PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] A20 speeding - ProlaserIII alleged 99mph
Kawasakirider90
post Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 13:45
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Aug 2018
From: Beckenham
Member No.: 99,379



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - April 2018
Date of the NIP: - 0 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 0 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A20 (BOURNEWOOD SAND AND GRAVEL) BR8
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 3
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - I was riding my motorcycle home on the day of the alleged offense.
I was in lane 1 on the A20 and catching up a car in lane 1. I judged my speed to be around 70mph. I knew i was going faster than the car in front of me so i decided to move to lane 2 to overtake it. I glanced over my shoulder into lane 2 to check if it was clear to move. I saw a white bmw closing in on me rapidly. By the time that i had judged his speed and looked back in front of me the red car was very close. I decided to switch lanes to lane 2 and open the throttle to extend the distance between me and the closing bmw. The BMW moved into lane 3 and continued to close the gap and begin overtaking me.

I looked to my left to move back to lane 1 as i came off the throttle, and i saw a police car in the exit of the quarry on the A20. The police car was obstructed from view by a mound of earth and tall grass until after you have passed it.

I continued to reduce my speed and joined the back of traffic moving at approximately 50mph. The police car gave chase and caught me up and pulled in behind me. As we were nearing the next exit, "crittals corner", the police car turned on his lights and i left the carriageway and stopped at a safe location.

The officer from the passenger side approached me, i switched off the bike and removed my helmet. They asked me why i had been stopped and i declined to comment and then i was asked what speed i was going and i also declined to answer. I was informed i was doing 99mph. They performed the license checks and insurance checks and we were joined by the driver.

He stated the same allegation, told me he was trained in the use of the speed detection device and it was home office approved. Cautioned me. I declined to comment. I was told i would be reported for the consideration of intention to prosecute me for the offense. I declined to comment. The traffic stop ended and i continued on my way.

My thoughts are so far:

1) The land that the speed check was being conducted from is private land and the Met police do not have specific permission from the land owner to be there. Regardless of public access, have they conducted a health and safety assessment of the site that they are using and has a report being complied to ascertain the suitability of the site to conduct traffic enforcement operations? thoughts?

2) Standard checks to be investigated like training, calibration, trainer of police suitably qualified to train, errors in procedure etc. Points worth looking out for please

3) Two officers present, neither were outside the vehicle, speed reading taken from inside the car with a Prolaser III device. I assume but am not certain that the reading was taken from an open aperture because of the way the police car was parked. If so the only reasonable assumption would be from the passenger window. So wouldn't the passenger operate the device? he wasnt the officer than wrote the witness statement. both officers were wearing body cameras. could i request the footage from both camera from the time of parking up to the time if the alleged offense to cross examine their conduct?

4) A speed reding of 99mph at 367 feet. Bearing in mind there was no line of sight until AFTER i had passed the police vehicle and going away from him, and i was in lane 2 so a minimum of 5 metres from the police vehicle, the officer would have had 2.5 seconds to obtain visual contact of my motorbike, raise his speed detection device and as he says "lock on" to take a reading. I see this as a highly farfetched idea that he would be able to react so quickly. Therefore it brings doubt into my mind that he was indiscriminately targeting vehicles until he got a reading he was satisfied to pursue.

finally

5) There was mention of traffic conditions being light however one of my comments when i was stopped was the other car overtaking me and i questioned if the officer had missed me and hit the faster car. He said he would review the video, that was the last i heard of that. If there isn't video, or the video is inconclusive, what would my course of action be?

Small discrepancies such as the charge sheet stating one location and the officers statement stating a different location, and the charge sheet stating exceeding 70mph and the officer stating 50mph suggest that the officer doesn't know what speed he should be enforcing


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 13:45:40 +0000
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 13:45
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 13:54
Post #2


Member


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



QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 14:45) *
1) The land that the speed check was being conducted from is private land and the Met police do not have specific permission from the land owner to be there. Regardless of public access, have they conducted a health and safety assessment of the site that they are using and has a report being complied to ascertain the suitability of the site to conduct traffic enforcement operations? thoughts?


Completely irrelevant.

