Safe Speed Forums

He says earlier in the post I quoted from that his attendance had been excused. Thats quite common for case management hearings. It can be because one side is up to date with their duties to the court and so doesn't need to attend. It can be to avoid the need for a long journey or time off work just to hand in documents that can be faxed or posted. In such cases, if the CPS decide not to proceed it would make no sense at all to adjourn and summon the other party to appear at a later date just to tell them that the case is dropped.


I thought my post was clear but apparently not. In the case in question, had the CPS accepted his speed test and dropped the case it would definitely be their eyes that were wool covered (so to speak) and the magistrates probably wouldn't even have seen the evidence. If the CPS did not accept the test as sufficient cause to drop the case, the court would have heard ALL the evidence. The results of the test and the grounds on which the CPS were disputing it. Not much leeway for wool pulling there.


My apologies, i had misread the question.

Just to be clear.There is no need for exceptional circumstances to appeal a decision or to introduce new evidence at the rehearing following a not guilty plea, although I wouldn't expect new evidence of the "didn't realise the speedo was over reading" to be all that successful.


There are limited circumstances in which you can appeal conviction after a guilty verdict. Including but not limited to these examples.

If your original guilty plea was equivocal, in that you entered a plea along the lines of "guilty but". You would need to convince the higher court that the court which accepted your plea should have either considered a Newton Hearing or refused to accept your guilty plea and substituted one of not guilty.

If your guilty plea followed an interpretation of law given by the convicting court ( which would probably be as a result of submissions made requesting a ruling ) which you later wish to disagree with.

If you admit the conduct with which you were charged but dispute that it constitutes an offence. This would be unusual as it would normally be settled at the time by way of submissions requesting a ruling.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

It seems to me that the speed-test is a red-herring and this case was dropped due to lack of witness availability.

I just hope people aren't mislead on the media slant on the matter.

I wasn't aware that Mr Lyle was reprsented? However if he was, he representation would have been informed of the hearing in question although the defendant may have not attended. In that case it would be considered that Mr Lyle has been informed, hence I am confused at what he is being quoted as saying on this.

It seems to me that the prosecution had plenty of time to have a witness there, but chose to not be able to find him. Several times. It seems highly likely that they did not proceed with the case because of lack of bottle. It may even be that they chose to not proceed because they realised that their speed readings were faulty.
In fact, I have as much right to interpret their IN-actions in the way I chose, as you do.
Funny, other cases have proceeded along similar lines and made it to court.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

jomukuk: Of course you have every right to draw what inferences you wish from the "no-show". However, my experiece is if a witness leaves the employment of a party, they have no good reason to go through the ordeal of being a witness. Some develop health problems as well.
Nevertheless, I would be intriqued to know what the reason was for the "no-show".

and me,
if the operator had left the force he could be summoned,
if he was in work he cannot refuse to go to court,
if it was his day off his rest day would be rescheduled

_________________
now retired

I now have it in good authority that Mr Dale Lyle was not legally represented.

The key witness, who was the camera operator was in fact seriously ill and there was no liklihood of him attending in a reasonable time. There had been several delays previously and I believe the trial date had been put back three times previously.

However Mr Lyle was unaware that under English law a trial must be held within a reasonable time - it is simply unjust to have a charge hanging over you indefinately. So the CPS took the initiative and dropped the charges on these grounds. It would be a serious matter if the CPS were fibbing on this. Some people will say the CPS used this as an excuse, but I can tell you that a CPS Solicitor puts his own career before the CPS's pride!

It would seem that the CPS was not phased by the Top-Speed test in the slightest and anyone who spends loads of money on experts and lawyers persuing this sort of defence should research other people who have employed so-called speed camera experts who have managed to convert a £60 fine into a £5k day out in court! (of course the lawyers and experts still get paid).

It is interesting to note that Mr Lyle didn't sink £1,000's on lawyers and experts! (Just £500 on a top-speed test)

I don't doubt that's normally the case, but I don't think this case fits that description. The description of what is removed would be more accurately termed a side load (as opposed to a brick), the removal resulting with the edifice being stronger.


