Safe Speed Forums

Long time lurker, first time poster. Great site.



Look's like Paul has a nice little sideline here...

That'll improve the funding then

Hey - we need to get a copy of the 34 mph NIP!

By the way

_________________
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.

Do they still issue NIPs for 34mph? I thought everyone stuck to ACPO, which is why I'm wary of people who claim they've had NIPs for anything less than 10% + 2.

It sounds like Lynn Robson has a case, so long as he can prove the radar was operated from inside the van. It'll be interesting to see the outcome of this one

And welcome leggo

I really wish Lynn Robson well on this, but anticipate he has a long hard fight ahead, which he may well lose.

I hope he has enough determination and perhaps the funds to see this through.

I wonder if the radar was outside the van, as per the middle picture, with just the video camera inside the van, which may make it difficult to argue that the measurement was affected.

I was previously done with an "unmarked" van, which detected the speed with pipes across the road, but the video camera was behind the widow screen.

He should ask for a copy of the photo/video evidence under the data protection act. Hopefully that may contain the evidence he needs to prove he was not speeding.

Well, such a long time since the "alleged offence" and things are still going through the system.
Before I update on this, I can confirm that the Gatso was actually inside the van.
If you take a look at ACPO Code of Practice it states "must not be used from within a vehicle".
The reason for this, I can assume is that the likelihood of radar reflections giving a bad reading is pretty strong. In ACPO again, it also says radar devices shouldn't be used from or under bridges or other enclosed spaces. Now which is the more enclosed; a van or a bloody great big bridge?
Now, if we tie all this together, the manufacturers handbook is an implicit part of type Approval and it's suggested that the ACPO Code of Practice are just guidleines. For the more learned among you, you will also know that the ACPO Code of PRactice states that where there is any conflict between the manufaturers handbbok and ACPO then ACPO overrides. This then makes the Code of Practice an implicit part of the Tupe Approval and therefore more than just a guideline.
Since each camera operator is required to set up and operate the device according to the manufactureres Handbook I think you can see the relvance of ACPO.
So, to the present time.
I made several requests for disclosure to the CPS, the first for th4e Schedule of Conditions fot the Type Approval, (I already have a copy from the Home Office under the FOI Act) which shows (it doesnt by the way) that they Gatso can be used vehicle mounted.
It's only allowed tripod mounted in the Schedule I have from the H.O.
Next request was for the full session photographic record and operators logbookk for the shift that day at that site to produce proof of prior opinion. I mean, how in hell can someone sitting in the rear of a van watching traffic that's already gone past make the assertion that he formned a prior opinion?
Anyway my disclosure requests are all in line with the Attorney Generals Guidelines which state that a single time may not be any use but several items when viewed together may be. Well, if I can get both then I can establish a pattern here of no prior opinion.
Sine the police say that the van was specially modified then I also need to see the van too but they won't let me.
I had a letter last week, after another go for disclosure, that they weren't allowing anything. Not a sodding thing.
So in court on last Tuesday gone, and it's agreed that there's a S8 hearing to force or at least make a formal attempt for disclosure.
In the meantime I'm advised that the CPS will be calling Trevor Hall, the author of the ACPO Code of Practice and who was also present at the trials of the Gatso. Personally I don't think he'll phase me at all. There's enough evidential link to the ACPO Code to certify it as being compulsory anyway so if he's the author then how does he explain "must not be used from within a vehicle?"
Next round on 20th June. Keep watching.

Lynn are you sure what type of speed gun it was, i.e. Radar or Laser.

The top right photo in the Sunderland Echo appears to show a laser speed camera van, possibly an LTI 20.20. If so then they are allowed to be used from inside the van through an open port without glass, but then there should then be a video, which you should be able to get through the Data Protection Act or, if you have taken the case to court, through the discloser rules. That might contain sufficient information to check the validity of the speeding allegation. With a radar system there might also be a video, or at least photographs, which might similarly be of help.

You can find out with a Freedom of Information request to the police asking what equipment was used at that location and time, but I would have thought it would tell you on your summons. You should certainly be able to get such information through the disclosure rules if you have gone to court.

At a hearing you could ask the Magistrate, or write to the Crown Prosecution Service, stating that you make a formal request for the full disclosure of the evidence under Section 7 and 8 of Chapter 25 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which requires that: “The prosecutor must disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might be reasonably expected to assist the accused's defence . .”. Then state what it is that you want to be disclosed.

If you get a photo, or photos, from the speed camera, it might be possible to determine the location of the camera, particularly if it a laser and also gives a distance reading, but that would not verify the location of the speed gun which, if radar, might be a separate component outside of the camera van. Any photos, from the speed camera you could show could help to identify the type of equipment used.

Have you also tried the PePiPoo site, http://www.pepipoo.com/ , to find out more about the legalities of the situation.

Are you able to get any legal advice or representation, particularly for your day at the trial. Without some help from a legal advisor , the police and prosecution may out manoeuvre you in various ways, since they know all the tricks to use, and it is an everyday issue for them.

I wish you every success in this matter, since having been through the process myself, and seen what others have experienced, I understand how daunting it must seem for you.

My whole case is built around the Gatso 24 used from within a camera van and the police have acknowledged this already.
The actual photo was taken by a Gatso, as shown in the top corner.
I know all about disclosure etc and am at the stage of running a section 8 hearing for disclosure on 20th June.
So far everything I asked for has been denied. I have a very strong set of arguments to force disclosure already and if I'm denied any then it will give way to an abuse of process plea.
I am a paid up member of Pepipoo and believe me, the advice etc is remarkable. The case history, links to relevant legislation and the advice from the senior members is terrific.
Trevor Hall the ACPO author is expected to appear as a prosecution witness ansd although I must admit to some trepidation at this, mainly on the point of costs if I lose the case, I'm not at all phased by him.
If you scrutinise the CPIA on heasay, then anyone who makes a statement or publishes documentation for public consumption, if he makes statements on court which are contradictory to his personal testimony then his evidence is inadmissible as he is then classed as an unreliable witness.
Now, the ACPO Code of Practice states, "Must not be used from within a vehicle" so if he says otherwise in court then this will make him an unreliable witness.
I have several emails and letters from the Home Office after making FOI requests and have enough to cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution case.
I've had around 14 months to prepare for this so have done a hell of a lot of reading and writing and will no doubt do a fair bit more before the hearing.
I have a personal bet that the case will be dropped before it gets to trial as if I win my case then there'll be a hell of a lot of people due a refund.

Lynnzer I expect you are already aware of the following;

The forward of the “ACPO Code of practice for operational use of enforcement equipment”, states, “It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously”. Section 5 states, “evidence from attended actively operated equipment corroborates the operator's prior opinion the target vehicle was travelling in excess of the permitted speed limit for the road or class of vehicle.”