QUOTE
2) Standard checks to be investigated like training, calibration, trainer of police suitably qualified to train, errors in procedure etc. Points worth looking out for please


No doubt the office will say he was properly trained and used the device correctly. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

QUOTE
3) Two officers present, neither were outside the vehicle, speed reading taken from inside the car with a Prolaser III device. I assume but am not certain that the reading was taken from an open aperture because of the way the police car was parked. If so the only reasonable assumption would be from the passenger window. So wouldn't the passenger operate the device? he wasnt the officer than wrote the witness statement. both officers were wearing body cameras. could i request the footage from both camera from the time of parking up to the time if the alleged offense to cross examine their conduct?


No. You can only obtain relevant evidence and would have to show that the footage from the time of parking up was relevant to your case - why would it be?

QUOTE
4) A speed reding of 99mph at 367 feet. Bearing in mind there was no line of sight until AFTER i had passed the police vehicle and going away from him, and i was in lane 2 so a minimum of 5 metres from the police vehicle, the officer would have had 2.5 seconds to obtain visual contact of my motorbike, raise his speed detection device and as he says "lock on" to take a reading. I see this as a highly farfetched idea that he would be able to react so quickly. Therefore it brings doubt into my mind that he was indiscriminately targeting vehicles until he got a reading he was satisfied to pursue.


To put it bluntly, so what if he was?

QUOTE
5) There was mention of traffic conditions being light however one of my comments when i was stopped was the other car overtaking me and i questioned if the officer had missed me and hit the faster car. He said he would review the video, that was the last i heard of that. If there isn't video, or the video is inconclusive, what would my course of action be?


From your description traffic conditions were light - what else would you expect or want him to say?

QUOTE
Small discrepancies such as the charge sheet stating one location and the officers statement stating a different location, and the charge sheet stating exceeding 70mph and the officer stating 50mph suggest that the officer doesn't know what speed he should be enforcing


Does the speed limit in the officer’s statement match the speed limit on the road where you were driving? If so, it appears that he knew exactly what limit he was enforcing.

The overall impression you give is that you were speeding and are fishing for a way out. That’s not so bad in its own right but nothing you’ve said so far suggests to me that you have a defence, particularly as you appear to have been speeding.


--------------------
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
NewJudge
post Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 14:43
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,747
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



If you contest this allegation and plead not guilty, before the trial there will be a hearing where you will be asked to state the basis on which you are making that plea. If you refuse to cooperate with that process the prosecution is entitled to rely on a number of assumptions (for example, that the equipment used was functioning correctly). You cannot expect, as part of their case, for them to prove it. If you do doubt its correct functioning the burden shifts to you to show that it was faulty. Some of the items within number two on your list are particularly good examples:

"training, …..trainer of police suitably qualified to train,.."

You cannot seriously expect the prosecution to bring to court evidence of the officer’s training and evidence of his trainer’s competence. Why stop there? Why not seek evidence that his trainer was trained by a qualified trainer?

What you have presented is a “shopping list” of all the things you can think of that you believe the prosecution should have to address to successfully prosecute you. Most of them seem based on anecdotal tales from the pub.That is not how it works. As SP has said, none of the issues you have highlighted seem to provide you with a viable defence. If you are convicted following a trial you face a fine of a week’s net income, a surcharge of 10% of the fine (Min. £30 Max £170) and costs that could reach £620. If you plead guilty you will get a third off the fine and surcharge and the costs will be limited to £85. An endorsement for that speed carries 4 to 6 points or a short ban of up to 28 days. Five or six points is the most likely outcome (the band covers speeds up to 100mph, so you are near the top of the range). The points/ban are not discounted for a guilty plea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 18:50
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



A shopping list from the internet, I suspect. Which magazine, who should know better, used to publish such a list. Little of it is any use at all.


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kawasakirider90
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 15:23
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Aug 2018
From: Beckenham
Member No.: 99,379



Hi everyone. Thanks for the great advice so far


"4) A speed reding of 99mph at 367 feet. Bearing in mind there was no line of sight until AFTER i had passed the police vehicle and going away from him, and i was in lane 2 so a minimum of 5 metres from the police vehicle, the officer would have had 2.5 seconds to obtain visual contact of my motorbike, raise his speed detection device and as he says "lock on" to take a reading. I see this as a highly farfetched idea that he would be able to react so quickly. Therefore it brings doubt into my mind that he was indiscriminately targeting vehicles until he got a reading he was satisfied to pursue.