AFAIK, this is the only outstanding point. This point could well have already been considered, but that together with drafting and potential tailwinds (news reports from that day indicate strong winds) would very likely make up the additional 13mph. Had these been considered the results of speed test would have been deemed too weak to cast any doubt. It is fairly obvious the prosecution didn't mount a competent challenge (for whatever reason, perhaps it wasn't necessary to do so).


That would normally be a true statement, but to be honest, in this case in terms of consideration of the technical issues I think it has been the other way around (not forgetting the fact I've also analysed the video).


I have no problem with that; the poster even looks like the real deal. I've surfed around that forum looking for threads relating to this case, I couldn't help but notice no-one has touched upon the flaws of the test; I'm disappointed with that.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I think I was being a bit too clever with my question. Upon further reflection, the question may not have been valid at all. I need to ask another:

Would I be right in assuming other motorists who now believe they might have been stitched up (hence my earlier over-reading speedo comment) cannot appeal because no further evidence is available (i.e. the CPS dropped their case as opposed to an acceptance that the gun gave a bum reading) ?

All considered (all technical issues and quotes from CPS), Lucy's 'on good authority' claim is the only scenario that makes sense to me.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

just read this on PePiPoo

_________________
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

All of a sudden the 'realisation of the speedo over-reading' doesn't seem so far fetched!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Anecdotal I know, but my car speedo agrees 100% with my GPS at 30mph. At 70mph the disparity is about 5mph over, the very epitome of "between 70-80mph". I borrowed a horsebox for a move recently, I think the conversion had involved some different sized wheels, because it was over 15mph out at 70mph "groundspeed" (GPS).

My point is that surely admission of a speedo reading, given their well-established inaccuracy, and the lack of quantification of such, is not enough to prove an excess of the limit beyond a reasonable doubt.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

PS for Dale, it is a bad idea to admit that "maybe" you have done something, as many magistrates will view that as reasonable doubt against the assertion that you haven't and, given their ignorance of the principal of common law, either find you guilty outright, or refer you to a higher court. The end result is the same, more time and more money.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

This is obviously not correct. Either he is to be sentenced OR or he is to be tried. The concept of sentence first verdict later only occurs in Alice in Wonderland.


This clearly amounts to an equivocal plea. In effect, he is saying he didn't do what was charged and at the same time is saying he may well have done it. It should have been cleared up at the first appearance for case management.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

At the first time up the bench would not have seen the plea form. Clearly the clerk missed the ambiguity and failed to tell the defendant that an equivocal plea is unacceptable.
Had it been spotted it would have been corrected. If the resultant plea had been one of guilty, then his admission of "may have done it" would be irrelevant. If the resultant plea had been one of not guilty, the trial bench would never have seen the plea form.

If it had gone to trial and he had admitted, on oath, that he might have done it I would expect that to be balanced against other comments that he had not done what was alleged.

In any event it is not possible for a bench to find you guilty on the basis of a "may have done it" comment. A finding of guilty always needs either an unequivocal guilty plea or a trial. At trial the CPS would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did what was alleged.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Hi folks. New poster, no offence intended but we do love a good debate…

On the vehicle speed: I'm an automotive engineer with two degrees and I certainly wouldn't claim I could predict the top speed of an unknown car. A 12mph tail wind will not make you 12mph faster because there is still increased rolling resistance and powertrain friction. A flat tyre may change the point on the torque curve but it also significantly adds to rolling resistance (as well as putting his speedo out). If we are talking Vmax then how long of a downward slope is present on this stretch of road? From the short video it looks like he’s only just beyond the crest of a hill. My experience is that cars usually fail to make the manufacturer's claim when new and the *certainly* don't when 17 years old due to loss of compression. I am not saying that he wasn’t doing 98, just that IMO you’d need more than 2% gradient to do it. I’d also like to think, in terms of justice, that if the relevant factors as per Lucy’s post are attributed then this should make for a reasonable defence.

