Safe Speed Forums

A friend who is in a position to know the details. It was reported in some papers, I think the Times had the details correct,but as I distrust newspaper reports i checked.

fisherman mate - we've read each press release over this. The police officer who fired the laser did give evidence in court per 90% of the reports.

The court accepted Dr Tann. They also perhaps took some note of his other work and reputation as an expert in his field as well


The device has, in fact, been tested with success in the USA per some grapevine gossip which has not been proven. I have not yet tracked down this "test in the USA" yet either.


But.. if it's based on GPS technology.. and there are plans to charge us as we drive per this GPS technology .. then there cannot be any claim that this technology is less accurate than a hand held speed cam prone to some slippage as a result of hand shake of sleight of hand

_________________
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.

Sounds like the CPS spin version - and they have been spinning like anything over this.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think the Times did reveal source of a Prat there. Pure spin

_________________
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.

Less serious?!?! We are talking about an offence that [apparently] robs thousands of citizens of their lives every year, and has been compared by senior sources as akin to driving a knife into someone!!

What could be more serious?!?!?!

I checked with a friend in one of the major broadcast organisations who comfirmed it has been dropped. He tells me they had a reporter in court.

If he is wrong, and where the media are concerned that is always a possibility, I forecast that Dr Tann will have his device on sale within weeks, using his win in court as advertising.

We know it has been dropped. We know the reason given to press.

We may not know the true reason.

But I do know that the CPS were pushing their press statement very hard indeed. Too hard, really. As if they had something to hide.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

You can't both be correct.
Either it was dropped, in which case no evidence would have been heard and no verdict given or it wasn't dropped, evidence was heard and a verdict given.

I believe that there were a number of hearings before the case was dropped - so we can both be right.

I have emailed a series of questions to Dr Tann in the hope of getting to the bottom of this.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

We are also quite interested in this case. Durham believe 100% that any prosecutions are pure fair play.


We do use the questionable "doo-dah". We usually mount this on a tripod. We usually publicise locations too. We allow a fairly decent "margin of error" too - as "cough - discretion"

If the location is one which is risky - then our margin may well be per ACO guidelines all the same.. dead to this margin We do try as best we can to educate to prevent the hurt to folk in the future though. We do know some errors by ALL road users are genuine and we do try to help and even try to avoid "unpleasantness" for all as best we can. The RPU team cannot be fairer - and Co Durham certainly cannot afford to be fairer than this in any case.

I'd rather any evidence used to be fair and justly obtained than accuse on an obvious mistake This does not help. It fuels anger and resentment and my teams out there are trying their level best to make that fair minded difference to quality of ALL road user life after all.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

and the scope of discretion is ????

In pedantic mode (AGAIN!!) its not possible for a case to be dropped AND for evidence to have been put before the court. The CPS could decide not offer any more evidence after the start of the trial, but that is not the same as dropping the case. Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "dropped".


If there were a number of hearings there are two possibilities.

That they were case management hearings, which would have general disscussion about points of law, number of witnesses, basis of defence etc. But NONE of it would have been offered as evidence, its purely discussion. Normally a CMH is conducted by a court clerk with no bench present. If it becomes obvious at this stage that the defence are going to insist on a witness the CPS can't - or won't - produce then the case would be dropped, if the witness was vital to the case.

The other alternative is that it got as far as a trial after a number of CMHs. The case could still be dropped before the start of the trial if the CPS were aware of the non appearance of their witness. In which case no evidence would be put forward by either side. Or the trial could have started.
It could then have proceeded to full time, in which case ALL the evidence would have been tested. Or it could have collapsed before the defence put anything forward. The CPS do that when they realise they have no hope of winning, and do it by saying that they have "taken a view and will offer no further evidence". In which case there would be a not guilty verdict but no testing of defence assertions.

I await your response from Dr Tann with interest.

Regarding the CPS cop out - "not in the public interest"!
They have been unable to pull this stroke in the case to be heard at Chorley magistrates on the 31st of October 2007 it is being publicly funded as "being in the public interest"! The CPS have appeared on three occasions and refused to supply original prosecuting documents challenged as being forgeries! However at the last appearance the magistrates refused to be conned and, after examining the documents insisted that it go to Trial " in the public interest".
Now with less than a week to go, they have called in the IPCC to investigate!
Watch this spot or your local press for what happens next Wednesday!