To put it bluntly, so what if he was?"


I believe that it isn't allowed to indiscriminately target every vehicle and tihs would raise doubt that the officer actually used his prior opining that I was speeding before lasering me. Because the conviction relies on two types of evidence, if i can cast enough doubt on either piece of evidence wouldn't that strengthen the success of my challenge?

"3) Two officers present, neither were outside the vehicle, speed reading taken from inside the car with a Prolaser III device. I assume but am not certain that the reading was taken from an open aperture because of the way the police car was parked. If so the only reasonable assumption would be from the passenger window. So wouldn't the passenger operate the device? he wasnt the officer than wrote the witness statement. both officers were wearing body cameras. could i request the footage from both camera from the time of parking up to the time if the alleged offense to cross examine their conduct?

No. You can only obtain relevant evidence and would have to show that the footage from the time of parking up was relevant to your case - why would it be? "


It would be relevant because the checks were carried out at the police station. Therefore the laser was packed up and put into the vehicle and driven to the location of the alleged offense. No check was documented on site before beginning to take his readings therefore how do we know a test was carried out and how do we know that the device was corrupted during transit?

5) There was mention of traffic conditions being light however one of my comments when i was stopped was the other car overtaking me and i questioned if the officer had missed me and hit the faster car. He said he would review the video, that was the last i heard of that. If there isn't video, or the video is inconclusive, what would my course of action be?


From your description traffic conditions were light - what else would you expect or want him to say?


A mention of the other vehicle whom could have affected the reading or due to beam spread could have been within the area being recorded. therefore the officer could have captured the vehicle overtaking me since i was on a motorbike and the car was much large.

The officers statement does not match the speed of the road. The officer said to me and recorded in his statement that the speed limit on this road was 50mph, when it was 70mph. So his impression of the speed i was doing contrary to the limit he believed to be true would have been far greater and hence why he did a speed check on me. If he actually did know it was 70mph why would he say 50mph. Therefore does he know what he was looking out for. does that not cast doubt on his prior opinion which is one of the evidences needed to convicted me?



I 100% appreiciate that this is fishing for a way out, or a shopping list, however i feel that this is not wrong to do so. I believe that I am within my rights to scrutinize every piece of evidence and procedure to ensure that any conviction or penalty is lawful. That is not wrong at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 15:30
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:23) *
I believe that it isn't allowed to indiscriminately target every vehicle

Not true


QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:23) *
A mention of the other vehicle whom could have affected the reading or due to beam spread could have been within the area being recorded. therefore the officer could have captured the vehicle overtaking me since i was on a motorbike and the car was much large.

No need to mention anything that at the time he didn't consider would be an issue.


--------------------
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
Kawasakirider90
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 15:31
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Aug 2018
From: Beckenham
Member No.: 99,379



please see attached witness statement from the officer
Attached File(s)
Attached File  statement_pg_2.pdf ( 657.09K ) Number of downloads: 79
Attached File  statement_pg_1.pdf ( 650.66K ) Number of downloads: 84
Attached File  statement_amended.pdf ( 421K ) Number of downloads: 74
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 15:36
Post #8


Member


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



QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:23) *
I believe that it isn't allowed to indiscriminately target every vehicle


Says who or what? What is the legal basis for your assertion?

QUOTE
Because the conviction relies on two types of evidence


Does it?

QUOTE
It would be relevant because the checks were carried out at the police station. Therefore the laser was packed up and put into the vehicle and driven to the location of the alleged offense. No check was documented on site before beginning to take his readings therefore how do we know a test was carried out and how do we know that the device was corrupted during transit?


So at most it would only be relevant at two points: the check at the station (and then only if it was recorded by the camera) and your stop. I don’t see how the camera would capture anything during transit, unless he’s sat with the device in front of him in the camera’s view.

QUOTE
A mention of the other vehicle whom could have affected the reading or due to beam spread could have been within the area being recorded. therefore the officer could have captured the vehicle overtaking me since i was on a motorbike and the car was much large.


What is the width of the beam at the distance you were caught? How close were you to the other vehicle?

QUOTE
his prior opinion which is one of the evidences needed to convicted me?


