Safe Speed Forums

Ryder Cup captain Colin Montogomerie wins Carlisle speeding appeal

Published at 12:55, Tuesday, 15 June 2010

Golfer Colin Montgomerie won his appeal against a speeding conviction after a court ruled that the evidence against him was unreliable.

But Judge Peter Hughes QC, who sat in judgement on the case with two magistrates at Carlisle Crown Court, said it would be wrong for people to conclude that there is one law for the rich and another for everybody else.

His comment came after several court hearings in which the golfer, advised by celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman, challenged the conviction.

Mr Montgomerie was convicted of driving his BMW at 37 mph in a 30 mph zone on the A69 at Corby Hill, near Carlisle, last November.

The three points added to his licence brought his total to 12, which in turn earned him a six month ban under the toting up procedure.
He was also fined £850 with costs of £4,000.

Giving the result of the appeal today, judge Hughes said: “We have reached this decision with a degree of reluctance. The maintenance of public confidence in the reliability of the evidence used to support allegations of speeding is of vital importance.

“Few have the financial resources to mount a challenge to the evidence. Any perception that there is one law for those with the ability to dispute the evidence and another for everybody else would be wrong.”

The judge went on to say that the prosecution in the case had failed to establish to the court’s satisfaction that the reading taken by the police speed gun was accurate.

Neither Montgomerie, Nick Freeman, nor the golfer’s QC Peter Lodden were in court to hear the judgement.
In an earlier hearing, Mr Lodden argued that proper checks were not carried out on the LTi 2020 speed gun, as required under guidelines.

He also suggested that the operators “erratic” movements of the equipment could have caused the speed gun to give an incorrect reading, making the car appear to travel faster.

The appeal included video footage of Mr Montgomerie’s car on the day.

Andrew Perrie, for the prosecution had refuted that Montgomerie’s excessive speed reading was caused by the handling of it by the speed camera technician, saying that he was experienced and competent.

The judge today said that the driver of a second car, whose vehicle was clocked as doing 35mph on the day when Mongomerie was stopped, should be told the outcome of today’s crown court appeal.

Judge Hughes added that copies of the judgement should also be sent to Cumbria Constabulary Chief Constable Craig Mackey. Every year, Mr Montgomerie, the European Ryder Cup captain, who lives in Perthshire, clocks up thousands of miles behind the wheel as he travels to golf tournaments and events.

Giving the result of the appeal today, judge Hughes said: “We have reached this decision with a degree of reluctance. The maintenance of public confidence in the reliability of the evidence used to support allegations of speeding is of vital importance.

...But Judge Peter Hughes QC, who sat in judgement on the case with two magistrates at Carlisle Crown Court, said it would be wrong for people to conclude that there is one law for the rich and another for everybody else...

Giving the result of the appeal today, judge Hughes said: “We have reached this decision with a degree of reluctance. The maintenance of public confidence in the reliability of the evidence used to support allegations of speeding is of vital importance.

...“Few have the financial resources to mount a challenge to the evidence. Any perception that there is one law for those with the ability to dispute the evidence and another for everybody else would be wrong.”

...The judge today said that the driver of a second car, whose vehicle was clocked as doing 35mph on the day when Mongomerie was stopped, should be told the outcome of today’s crown court appeal.

Giving the result of the appeal today, judge Hughes said: “We have reached this decision with a degree of reluctance. The maintenance of public confidence in the reliability of the evidence used to support allegations of speeding is of vital importance.

James Tozer Last updated at 3:24 AM on 16th June 2010
.....Because speed guns - unlike fixed speed cameras - are prone to move in the hand of the operator, strict rules are meant to be followed to prevent inaccurate readings.
The officer is supposed to target only vehicles he suspects are over the limit, training the device's laser beam on the numberplate for a few seconds.
But video footage showed that Montgomerie's BMW was the third of three cars targeted in only five seconds as the beam 'swept' across them, Carlisle Crown Court was told.

In his case, the speed reading was triggered by the back light of his car.
In addition, civilian operator Christopher Griffin had been targeting everything that went past using his LTi 20-20 device, including pedestrians and even a jogger who was recorded at 6mph.
When asked why, he blamed boredom, saying: 'Sometimes your mind goes numb.'
In the absence of visual confirmation that Montgomerie had been speeding, Judge Peter Hughes QC yesterday ruled the readings were invalid.
'He was targeting literally anything he wished to that moved in front of him,' he said. ..........

I've scanned about 20 different articles on this item. I can't help but notice Montgomery/Freeman didn't actually dispute the speed reading (saying that, they weren't at that hearing, but still...)

Are these LTIs generally used with a tripod or handheld? If the latter then should it not be a requirement that they should all be used with a tripod or minimum a monopod to ensure there is minimum wobble from the operator?

I also the think there should be lower maximum acceptable ranges of evidence so cars aren't being checked so far away and it should be clear on the video that the vehicle was in view for a minimum length of time to prove the operator had time to form a prior opinion.

I expect Greenshed will leap to Mr. Callaghan's defence shortly...

All too often the difference between conviction and acquital seems to be the cost of the defence team

Word on the street is that MR lOOPHOLE hired an ex Cleveland Traffic officer. Now an expert witness on Speed Cameras.. A number of issues were raided in Court......No checks on equipment......slippage....and no corroboration.........

Clark’s demonstrations take place outside of the normal operating parameters of the intended
application, ignoring or intentionally disregarding the basic procedures and conditions
recommended by the manufacturer.
Clark’s demonstrations of anomalous events are conducted under specific conditions that are
unlikely to be encountered in a legitimate traffic law enforcement situation. Anomalous results
would rarely be obtained by an operator who did not have prior knowledge of the specific
techniques and circumstances that can induce unreliable results with laser speed measurement
devices. In reality, an unbiased, honest, and competent operator of the LTI 20-20 would
essentially never obtain the kind of false positive results that Clark leaves the reader to imagine are
commonplace. With only the most rudimentary knowledge of instructions for its intended correct
use, a sensible operator would consistently obtain valid results.

There were several aspectes to this case.

1.) The camera operator is supposed to form an opinion that the motorist is speeding before pointing the camera and pulling the trigger.

It was shown from the video that the speed gun was being pointed at too many targets in too short a time for this to have happened

2.) The camera is supposed to be kept steady on the target vehicle while the reading(s) are taken.

It was shown by the video that the speed gun was in fact being swept over several vehicles in quick succession

3.) The camera operators are supposed to be trustworthy individuals, expected to operate the device according to the manufacturers, and ACPO guidelines.

The video showed that in fact the operator was an incompetent arse who was so bored with the job he was being paid to do,