alleged offence (as provided to me). (THIS IS ESPECIALLY WORRYING TO ME – CAN ANYBODY TELL ME IF THIS IS OF RELEVENCE?)
k) Please provide documentation showing all the road and other signs for site *** were correct and in order at the time and date of the alleged offence, (not just at ****/06 as on the site history sheet supplied to me) and documentation which shows the required frequency of signage checks for the site.

8 – The adjournment request went to the magistrates yesterday (mon 25 Feb) and today I was told that it had been rejected because the CPS had complied with disclosure rules.


9 - A letter sent to me by the CPS letter (Oct 07) stated: “I am required to disclose to you any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed, and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case against the accused or of assisting the case of the accused.”

SURELY THAT IS WHAT I HAVE ASKED FOR!

Instead of complying with their statement, I have been told by the CPS on the telephone that I am on what is termed a ‘fishing expedition’ to try to find technicalities in order to challenge the prosecution case. I was told, on this issue, that the courts take a ‘very dim view’ – I AM NOT LEGALLY TRAINED, BUT SURELY THAT IS HOW A COURT OF LAW WORKS!

10 – I now have a choice. I can complete a c. 500 mile round trip to attend court like a ‘lamb to the slaughter’ to face a CPS barrister (with no evidence to base a defence case on) – or I can change my plea to the CPS to ‘guilty’ and try to minimize the costs. I am unhappy with either eventuality.

11 - I have never faced charges in court before and feel I am facing a ‘closed shop’ with practically no chance to defend myself or with anywhere to turn to for help. This is not the English justice I was brought up to believe in. On this note, I thank you for reading, and would appreciate any advice over the next day or two. THANKS!

In my humble opinion you are going to lose and your bill will be inflated by the magistrates the more time you are in court and for pleading not guilty.

Your defence has not been submitted, so any defence by your self MAY been as an abuse of process.

You could go before a district judge in the next couple of days and ask for the trial to be vacated. However you do not at this stage have a viable defence. You are reliant on a fishing trip for documents that may provide your defence.

In the case I was involved with the trial was vacated on the strength that we had a tacho that stated that the truck was not speeding. In the end the case was won on non compliant signs. I doubt that a judge would vacate the trial for a fishing trip.

You could plead not guilty by way of case stated ( I was not speeding, your honour and say no more, be found guilty and spend your efforts and cash on an appeal. Or fighting them politically like many of the people here.

+It is very unlikely the court will accept you as an expert witness
? was it portable radar? . looks like your case is a lti 20/20 laser
you have not requested the video tape (full and unedited) they often provide valuable errors in procedure.
error 03 is not a fault with the equipment. it is the error trapping software detecting a slip error.

freeze frame the video.
Where were the cross hairs for the 13 frames before the first frame showing the speed on the video. was it steady or drifting all over the car?
was there any video showing alignment or end of session checks.

after a "good" reading the device displays the speed for a few frames , then time out to prevent a speed reading being transferred to another target.

road signage...
are the terminal signs in good condition? reasonably visible, reflective or back lit.
are the circles red, not pink or orange? can you prove they are not the correct colour with some printers colour charts.

Are there any public side roads with only one single 30 sign leading off.
If so if you rejoined by that side road there must be a 40 sign within 100m in each direction (even if it was a one way street or a roundabout) Other wise they need to provide 2x 30 signs into the side road and two x 40 signs leaving the side road.

How do your military bosses feel about you fighting a case like this?
I have had 2 navy chaps refuse to take a good case through the courts as they had "observers " attend court.

If you can come up with a substantive defence by Monday go for it. If not roll over and cough up.

_________________
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

Your chances of winning a case are slim - Anton is correct.
The following might look promising, but the magistrates assume the camera never lies, and it is nigh on impossible to prove to them otherwise.

http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/hosdb/publications/road-policing-publications/18-98-Guide-to-Calibratio1.pdf?view=Binary

Quote from the Home Office:
It is the purpose of the annual calibration check to provide reassurance to a court that a particular
device has been adequately maintained and continues to operate accurately.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/freedom-of-information/released-information/foi-archive-research1/5687-calibration-enforcement?view=Html

Home Office research and science
Calibration Requirements for Traffic Enforcement Equipment
Date: Tue Feb 13 00:00:00 GMT 2007

The National Physical Laboratory is the UK's national standards laboratory. They maintain our national standards for a wide range of measurements including distance and time. They provide a specialist calibration service with the highest available accuracy which is used to calibrate test equipment against the appropriate national standard. You can read about these on their website http://www.npl.co.uk.

