Safe Speed Forums

We are all very well aware of the anger you refer to. We see examples of it all the time, for a huge variety of offences.

The defendant and his friends are furious that he has been punished for breaking a law they disagree with. They are also angry that the defendant in the case before wasn't beheaded for breaking a law they do agree with.

Its called human nature.

This is another one of those human nature things. Every defendant wants to prevent the CPS using an expert he considers to be biased in favour of the the prosecution, while being allowed to use his own expert who just happens to hold views that support the defence.



In response to your question, in principle I would prefer not. Not least because of the potential for outsiders to assume that the court would fail to be aware of possible bias. However there can be a problem in finding some one else with a sufficiently indepth knowledge to provide evidence of the required standard.

I have seen an "expert" witness state that a piece of medical equipment was safe and easy to use. He had a professorship in medical electronics and pages of publications to his name. He had studied the circuit diagrams, examined the machine and even built his own device to the required specs and tested his beliefs.
He missed the fact that in the manufacturers device two buttons were so close together and so soft in action that, when wearing surgical gloves, it was very easy to press both at once. With possibly disastrous consequences for the patient.
When we got the manufacturer in, their first comment was that we were dealing with an early model of the device that should have been sent back to the factory years ago for modification to install a shield over one of the buttons.

There are a number of cases where a court has decided that, in the individual circumstances of the case, the way in which a device was used introduced reasonable doubt. Resulting in a not guilty verdict.

This is not the same as a court stating that a particular device is unreliable to the extent that it can never be relied upon to give an accurate reading.

Stealing a car, (and not the first offence either) - £40 fine (in Manchester)
Drunken vandalism fixed penalty by police - £80 fine
Breaking off car mirrors (police fixed penalty Crewe 2006) - £80 fine
(cost of average car mirror around £200)

1 minute over time in a parking place - £60-100 fine (sorry, civil penalty)
Stopping in a box junction - £100 fine (in London boroughs)
Going into a bus lane - £100 fine (in TfL area)
Late submission of tax return - £100 fine

and so on........

Again I ask - Is this justice in action or not ?

I have to say though, that I doubt whether I will even dent that thick carapace of complacency I see in the Fisherman posts

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

My point was that the criteria for type approval require that the device cannot give an incorrect reading. Therefore if using it outside the guidelines can cause this, then it is is being used outside type approval too, since the DFT admit that errors are possible if the guidelines are not followed.

If an expert witness would be personally and financially affected by an adverse court decision, one must ask how far that witness would be likely to try to 'sway' his evidence or, put bluntly, perjure himself in order to preserve his wealth. In the case of the expert witness mentioned here, it is clear that should it be found that the LTI 20/20 is in some way defective, then the person concerned could suffer a considerable reduction in personal assets and wealth. The issue is highly technical and one might also wonder what the electronics engineering qualifications of the witness are to give such evidence. Does he, for example, hold a BEng or MEng in electronics engineering with several years in the design and development of laser-based devices? If he does not, then this, combined with his potential for personal loss must, at least, cast a big shadow over his credibility. To quote the famous Mandy Rice-Davies at the time of the Profumo scandal, "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he!"
As I have mentioned before, I'm an aerospace engineer by profession and if there were some sort of serious question as to the integrity of, say, the flight control system of a Boeing resulting in a law suit, who would you accept would provide the best evidence, a vice-president of Boeing who may not be fully technically qualified in the field of flight control systems, or an independent senior flight systems engineering specialist from the Civil Aviation Authority? I know who my money would be on.
Thus we have the perception, as members of the public, that the Magistrates courts are 'Partners' in the camera schemes and, therefore, biased against the defendants; that the CPS will try to levy huge and punitive costs against anyone who dares to exercise their right to plead not guilty to an offence, and an expert witness for the prosecution who clearly has a personal and financial interest in the prosecution winning every time.

You need to bear in mind that courts are not allowed to impose a fine that would cause undue hardship to the person expected to pay it.
The police, and others with powers JPs don't have ie the right of one person to be witness, judge, and sentencer in the same case, have no such constraints.

Thats news to me. I thought errors were Ok provided they trigger an error flag to make them unuseable as evidence.

The police/prosicution don't ever seam to request a compensation order any more? why?

_________________
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

The problem is that expert witnessess are paid. Any of them who provides what the bill payer wants is going to get bookings from others who want similar evidence for their case. That applies to both prosecution and defence.

I have seen this a few times. The defence objecting to a CPS expert on the grounds that he is benefitting financially from the device in question. They then put forward their own expert who is making a nice living, and enhancing his career, by providing an opposite view.
I would like to see the court appoint its own expert from a suitably qualified panel who have no axe to grind either way and who stand to lose their job if they are found to have given poor quality or biased evidence.



