Challenging the Lti20-20, How I have proof it is inaccurate and still lost |
Challenging the Lti20-20, How I have proof it is inaccurate and still lost |
Mon, 10 Jan 2022 - 18:20
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 11 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,808 |
Hi Everyone,
Once again I tried to challenge the Lti20-20 in the Magistrates courts - and lost! Despite the evidence there that I wasn't speeding on the video I was clocked by a Scamera-van on in November 2020 on the B1150 at Westwick Arch in Norfolk, heading towards Norwich. I finally managed to get the video of the offence - it was alleged I was doing 57 in a 50 (in a Freelander, towing a trailer!) We all know how the Lti 20-20 is regarded but this time it really did show up how inaccurate it can be. The operate took 4 tries at clocking me "speeding". The first was at 53 mph @ 875.2m at time stamp 21:13:13, The second was again 53 mph at 843.6m at 21:15:15. Third was 55 mph @805m 21:16:18 and the last was 57 mph @ 722.6m 21:20:03. The road undulates significantly and is on a downward slope at the point of the contact. The last target crosshair was on the black grille of the Freelander. Here's the rub - the average speed is 48 Mph........this is calculated using the timestamp of the video and the distances of the readings. My argument was that the device was being used outside of its tested parameters as it was beyond the 610m tested range and that the operator was using it incorrectly as he did not suspect that I was speeding before using the device. HOWEVER......I just LOST the case in Magistrates court, defending myself. Yes, I'm not a legal expert, but well-versed enough to put over a good argument and I'm certain I had the "reasonable doubt" area covered. But they still insisted the, as the device is Home Office Certified, it CANNOT be wrong, therefore I was doing 57 mph..... I really don't understand how they can come to that conclusion. So, I'm thinking of appealing (as even the prosecution admitted had I used expert witness material I'd have won!) So, should I set up a gofundme page now??? If anyone's interested I'll see if I can post the video later This post has been edited by justamin: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 - 13:19 |
|
|
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 - 11:35
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 17 Mar 2011 Member No.: 45,185 |
...where the magistrates were of the opinion that the device is Home Office approved and therefore can't be wrong. And this was despite his sat nav data showing his speed at a constant 70mph on the motorway. They discounted that as the sat nav wasn't Home Office approved! That wasn't the Magistrates' opinion. That's the way it is. An approved device operated in the correct manner is assumed to be accurate unless the contrary can be proved. Just taken on its own they were faced with accepting either a measurement taken by an approved device in a controlled and documented manner or one taken by an unapproved device with no idea of how it was operated. ...(another hand grenade the CPS dropped at magistrates) If you do that (i.e. "ambush" the prosecution) in the Crown Court there is every chance the judge will not allow that evidence to be admitted. You have to declare the basis of your defence to the prosecution before the appeal (as you do in the Magistrates' Court before a trial). ...and I'm certain I had the "reasonable doubt" area covered. As above, you have to do better than that. Casting "reasonable doubt" is not sufficient. You must prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the device cannot be relied upon on the particular occasion in question. Just casting doubt along the lines of "We all know how the Lti 20-20 is regarded..." will not cut the mustard. As suggested, challenging a speeding charge on a technical basis such as you have is difficult without expert help. Before embarking on an appeal in the Crown Court you should get an opinion of your chances of success - preferably from somebody who will not make any money out of you should you fail. As an aside, are you sure you have the timings (particularly the last time stamp) correct? There is 4m50secs between the first and last time stamps during which time you had travelled just 152.6m. Wrong. Evidential burden, not legal burden. See, for example, DPP v Marrable (2020). If you don't understand the basics then you should not be 'advising' vulnerable people Very poor show, however well intentioned. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 14 Jan 2022 - 11:35
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 23 Jan 2022 - 19:46
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
...where the magistrates were of the opinion that the device is Home Office approved and therefore can't be wrong. And this was despite his sat nav data showing his speed at a constant 70mph on the motorway. They discounted that as the sat nav wasn't Home Office approved! That wasn't the Magistrates' opinion. That's the way it is. An approved device operated in the correct manner is assumed to be accurate unless the contrary can be proved. Just taken on its own they were faced with accepting either a measurement taken by an approved device in a controlled and documented manner or one taken by an unapproved device with no idea of how it was operated. It's nothing to do with the device being approved. Evidence from an approved device can be adduced via a certificate rather than a witness statement, but that does not make it any more reliable than any other device. Proof of speed from a sat-nav benefits from the same presumption of accuracy, and in the event of a discrepancy between two devices the court has to decide which evidence to prefer. It seems the images and video have all been deleted? This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 - 19:47 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:39 |