Fife Constabulary - Again, Pre trial court attendance next week, no video |
Fife Constabulary - Again, Pre trial court attendance next week, no video |
Mon, 27 Mar 2006 - 18:17
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 255 Joined: 25 Mar 2006 Member No.: 5,095 |
1. Fife Constabulary
2. Date of Offence - 20/11/05 12:14 3. NIP dated 22/11/05 4. Received - 24/11/05 5. A92 Lochgelly to Kirkcaldy West 6. Addressed to me 7. Sent First Class Post 8. I am RK 9. 0 points currently Alleged 89mph in a 70mph dual carriageway. Wrote to scamera unit to request photos/training manuals/certificate of conformance/ pocket book notes etc. Reply back on the 8/12 with a little back and white photo (sun glaring off car), no distance or speed stamp on databar. Confirmed device is a LTI 20/20 dodgyscope. usual waffle about take it now or face higher penalities later. My FOI requests passed to the FOI officer. Would only get the info I am looking for (training manuals/certificate of conformance/ pocket book notes etc.) once I signed the nip and sent it back too them. Invitation to come and look at the video at the scamera unit. My reply on the 12/12 stated that I felt intimated and that I would not be viewing the video at their location but would be requesting a copy. Explained that if I was too sign the nip that I would be incrimating myself and giving up my human rights to silence under section 6 blah blah. I explained that the vehicle in the photo provided was not speeding (no distance speed markings on the data bar) and as such no case to answer. Reply from Scammera Unit on the 14/12 from Karen MacKenzie, Programme Manager of the Fife Safety Camera Unit stating that the photo is to assist in driver indentification purposes only. They are under no obligation to provide the photos I am asking for. Mssr MacKenzie states regarding the signing of the nip: "THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DRIVER ON THE NOTICE IS NOT AN ADMISSION OF GUILT" YOU READ IT HERE FIRST GUYS! Followed by more gentle advisement of sign it or we will do you for S172. Another free invite to attend the scamera unit to watch the video - declined.... 19/12/05 Completed NIP, signed under section 6 of the convention of human rights and asterixed to the comments made by K Mackenzie about it being not an admission of guilt. 21/12/05 Conditional Offer sent (very efficent, Happy Bloody Christmas) Reply from Scammera Unit on the 23/12 with copies of a training certificate (name cut out). Number of device, certificate of conformity etc. NO TRAINING MANUAL, NO POCKET BOOK NOTES, NO VIDEO. Various correspondence, back and forth re the missing requests (another invite this time from the Chief to attend the unit to watch the video, no thanks!! Training materials being refused under commerical interests section of the FOISA and start of video (includes pre checks) withheld under data protection act. 29/12/05 - Request under the FOISA 2002 and the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to release statements, videos, training materials etc. 11/01/06 - Happy New Year, Letter from Chief Inspector "I note that you are fully aquainted with the relevant legislation"...... YES!!!!! (Thanks Pepipoo) Blah about not getting the relevant stuff until the Procurator Fiscal decides to take it to court, then they will be more than happy to assist. More blah about dodgyscope training manuals not being alllowed to be copied (copyright). I explained that since Civilian Operators are not employees of teletraffic it means that Fife Constabulary must allow non teletraffic employees to read them. Therefore whats their problem???? Admittance that there is currently NO witness statement (This would only come about if I went to court). Invitation to see the pre check video by Appointment (dont think so buddy, I want the tape to get it analysed). First time this statement is used by the Chief. "SHOULD YOUR CASE GO TO COURT!" (Used again in second reply) I then replied asking if the camera operator was a policeman. Reply from Chief was No, the camera operator is civilian, and is allowed to give primary evidence as he is working for the chief constable. No policeman viewed the video, there are no photographs available of the camera itself or the alleged incident with distance/speed markers on it. Yet another refusal to see the training manuals (How can one prove that the device is being operated correctly if there is no baseline information???). Anyway count so far: Scamera Unit Manager - 3 * 2 page replies Chief Inspector - 2 * 2 page replies FOI Officer - 2 * 2 page replies For every this else theres mastercard, Priceless! No costs in scotland and I am going to request Mr Garrets attendance (Me being a old radio/cellular engineer in a past life). So the question I want to ask is there anything else I should be doing, or should have done differently?? BR Professor |
|
|
Thu, 2 Nov 2006 - 21:17
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 255 Joined: 25 Mar 2006 Member No.: 5,095 |
So I would have to call Hazel Blears MP as a witness to speak to her written answers?
mmmm I take it that I would then also need to call someone from ACPO to speak to the Code of Practice Manual then?? confused, Prof |
|
|
Thu, 2 Nov 2006 - 21:50
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 8,639 Joined: 5 Jul 2003 Member No.: 134 |
So I would have to call Hazel Blears MP as a witness to speak to her written answers? That's obviously preposterous; they're taking the piss. The problem is that they know that you probably don't know the answer. I think that the answer's probably in ss(1) and ss(2). ss(1) says that an original would stand on its own. Yours won't be an original, so I think that ss (2) is the answer, so it would have to be a certified copy, which I presume that yours isn't. I take it that I would then also need to call someone from ACPO to speak to the Code of Practice Manual then?? Unless we know the way round it, probably. I'm sure there is a procedural way round it, it's just that we don't know what it is. The problem is that you're up against it time wise now. Had it not been for that, I think that you could have written to the PF and asked him to agree it, and if he wouldn't, what he disagreed with about it. The other problem is, merely because you authenticate the ACPO gudelines, it proves nothing about their use in Scotland. You would also have to get something from the local constabulary to confirm that they used them. Also, remember, AFAIK, if you get a witness, you are liable for their expenses. This post has been edited by jeffreyarcher: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 - 22:29 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:57 |