You would only believe that JPs are biased against defendants in speed camera cases if you can also believe :-
that every single JP, District judge, Court clerk are so in favour of cameras that they are keeping quiet about the conspiracy
that all the above are willing to risk significant jail sentences for doing so, even the JPs who don't get paid and would have nothing to gain from a biased attitude.

Even if you do believe that you still have to explain why judicial office holders are fighting for judicial independence to be guaranteed , as for example they are doing at the moment over the Ministry of Justice, with the thought that for your conspiracy idea to be valid they must all have sold out completely.

The usual reason is that the injured party has failed to provide proof of the cost of the damage and courts are not allowed to guess.

Any one who was too late with the information for a criminal court to order payment can go to a civil court and make a claim against the person convicted of causing the damage.

I'm only referring to untrapped errors. When the DFT admitted that errors were possible if the equipment was not used to guidelines it was also in that context. Trapped errors happen all the time on LTI guns.

The Speedmeter Handbook
(Fourth Edition)
A Guide to Type Approval Procedures for Speedmeters Used for Road Traffic Law Enforcement in Great Britain

1.1 Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as originally enacted, provides that evidence from a radar speed detection device is admissible in a prosecution for exceeding the speed limit only if the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State.
(note, there is a Statutory Instrument that also makes this applicable to Lidar)

4.11 Any requirement for goods or materials to comply with this specification shall be satisfied by compliance with:

1) a relevant standard or code of practice of a national standards body or equivalent body of any member state of the European Community;

or 2) any relevant international standard recognised for use in any member state in the European Community;

or 3) a relevant technical specification acknowledged for use as a standard by a public authority or by any member state of the European Community;

or 4) traditional procedures of manufacture of a member state of the European Community where these are the subject of a written technical description sufficiently detailed to permit assessment of the goods or materials for the use specified;

or 5) a specification sufficiently detailed to permit assessment of goods or materials of an innovative nature (or subject to an innovative process of manufacture such that they cannot comply with a recognised standard or specification) and which fulfil the purpose provided by the specified standard, provided that the proposed standard, code of practice, technical specification or procedure of manufacture provides in use equivalent levels of safety, suitability and fitness for purpose.

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

Let me shake the tree again on this subject and see what falls out.
My own case is now over (for the time being that is) despite the Home Office's FOI answer that "no type approved device has been tested or approved for use from within a vehilce" the magistrates decided otherwise and found me guilty, gave me three point, a £100 fine and £2500 costs.
Cost were awarded to the "Expert Witness Trevor Hall.
Now remember my objections to him?
He is a director of National Road Safety Support Ltd whose stated aim in the company Memorandum of Association is to defende legal challenges and assit equipment manufacturers. NRSS Ltd also take anuuall subscriptions from, and are in partnership with Safety Camera Partnerships which of course include HM Court service.
Chief Constable Meryddyd Hughes, you know the one 90 in a 60 and three months ban, is a co-director (in fact I think he's the MD) of NRSS Ltd and he has reported openly that he intends to slap those who dare to challenge speeding offences.
So, an expert witness who is actually in partnership with SCP's, who derives substantial benefit from them in contingnecy subscriptions and who'se role as a director places a very obvious conflict of duty onto the scene.
Needless to say, my revenge will be sweet when it gets to a Judicial Review.

For those who may have a need of one, I now have a copy of the Gatso Manual. At least my case has given me so much impetus to get to the truth that I've gained some considerable benefit from it along the way.

I’m sorry to hear about your misfortune and from what you say above it highlights that these people are like viruses, feeding from the motorist under the disguise of Road Safety and now hiding under limited company status. IMO our governments and their sponsors have allot to answer for.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

As a convicted "speeder" I think Mad Hughes should be forced to resign from his position.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Maybe a visit to Snowdonia with a couple of bottles of whisky might be a good idea.
Actually, the issue is going to be resolved anyway. It'll be going to a Judicial Review then perhaps to Strasbourg if that doesn't produce the right result.

There is no company registered currently at Companies House with the name "National Road Safety Support". What evidence do you have that such a company/organisation exists? You're very specific about the contents of its M of A. and sources of funding. Where does your information come from?

_________________
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

Thank you for the very informative pdf.

Has anyone else noticed that the full company name is "Road Safety Support Ltd" whilst the Memorandum of Association refers to "National Road Safety Support Ltd"?

Is it possible that the company set-up is illegal? Just raising the query

_________________
Malcolm Cooper