Is it? What is your legal authority for that?



QUOTE
I believe that I am within my rights to scrutinize every piece of evidence and procedure to ensure that any conviction or penalty is lawful. That is not wrong at all.


You can only scrutinise it if you’re entitled to it - just wanting it isn’t enough.

Ultimately, it’s up to you whether you want to roll the dice on a not guilty plea and run the risk of increased costs (ranging from £600 to several thousands).


--------------------
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
Jlc
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 15:49
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:23) *
I 100% appreiciate that this is fishing for a way out, or a shopping list, however i feel that this is not wrong to do so. I believe that I am within my rights to scrutinize every piece of evidence and procedure to ensure that any conviction or penalty is lawful. That is not wrong at all.

The Police will present the evidence they intend to rely upon to secure a conviction. At the case management hearing you would have to pretty convincing with your 'shopping list' as to whether it's relevant. Bear in mind that challenging such evidence could come at your cost if the prosecution seek those costs.

Prior opinion has been discussed on here many times - as already noted, the speed reading (presumed correct for the moment) shows you were speeding, so prior opinion or not it's a fact. Speeding motorists are easy to pick out as any operator will tell you. EDIT: I note the statement clearly states he formed the (prior) opinion that the vehicle was travelling in excess of the limit - and then corroborate it with an approved device. (Also noting clear sight)

The 50mph reference is probably a cut and paste from a previous statement - and doesn't necessarily cast any doubt. Sloppy, perhaps. Being a 70 is much more beneficial than a 50 anyway!

Your own description of events readily admits to speeding. There's no room for any debate about the 'exact' speed measurement - other detection methods can have.

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:36) *
QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:23) *

It would be relevant because the checks were carried out at the police station. Therefore the laser was packed up and put into the vehicle and driven to the location of the alleged offense. No check was documented on site before beginning to take his readings therefore how do we know a test was carried out and how do we know that the device was corrupted during transit?

So at most it would only be relevant at two points: the check at the station (and then only if it was recorded by the camera) and your stop. I don’t see how the camera would capture anything during transit, unless he’s sat with the device in front of him in the camera’s view.

I believe the assertion is that the device was somehow 'damaged' during transit and the measurements could not be considered reliable. That's possible but the defence would have to rebut the presumption it was working correctly.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 15:51


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kawasakirider90
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:02
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Aug 2018
From: Beckenham
Member No.: 99,379



I appreciate your continued and valued inputs SouthPaw. I would appreciate even more if you made statements and answered questions directly rather than answering with open eneded questions. I do not know the answers which is the entire reason people turn to these platforms to educate themselves and learn what to do in a time of trouble.

It is only alleged speeding at this stage until the facts have been determined or "assumed" by the court, through lack of challenge, as to the extent of any speeding. If i would wanted to plead guilty to avoid a trial and the increasing costs, would aplea bargain be a good idea to 90mph to put my offense into band A?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:22
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



You cannot ‘bargain’ (look up Newton Hearing) an exact speed measurement as I hinted earlier. It’s either 99 or disproved.

That excess is band B, so 6 points most likely.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:27


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:23
Post #12


Member


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



Well, I can tell you that a device remains an approved device even if a pre-operation check isn’t carried out - R (Bray) v Bristol Crown Court and there is no requirement for the prosecution to prove that it had been tested for accuracy - Clarke v CPS.

The issues around corroboration are that the relevant law says

QUOTE
A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit.


A reading from an approved device is not “the opinion of the witness” it is a fact reported by the witness of his or her observation of the reading obtained from the device. Therefore, the law can be said not to bite. If it doesn’t, then no corroboration is required.

I’m answering some of your questions with questions because you are making assertions and I have no idea where you got it from. That makes it rather difficult to provide you with a meaningful response.


--------------------
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
Jlc
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:25
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 17:02) *
I appreciate your continued and valued inputs SouthPaw. I would appreciate even more if you made statements and answered questions directly rather than answering with open eneded questions. I do not know the answers which is the entire reason people turn to these platforms to educate themselves and learn what to do in a time of trouble.

The point being that you made assertions rather than questions.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kawasakirider90
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:45
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Aug 2018
From: Beckenham
Member No.: 99,379



Thank you for clearing that up.

