PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Provida Police pilot / Provida 2000 ( Vascar ) evidence obtained is not admissable in court.
CrossFox
post Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 21:56
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 461
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,801



I could really use some expert help here.

Back in 2005/2006 I posted on here about the validity of evidence obtained by Provida. I had a copy of an e-mail sent to me by the Home Office "Type Approval" department, stating that evidence obtained by Provida ( Vascar ) was not admissable in a court of law because the equipment did not have "type approval".

I contacted specialist "motoring" solicitors about this and they had no idea of what I was talking about.

I tried to obtain assistance here, but unfortunately I appeared to know more than most others or was simply disbelieved because it appeared too remarkable to be true.

I have been out of UK for 3 years and having returned, decided to catch up and see if any new info available.

Look what I found.


Speedmeter Type Approval
Date: Thu Apr 12 00:00:00 BST 2007

The Provida 2000 includes an enforcement component which is a Police Pilot. Unlike most other devices used for speed measurement, the Police Pilot and therefore the Provida 2000 does not automatically measure speed. Its accuracy relies critically on the ability of the operator to activate distance and time switches or a combined distance/time switch to start and stop the measurement accurately. Devices of this type, now called "manual distance/time speedmeters", did not require Home Office type approval until 1997 when ACPO requested the Home Office to type approve new devices of this type. This was agreed. It was also agreed that existing devices could continue to be used as non-approved devices.If the police do not use a type approved device to measure speed, the evidence they give to a court will be their expert opinion that the vehicle was exceeding the speed limit supported by whatever other evidence they may have to support that view. They might for instance use a stop watch to measure the time of a vehicle to pass between two points a known distance apart. This also does not require Home Office type approval. The evidence from manual distance/time devices that are not Home Office type approved, can be challenged and it is a matter for the courts to decide on the acceptability of the evidence received in those cases.

As the Police Pilot and its use in the Provida 2000 are not required to have Home Office type approval, they have not been approved by the Secretary of State and therefore there is no date from which it has been approved.
Absolute crap.
The above was copied from the Home Office website.

Basically, according to the Home Office and other information that I have access to, since 1997 when ACPO made a request to the Home Office that these devices should have Home Office "type approval", none of the devices have been approved.
Therefore the evidence obtained cannot be used in court.
You can be convicted of speeding, but not for an actual speed. Bearing in mind that the penalties are graded on how far over the speed limit you are travelling, since 1997, there have been thousands and thousands of miscarriages of justice.

Any advice and input would be appreciated and no this is not April 1st.

This post has been edited by CrossFox: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 - 14:46


--------------------
All advice, attempts at advice and unfortunate bullshit is given with the sole intention of trying to be helpful. If I'm helpful, so be it. If I'm not, please accept apologies.
.
If you're given bad advice use it wisely, but if you're given wise advice don't use it badly !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 21:56
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 21:59
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



IIRC such devices did not need type approval in order to be admissible until recently. Why do you believe they required type approval in 2005 in order to be admissible?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CrossFox
post Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 22:05
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 461
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,801



As I stated in my post, in February 1997 ACPO requested to the Home Office that all new devices of this type should need Home Office "type approval", the Home Office agreed.
The Provida 2000 only received ACPO approval in 1997 and this precedes Home Office approval, but in 2005/6 the Home Office confirmed to me that no distance/time devices have ever been approved.
Therefore, they can be used by the police but the evidence obtained is not admissable in court.


--------------------
All advice, attempts at advice and unfortunate bullshit is given with the sole intention of trying to be helpful. If I'm helpful, so be it. If I'm not, please accept apologies.
.
If you're given bad advice use it wisely, but if you're given wise advice don't use it badly !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 22:11
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (CrossFox @ Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 22:05) *
As I stated in my post, in February 1997 ACPO requested to the Home Office that all new devices of this type should need Home Office "type approval", the Home Office agreed.
The Provida 2000 only received ACPO approval in 1997 and this precedes Home Office approval, but in 2005/6 the Home Office confirmed to me that no distance/time devices have ever been approved.


Rather than repeat what you've already said I'd rather you explained to me the legal basis for your opinion. The Home Office are not the arbiters of what is and is not admissible evidence so reliance on their opinion is pointless.


QUOTE
Therefore, they can be used by the police but the evidence obtained is not admissable in court.