I'm quite surprised at some of the comments on here. For example, assuming that no hearing would happen if the defendant was not present. I was tried and convicted, unrepresented, in my absence even though I had written to all parties and the court explaining I was on a work assignment abroad for 3 months complete with copy of the flight itinerary. Also assuming that a case would be dropped merely because it was a long delay. Some SCPs seem to have a policy of brinkmanship: NIP sent on day 13, summons dated 6 months -1 day and sent a month later.

Speedometers are *required* to be inaccurate, in that the legal tolerance is IIRC +7% -0%. Given that there will be manufacturing tolerances and that tyre temperature (=>pressure) and tread depth have an effect, the mean accuracy has to be pitched at a few % minus.

I’d also question the LTI operation. We know it takes 43 pulses minimum @ 8ms = 344ms. The BBC has kindly put up a clean (non-interlaced) 25fps so that’s 40ms or 5 pulses per frame, so we’re looking at just over 8 frames for a reading. At the claimed 3mrads divergence the beam would be about 60cm wide on the target car. If it were aligned this would make the silver car clear by 23s NR22, at which point there are 8 clear steady frames before the LTI *fails* to get a reading and instead delivers E03 “Unstable reading due to poor aiming or panning off the target”. One reason might be it’s not aligned and has acquired the silver car which then moves out of frame.

Then only 80ms later we get E01, which the manual says is “The target was out of range or was too close" but Dunne from LTI says occurs “if the trigger is released or a time-out occurs “. The latter part is essentially the same as the manual and is a bit confusing because it does not refer to TIMEOUT message but time-out waiting for a return signal. So either the LTI in perfectly reasonable conditions failed to get a return signal (eg: it’s aligned badly) or the operator released the trigger and then re-applied it within a second in order to get the 98mph reading. I’m not sure why he would do that rather than just keep the trigger down since he’s still on the same vehicle but maybe Camera Operator can educate me.

Cheers all,
M

Hi and welcome!

Just a very small (and slightly pedantic!) point, speedos are required not to under-read, but they aren't "required" to over-read either - it's just that (for the reasons you cite) they end up doing so to avoid the possibility of under-reading. There is a top limit on the amount they can over-read but it's not 7%. If you go for the level of type approval that most major manufacturers use, it's 10% plus a fixed amount (which I think is 4.25MPH or something but would have to look it up). If you go for a lower level of approval, you get 10% + 6.25MPH.

I am confident I could have fixed a car to not achieve the required speed in the tests. It is easy to reprogram the mapping to deliver less performance on fuel injection cars. On carb cars all you need to do is make a new inlet gasket with reduced holes for the fuel/air mixture.

I am not sure how this case ended as the police dropped the prosicution, then when he hit the press trying to claim costs the resumed the case against him.

An d car can be made faster just by fitting narrower tyres, losing weight removing the a/c belt and a bit of tlc tuning etc.

_________________
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,
Quite right. Your reduced inlet gasket would work on carb or FI cars, no need for re-mapping. Or a bit of laquer on the air filter (would flag MIL fault eventually), or restrict the exhaust, or probably just fix the throttle not to open fully, or fool the HEGO into lean, lots of opportunity. I don't think he did any of this as his 17 year old car achieved nearly the book speed. This suggests it was well maintained and un-tampered. As book speed and measured speed agreed and were 12mph less than LTI speed I think the onus should be on the CPS to show how 98mph was possible via wind and gradient. Reasonable doubt in abundance.

I think you answered your own question. They dropped the case, he waved the papers to the media and their egos made them pick up that gauntlet.


Mole,
Thanks for the correction. The manufacturer's spec, which I think is what I recall (Visteon) and the legal requirement are not the same. Which is the latter?

Any LTI expert comment on E01? Does it occur often when the trigger is held down continously and if so, why? In this case is this an indication of release? If not release, what happened 80ms after E03 to cause E01 to show?

E53 or E87 would occur

_________________
now retired

Dunno, I imagine most manufacturers will have their own specs that fall well within the legal limits. The figures I quoted were legal limits from two different approval regimes that are commonly used in the UK. They haven't changed since speedos were cable-driven and I imagine that most modern car speedos would be well within those margins (perhaps even +5%, -0%) but the latter is just a guess.