I understand the Newton hearing point. So thanks for that

And thank you SouthPaw. I am very grateful for your fantastic insight thus far. Any assertions i have made have been from reading on this site or the likes. I do not mean to argue absolutely everything until i'm blue in the face, but just to see how i may disprove the allegation.

Some of my assertations have come from watching videos from speed detection devices and seeing the officer lasering every vehicle to get a maximum number of hits, and the poster of said video being able to successfully get the evidence thrown out due to the officer not making a prior opinion but rather just zapping everyone and seeing what sticks

This post has been edited by Kawasakirider90: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:59
Post #15


Member


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



QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 17:45) *
Some of my assertations have come from watching videos from speed detection devices and seeing the officer lasering every vehicle to get a maximum number of hits, and the poster of said video being able to successfully get the evidence thrown out due to the officer not making a prior opinion but rather just zapping everyone and seeing what sticks

That (the evidence being thrown out) might happen but legally I see no reason why it should. Factual evidence, such as the reading produced by a prescribed device, needs no corroboration and as such no prior opinion is necessary.


--------------------
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
Kawasakirider90
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 17:24
Post #16


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 13 Aug 2018
From: Beckenham
Member No.: 99,379



So i will need to find a technical defense such at ACPO 14.2 stating that a laser device should not be used through glass?

or 14.7

QUOTE
The type-approval process acknowledges the accuracy of the device together with its self-checking systems.
In that respect, it is vital that at the start and conclusion of a tour of duty, all laser devices are checked in accordance with
the manufacturer’s instructions, and will include alignment and distance checks


it says "vital" at the conclusion however this wasn't included in the witness statement

This post has been edited by Kawasakirider90: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 17:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 17:33
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Was it used through glass?

Do you know such checks weren't performed?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 17:53
Post #18


Member


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



QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 18:24) *
So i will need to find a technical defense such at ACPO 14.2 stating that a laser device should not be used through glass?

or 14.7

QUOTE
The type-approval process acknowledges the accuracy of the device together with its self-checking systems.
In that respect, it is vital that at the start and conclusion of a tour of duty, all laser devices are checked in accordance with
the manufacturer’s instructions, and will include alignment and distance checks


it says "vital" at the conclusion however this wasn't included in the witness statement

Even if you could prove that a check wasn’t done it wouldn’t affect the admissibility of the evidence produced by the device - see my earlier post. As to your second point you’d need an expert to give evidence that use through glass would probably have affected the reading.


--------------------
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
Dwaynedouglas
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 06:55
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 9 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,346



QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 17:45) *
Any assertions i have made have been from reading on this site or the likes.


QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 17:45) *
Some of my assertations have come from watching videos from speed detection devices and seeing the officer lasering every vehicle to get a maximum number of hits, and the poster of said video being able to successfully get the evidence thrown out due to the officer not making a prior opinion but rather just zapping everyone and seeing what sticks


Can you list your sources against your assertions? I'm not trying to be difficult, but it currently reads as opinion being presented as fact.

You will come unstuck very quickly if you start confusing 'How things are' and 'What I think they should be to get the best result for myself'

Quotes of particular interest are:

QUOTE (Kawasakirider90 @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:23) *
I believe that it isn't allowed to indiscriminately target every vehicle


QUOTE
...The conviction relies on two types of evidence


QUOTE
I believe that I am within my rights to scrutinize every piece of evidence and procedure to ensure that any conviction or penalty is lawful.


QUOTE
No check was documented on site before beginning to take his readings therefore how do we know a test was carried out and how do we know that the device was corrupted during transit?


As in my signature, I am not legally trained, but I do make evidence based decisions in my role. One of the first things I look for is opinion presented as fact. If you base your assertions on sources who have done this it can get expensive, fast, particularly if you try to challenge an industry which has significant experience in rebutting spurious or inaccurate claims.



--------------------
I'm not a lawyer or legally trained, my opinion is based on my experience - follow at your own risk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Colin_S
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 07:38
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,321



Probably totally coincidentaly (and IIRC), this is exactly the same location as the car that was stopped for speeding when his dash cam clearly showed he wasn't was 'pinged' from earlier this year.

This post has been edited by Colin_S: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 07:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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 - 13:27
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