Now that the devices have required type approval you are right but this was not the case in 2005. Have a read of s. 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.


Perhaps it wasn't a case of you knowing more than everyone else but you being wrong?



--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CrossFox
post Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 22:32
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 461
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,801



OK, as for the Home Office not being responsible for evidence being admissable in court, it is responsible for what evidence the police can present in court if it comes from equipment, hence the issue of the "type approval".

What does the s. 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. have to do with this, Provida is not radar and anyway, most radar equpiment is type approved.

Lastly, I did not say that I knew more, I said it appeared that way because people did not understand the relevance of my point.

I am interested, if you are trying to claim that the evidence from Provida is admissable in court, please show me 1 piece of information that states this.I am fairly certain that you will not be able to.

I am not looking for a battle with you, only assistance. I am fairly certain that my facts are correct. I need someone to disprove me not disagree with me.


--------------------
All advice, attempts at advice and unfortunate bullshit is given with the sole intention of trying to be helpful. If I'm helpful, so be it. If I'm not, please accept apologies.
.
If you're given bad advice use it wisely, but if you're given wise advice don't use it badly !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 22:35
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



 
QUOTE (CrossFox @ Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 22:32) *
What does the s. 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. have to do with this, Provida is not radar and anyway, most radar equpiment is type approved.


Have you read s. 20 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991? It covers more than radar.

QUOTE
I am interested, if you are trying to claim that the evidence from Provida is admissable in court, please show me 1 piece of information that states this.I am fairly certain that you will not be able to.


Section 20 (prior to recently when in car speed distance devices began to require type approval).


QUOTE
I am not looking for a battle with you, only assistance. I am fairly certain that my facts are correct. I need someone to disprove me not disagree with me.


Since you're the one making the assertion it's for you to prove it. As I've said before, as the situation now stands you are correct but you were not correct in 2005/2006.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
desktop_demon
post Wed, 6 Jan 2010 - 23:14
Post #7


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,238
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
From: South of the border.
Member No.: 21,303



My 2p worth

Since June 2008 manual time and distance devices have become "prescribed devices" by virtue of a statutory instrument. I think it was SI 2008/1332 (but I may be wrong). A prescribed device in this instance seems to be a class of device (usually defined in a "speedmeter handbook" issued by the HOSDB). According to the amended version of RTOA 1988 s.20(4), any speed meter that belongs to a class of prescribed devices must be "type approved" before its evidence is admissible in trial for certain prescribed offences such as speeding.

So before June 2008 the manual time and distance speedmeter was not a prescribed device and so the Police Pilot/VASCAR type of instrument could be used and its evidence presented in court. But Since 2008 VASCAR/PolicePilot have been prescribed but have not been subject to any type approval. So, under the provisions of RTOA 1988 s.20(4), the evidence they produce cannot be produced in as evidence of a fact relevant to the prosecution of speeding cases.

This is a rather weird "loophole" that can be closed at any time by granting a type approval certificate to the relevant equipment. One manual time and distance device is type approved - the PUMA SE6. So the evidence it produces can be admitted in trial. But according the the letter of the law, the evidence produced by VASCAR and Police Pilot cannot.

There is a case going through the mags courts at the moment that will explore this defence strategy. I will write and tell the members how it goes - no doubt badly in the Magistrates court and better in the Crown Court.

As for the bollox on the Ministry of Truth Home Office web site, Huh! The trouble with all government information is that some of it is wrong and some of it is right. The trouble is they don't tell you which bits are one or the other....


--------------------
When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 08:00
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I concur with DD and SP here, in 2005/6 provida was not type approved and DID NOT NEED TO BE to be used as evidence, since the SI came into force they have needed to be approved along with all the other 'glorified stopwatches' time and distance devices, of these devices only Puma SE is type approved.

I would add that Vascar is often used as a generic term for time/distance devices, and I have also heard one case where an officer referred to a t/d device as provida even though the actual device was not (this is like calling any make of vacuum cleaner a hoover, even when its not made by Hoover!) although I can't recall what device was actually used.

Simon

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 08:52


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CrossFox
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 11:13
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 461
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,801



Hello again Southpaw, you referred to s.20 RTA 1988, now changed to the amended version in 1991 ( s.23 ), this section refers to radar equipment and nothing else, please direct me to correct section if I am wrong.