The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is the national accreditation body that assesses organisations that provide certification, testing, inspection and calibration services. We expect test instruments used by manufacturers for the calibration of type approved traffic enforcement devices to be themselves calibrated by a UKAS accredited body which will ensure its accuracy can be traced to the national standard. You should refer to the UKAS website http://www.ukas.com for more information.

The National Physics Laboratory do not accept that the calibration certificates provided for cameras are to an acceptable standard. They have written to the Home Office as long ago as 1992 to make this point but have been ignored.
Try the web address, and see if you can get somebody to dig out that letter, if you want to take a chance.

I dont suppose the alleged offence was in Cumbria by any chance?

Email me if you want more information for future use - my addy is in my profile.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Anton and Ernest – thanks for the replies.

The device was an LTI 20:20 SpeedScope. I was sent only c. 4 seconds of video so no alignment or end of session checks were included. Looking at the tape, there were more than 13 frames with cross hairs before the speed was shown, and although drifting a ‘bit’ the operator was aiming at the front number plate region as I came towards him.

Whilst the cross hairs were pointed at my vehicle, the ‘error 3’ message was displayed for 13 frames before the 46mph was displayed (at a distance of 106.7m - IS THE DISTANCE RELEVANT AT ALL?), then after a further 5 frames the ‘timeout’ message was displayed – which stayed on screen for a further 45 frames before disappearing from the display.

I looked at the slippage issue, and the MD of the manufacturers said that the device shows the error message if it detects slippage instead of a speed. Does this mean the operator was causing slippage until he got a ‘clean’ shot?

I am unsure about the signage as the incident happened a long way away from where I live. The 40 zone was one of those short ones grafted into a national speed limit road just off a motorway.

On the military point you make, in my private opinion there is no reason why those guys should not have gone ahead. An ‘observer’ (I have acted in this role in the past – I am ex-forces now) is there to do exactly that. They can offer a character reference if required and just take notes to take back to their bosses (e.g. to see if any military laws have been infringed as well) – a kind of duty of care role for the individual, added to an information gathering exercise for the particular service/unit.

Ernest - the alleged offence was in the south, not Cumbria!

I still genuinely don’t believe I was speeding, but against the kind of bureaucracy I have faced it is obviously a completely different issue actually proving it.

If you have any more thoughts, please let me know.

Thanks.

Does this mean the operator was causing slippage until he got a ‘clean’ shot? yes.

In the south, 40 mph just off a motorway... please tell me it isn't eastern way fareham! or mile end road... both have signage issues

_________________
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

Anton

It wasn't Fareham, but just off the M1 in Bedfordshire. I dont know about any signage issues there, but its an 'interestingly' located 40 zone encountered just off the motorway on the Harlington road.

Thanks for the advice.

Steve

An interesting response to this one "anton" about having a truck with a calibrated tachograph (a legal requirement as you will know).

If you are caught by a speed camera and flashed and receive the NIP as per due process I would like to know why a calibrated tachograph is not accepted as evidence of the "True Speed of the Vehicle" at the time.

A "Calibrated Tachograph" is the instrument the driver uses to record his / her speed and working day and also is the only instrument to tell the driver what speed they are travelling at so I ask why do the courts say that a camera is more reliable than a tachograph and as you have only a tacho to prove your speed how are we supposed to know what is the actual / correct speed for the road at the time?

Bearing in mind that in an accident the tachograph chart is analysed for the evidence of the speed and the manner in which the vehicle is / was being driven at the time and is used as corroborating evidence in court

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

Well Stormin, accepting tachograph evidence would introduce reasonable doubt of guilt and so it is ignored.

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

the tacho was set correctly, We can clarify that from gps records the time the keys were inserted and the time the truck moved and the meal brakes. The constant periods of 56mph were very accurate with the gps co-ords which we had for every 5 min. However despite being calibrated at the factory and passing re-callibration the thre needles were 1,2&4 min early. (ign on, engine revs & speed) however the truck did not exceed the 40 limit until 5 min earlier. There were extensive witness statements stating that the PC had checked the speed camera against the speaking clock and then left his mobile at the police station and then repeated this process after the enforcement cycle.

The speed camera clearly captured the truck at 53mph and this was verified by measuring the distance traveled in 1 second.

My only conclusion I can make was that the police officer lied about checking the clock and the mobile phone or he checked the wrong clock. (vcr not the lti display?)

The PC retired and is no longer available for court cases (he wasn't very old)

_________________
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