As for these devices not needing type approval until recently, this is not correct. They needed Home Office "type approval" in 1997 ( February ), this is when ACPO requested that new manual time/distance speedmeters should be approved and when the Home Office agreed to it. Between 1997 and 2005/6 none of these devices was approved for use by the police. I admit that devices in use before this date did not need approval, but Provida 2000 and subsequent devices were not in use before this date, therefore approval was required. Simples.

This means, according to the Home Office, that the equipment can be used by the police but the evidence obtained is not admissable in court. This is fact. Unfortunately, it has never been challenged in Crown Court, I challenged it in Magistrates Court but as usual it went straight over their heads. I was in the process of appealling to Crown Court, but as I left the country my wife wanted me to forget it. I would love to know which case is challenging this now as I have much information available.

There is mention of "prescribed devices", please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a "prescribed device" a device that has received Home Office "type approval". The system of allocating "type approval" was introduced because of the many and varied types of equipment being employed by the police in the battle against motorists, it was decided that all equipment must be checked by the Home Office for consistancy, reliability etc. Gatso is type approved but if they change the hardware or software of their design, it will need a new "approval" and a guarranty that all future devices will be built to the exact same specifications, again if that then changes a new approval is required. The reason ACPO requested that manual time/distance speedmeters should be type approved is because of the huge increases in the technology employed by these machines. It was a huge oversight on the part of ACPO, from what I can ascertain, they requested "type approval" but then forgot to get the new equipment type approved.

I was not aware of any changes since 2006 as I had stopped investigating. I find it very heartening that in 2007, ( a year after I started e-mailing, phoning and writing to anyone who may have had knowledge of this including the FOI department in North Wales police, The Home Office, the research and developement department for the police and ACPO ), that they choose to make a reference to it on the Home Office site. Why have they done this 10 years late. What prompted this announcement.

I investigated this because I had good cause, as usual the internet is full of useless information, but sometimes that information is golden. I searched the haystack, found some descrepancies and linked the dots.


--------------------
All advice, attempts at advice and unfortunate bullshit is given with the sole intention of trying to be helpful. If I'm helpful, so be it. If I'm not, please accept apologies.
.
If you're given bad advice use it wisely, but if you're given wise advice don't use it badly !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 12:13
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (CrossFox @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 11:13) *
Hello again Southpaw, you referred to s.20 RTA 1988, now changed to the amended version in 1991 ( s.23 ), this section refers to radar equipment and nothing else, please direct me to correct section if I am wrong.


Read here. That's the amended s. 20. You should see that it is not restricted to radar devices but rather any "prescribed device".


QUOTE
As for these devices not needing type approval until recently, this is not correct. They needed Home Office "type approval" in 1997 ( February ), this is when ACPO requested that new manual time/distance speedmeters should be approved and when the Home Office agreed to it. Between 1997 and 2005/6 none of these devices was approved for use by the police. I admit that devices in use before this date did not need approval, but Provida 2000 and subsequent devices were not in use before this date, therefore approval was required. Simples.


No, it's not. Evidence of the reading produced by a non-prescribed device can be admitted in the same manner as other types of evidence. Only when a device is a prescribed device within the meaning of s. 20 does it then require approval. In car speed distance meters were not prescribed devices until 2008 (IIRC). Please show me why you think they needed "type approval" prior to this date - the law, please, not repeating what you've already said from the Home Office.


QUOTE
This means, according to the Home Office, that the equipment can be used by the police but the evidence obtained is not admissable in court.


Have you analysed the law behind that position or just taken the HO's word for it?

QUOTE
I would love to know which case is challenging this now as I have much information available.



AFAIK, we have all of the necessary information. In car speed distance devices are now prescribed devices and so s. 20 applies to them. If not an approved device their evidence is excluded by virtue of s. 20(4).

QUOTE
There is mention of "prescribed devices", please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a "prescribed device" a device that has received Home Office "type approval".
No. A prescribed device is one that is listed for the purposes of s. 20 and as such it requires type approval if it's evidence is to be admissible. Prescribed devices are usually described by reference to a group (ie laser devices, bus lane devices etc). Type approval is usually specific to a particular device (ie a GATSO, Truvelo etc).

Your position is now correct but only because in car speed distance devices have become prescribed devices. Prior to them becoming so, they did not need to be type approved.



--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CrossFox
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 13:57
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 461
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,801



Confused now, my version from the OPSI site states

23
Speeding offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence .For section 20 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (admissibility of measurement of speed by radar) there shall be substituted—
“20
Speeding offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence .(1)
Evidence (which in Scotland shall be sufficient evidence) of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies may be given by the production of— .
(a)
a record produced by a prescribed device, and .
(b)
(in the same or another document) a certificate as to the circumstances in which the record was produced signed by a constable or by a person authorised by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed; .
but subject to the following provisions of this section.
(2)
This section applies to— .
(a)
an offence under section 16 of the [1984 c. 27.] Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 consisting in the contravention of a restriction on the speed of vehicles imposed under section 14 of that Act; .
(b)
an offence under subsection (4) of section 17 of that Act consisting in the contravention of a restriction on the speed of vehicles imposed under that section; .
©
an offence under section 88(7) of that Act (temporary minimum speed limits); .
(d)
an offence under section 89(1) of that Act (speeding offences generally); .
(e)
an offence under section 36(1) of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 consisting in the failure to comply with an indication given by a light signal that vehicular traffic is not to proceed. .
(3)
The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) above by making additions to or deletions from the list of offences for the time being set out there; and an order under this subsection may make such transitional provision as appears to him to be necessary or expedient. .
(4)
A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless— .
(a)
the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and .
(b)
any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied. .
(5)
Any approval given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section may be given subject to conditions as to the purposes for which, and the manner and other circumstances in which, any device of the type concerned is to be used. .
(6)
In proceedings for an offence to which this section applies, evidence (which in Scotland shall be sufficient evidence)— .
(a)
of a measurement made by a device, or of the circumstances in which it was made, or .
(b)
that a device was of a type approved for the purposes of this section, or that any conditions subject to which an approval was given were satisfied, .
may be given by the production of a document which is signed as mentioned in subsection (1) above and which, as the case may be, gives particulars of the measurement or of the circumstances in which it was made, or states that the device was of such a type or that, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person making the statement, all such conditions were satisfied.
(7)
For the purposes of this section a document purporting to be a record of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) above, or to be a certificate or other document signed as mentioned in that subsection or in subsection (6) above, shall be deemed to be such a record, or to be so signed, unless the contrary is proved. .
(8)
Nothing in subsection (1) or (6) above makes a document admissible as evidence in proceedings for an offence unless a copy of it has, not less than seven days beforehttp://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_1.htm the hearing or trial, been served on the person charged with the offence; and nothing in those subsections makes a document admissible as evidence of anything other than the matters shown on a record produced by a prescribed device if that person, not less than three days before the hearing or trial or within such further time as the court may in special circumstances allow, serves a notice on the prosecutor requiring attendance at the hearing or trial of the person who signed the document. .
(9)
In this section “prescribed device” means device of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. .
(10)
The powers to make orders under subsections (3) and (9) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”


Also this link http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_1.htm


"No, it's not. Evidence of the reading produced by a non-prescribed device can be admitted in the same manner as other types of evidence. Only when a device is a prescribed device within the meaning of s. 20 does it then require approval. In car speed distance meters were not prescribed devices until 2008 (IIRC). Please show me why you think they needed "type approval" prior to this date - the law, please, not repeating what you've already said from the Home Office."

If the above statement is true, where is the benefit of having a device "approved". If your version is correct, it is more advantageous to have no devices approved and therefore all evidence would be admissable in court. Or perhaps it is the other way around, only when a device is approved is the evidence admissable and if the device is not approved then the evidence is inadmissable. Please see s.4 above

This post has been edited by CrossFox: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 16:36


--------------------
All advice, attempts at advice and unfortunate bullshit is given with the sole intention of trying to be helpful. If I'm helpful, so be it. If I'm not, please accept apologies.
.
If you're given bad advice use it wisely, but if you're given wise advice don't use it badly !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CrossFox
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 15:50
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 461
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,801



http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.u...pdf?view=Binary

Maybe this will throw some light on my claim. See section 1.4.


--------------------
All advice, attempts at advice and unfortunate bullshit is given with the sole intention of trying to be helpful. If I'm helpful, so be it. If I'm not, please accept apologies.
.
If you're given bad advice use it wisely, but if you're given wise advice don't use it badly !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 19:41
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



The version I pointed you to is the up to date one. I'm not going round and round with you - I've explained the position. The fact remains that in 2005 you were wrong. Now, you are right because they are now prescribed devices.

Section 20(4) can not apply to all devices as it clearly says "A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device..."

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 19:44


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CrossFox
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 20:11
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 461
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,801



I am now not sure if I am as thick as **** or if you are being deliberately awkward.

How can a section of law be written about a particular device or type of devices then be amended to include a completely different type of device that is not remotely similar to the original. The link I gave and the copy printed clearly state that this section refers to radar equipment.
When was it amended to include MANUAL TIME/DISTANCE SPEEDMETERS, a device that works in a completely different way using completely different equipment.

If your insistance on s.20 being accurate in this case is flawed, then your whole argument falls apart.


--------------------
All advice, attempts at advice and unfortunate bullshit is given with the sole intention of trying to be helpful. If I'm helpful, so be it. If I'm not, please accept apologies.
.
If you're given bad advice use it wisely, but if you're given wise advice don't use it badly !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 20:16
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Read this link and tell me where it relates only to radars. It applies to any "prescribed device" and devices are prescribed by statutory instruments, such as here (for in car speed distance devices).

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 20:17


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CrossFox
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 20:50
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 461
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,801



OK, it's round and round time again.

Your first link in the last post sends me again to the original link you posted in your first reply. Your link does not state "radar equipment" because it is not copied in full ( maybe 98% but not 100% ) my link which goes to the governments own full version, does state radar. You claim that yours is up to date and mine is not, WHY, on what evidence. I am willing to be proven wrong, you appear adamant that you won't.

Your second link refers to 2008. I am not interested in what happened in 2008, it is what was legal before 2006 that interests me.

I have given you a link to the "manual time/distance speedmeter handbook" , it clearly states in this handbook that prior to 1996 these devices did not need approval but after this date they do. I have a copy of an ACPO document confirming that Provida 2000 did not receive ACPO approval until 1997. Therefore if the Provida 2000 did not receive Home Office "type approval" until after 1997 ( which it never did and as far as I am aware still hasn't ) the evidence is not admissable. It is there in black and white, as clear as day, yet you keep referring me back to an obscure link that refers to radar. I am not making things up or interpreting things in a different way, if you look at the evidence it is obvious, well it is to me.

Things may well have changed since 2006, I am not well enough informed about this period yet, but I am fairly sure about prior to 2006.

Again, please don't take my responses personally, I know that this all seems like fairyland to you - Me I just hope that I am right and so far I have seen no evidence to refute my findings.


--------------------
All advice, attempts at advice and unfortunate bullshit is given with the sole intention of trying to be helpful. If I'm helpful, so be it. If I'm not, please accept apologies.
.
If you're given bad advice use it wisely, but if you're given wise advice don't use it badly !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
desktop_demon
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 21:30
Post #17


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,238
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
From: South of the border.
Member No.: 21,303



QUOTE
How can a section of law be written about a particular device or type of devices then be amended to include a completely different type of device that is not remotely similar to the original.


Yes its a mystery how the law operates sometimes but that it can be so amended is beyond dispute and common experience.

On the question of interpretation of the law. Yes it is true that the original version of RTOA `1988 s.20 only mentioned radars. That becuase they were the first (and only) type of automatic speedmeter available at that time. Between 1987 (when the law was formulated) and 1991 several more manufacturers jumped on the lucrative bandwagon and made their own speed measuring devices. These offered some advantages and the whole question of speedmeters and handheld devices and so on was reconsidered. So in late 1991 the original act was amended with the new and improved wording that generally referred to "prescribed devices". It also said the evidence from a prescribed device was inadmissible unless it was type approved. This was to assure the sceptical public that all equipment would be thoroughly vetted before use and that any evidence produced was ultra reliable. Or so the theory goes.

The first type of alternative prescribed device , after the radar device first prescribed in 1991, was a light beam device (like a laser speed gun) and a device with sensors placed under the road like a TRUVELO. So prescribed devices seem to describe a family of devices with similar modes of operation. Like laser detectors, radar devices, subs surface sensors, average speed cameras and lately manual time and distance devices like the VASCAR, police pilot and PUMA SE. It seems to guide manufacturers as to what is acceptable, the HO issues various speedmeter handbooks. Tthese seem to define necessary characteristics of the "prescribed device". But to be fair it is all a bit of a grey area that urgently needs some illumination. ("I'm free....."). The "prescribed device" is legally defined by issuing a Statutory Instrument, usually done by negative resolution in Parliament by the SoS posting the proposed SI for 14 days.(?!?). Various SIs have been issued including the recent one for manual time and distance devices.

As the various devices became prescribed, so they must become type approved for their evidence to be admissible in trial for certain offences. Before any given device or class of device was "prescribed" it did not fall under the provisions of the amended RTOA 1988 s.20. After it is defined as "prescribed" (and how that takes place is an argument in itself) then to be of any evidential use the device must have a type approval order (signed by the SoS). That is basically what RTOA 1988 s.20(4) says.

In 2006 manual time and distance devices were not prescribed devices. As they were not prescribed devices they did not require a type approval order. So the evidence could be presented in court as "real evidence under the common law" adduced by a Police person on the stand (or via S.9). Since becoming prescribed devices a type approval order needs to be in place for the evidence from a manual time and distance meter to be admitted.

Phew! I am only doing this as good practice for my JR! smile.gif

I am absolutely happy to attempt any further questions on the subject to give poor SP a break! smile.gif


--------------------
When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CrossFox
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 21:50
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 461
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,801



OK, see if I get it right now.

If a device is not "prescribed" the evidence is admissable in court regardless.
If a device is "prescribed" the evidence is only admissable if the device is "type approved" by the SoS.

Again I ask, where is the benefit to the police in having a device "presribed".
As I remember it, in order for a Provida to be calibrated by the officer, it had to be checked against a mile that was pre-measured by the Dept. of Transport.
Surely this would not have been neccessary for a non-prescribed device.

Now back to s.20 RTOA, when was this amended to include devices that were not radar, if you know.
The OPTI site's version still contains the wording "admissibility of measurement of speed by radar". See my link.

PS. thanks for taking time to reply.


--------------------
All advice, attempts at advice and unfortunate bullshit is given with the sole intention of trying to be helpful. If I'm helpful, so be it. If I'm not, please accept apologies.
.
If you're given bad advice use it wisely, but if you're given wise advice don't use it badly !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 22:02
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (CrossFox @ Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 21:50) *
OK, see if I get it right now.

If a device is not "prescribed" the evidence is admissable in court regardless.

If a device is "prescribed" the evidence is only admissable if the device is "type approved" by the SoS.


Correct.


QUOTE
Again I ask, where is the benefit to the police in having a device "presribed".  


It allows evidence to be introduced by certificate under s. 20 (rather than have a witness do it).


QUOTE
As I remember it, in order for a Provida to be calibrated by the officer, it had to be checked against a mile that was pre-measured by the Dept. of Transport.
Surely this would not have been neccessary for a non-prescribed device.


Not at all. The check was done so that the police could say to the courts that the device was operating properly - not because it was required by law but because it added weight to the evidence.

QUOTE
Now back to s.20 RTOA, when was this amended to include devices that were not radar, if you know.


01/07/1992 IIRC.


QUOTE
The OPTI site's version still contains the wording "admissibility of measurement of speed by radar". See my link.


The OPSI site contains legislation as enacted. Use www.statutelaw.gov.uk for updated versions (as I've directed you to twice before!). And yes, this is "the government's own full version" but updated to show the law as it now stands, not as it was when it was enacted.




--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CrossFox
post Thu, 7 Jan 2010 - 22:24
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 461
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,801



OK, here we go again.

In 1992, s.20 of RTOA was amended to include all prescribed devices, therefore allowing evidence from Provida type systems to be admitted in court. Correct ?

Then in 1997, ACPO requested to the Home Office that all new devices of this type be "type approved" thereby stopping the evidence being admitted in court unless the device was "type approved". As per s.20 RTOA. Correct ?

Provida 2000 was not in use prior to 1992, it was not in use prior to 1997, therefore it requires approval from SoS. Correct ?

As much as you dislike my references to the "type approval" department in the Home Office, they verified to me by e-mail that my interpretation of this is correct. The evidence from post 1996 devices is not admissable in court because they have not been approved by the SoS. You say different, but you don't prove it.



--------------------
All advice, attempts at advice and unfortunate bullshit is given with the sole intention of trying to be helpful. If I'm helpful, so be it. If I'm not, please accept apologies.
.
If you're given bad advice use it wisely, but if you're given wise advice don't use it badly !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:21
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here