PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

61mph in 50mph limit, M25 - Mistaken identity?
michael8626
post Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 21:46
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 6 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,267



Hi,

I received a NIP forty four days after the alleged offence. My car is leased. I wrote a letter asking for them to cancel it (14 days) Surrey Police state the NIP was sent out in accordance with the law. I presume this to be correct?

I was travelling on the M25 at 0.50 am back in May. My speed limiter was set to 60mph due to multiple 60mph signs appearing on the gantries.

Travelling under a certain gantry I saw a flash from behind as a camera activated. I vividly remember a vehicle overtaking me, travelling in the outside lane to my right, a Ford Galaxy taxi, marked Addison Lee. As the vehicle passed me its brake lights were on and I thought that was the vehicle that had triggered the camera. In the evidence section on the Surrey Police website, this vehicle is clearly visible in the pictures and you can see the high level brake light is illuminated.

Is it possible I have received a NIP for this vehicle, have we both activated cameras? Is it possible for me to find this out? Will Surrey Police tell me, can I use Freedom of Information?

I am adamant I was travelling in accordance with the speed limit. Surrey Police have stated I triggered a camera in a 50mph limit. I dispute this.

Are they legally obliged to produce clear photographic evidence of my vehicle travelling under a gantry that states 50mph? Picture 3 on their evidence systems looks vaguely like a gantry but it is too dark and blurred to be decipherable?

Can I also ask Highways to supply me with all temporary speed limits in operation on the M25 at the time of the alleged offence? Again if they refuse, can you use Freedom of Information?

Thank you all in advance.

Michael
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 20:03
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



There is a common law presumption that machines are reliable but it is a rebuttable presumption. I think we have discussed in detail here before that unlike with many machines you cannot recreate a speeding ticket scenario. So if rebuttable means you have to prove a substantial defect but explain in technical detail how that made the speed reading unreliable, it would be so onerous as to make a defence impossible for almost all defendants.

Bearing in mind I think we can all accept that very rarely speed cameras make errors that would seem a strange situation to me. What exactly would happen depends of course on what exact evidence was presented. But to me I don't see why absent of S20 the OPs assertion that the sign didn't say 50 is at least the start of an acceptable rebuttal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 20:06
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 21:03) *
There is a common law presumption that machines are reliable but it is a rebuttable presumption. I think we have discussed in detail here before that unlike with many machines you cannot recreate a speeding ticket scenario. So if rebuttable means you have to prove a substantial defect but explain in technical detail how that made the speed reading unreliable, it would be so onerous as to make a defence impossible for almost all defendants.

Someone with deep pockets could ask the court to order that the camera be removed from its location so that it may be examined / tested by an independent expert. Expensive but not impossible, and worthwhile if you think there is definitely a fault. Not so wise if one's just going on a fishing expedition.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 14:03
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 21:06) *
Someone with deep pockets could ask the court to order that the camera be removed from its location so that it may be examined / tested by an independent expert. Expensive but not impossible, and worthwhile if you think there is definitely a fault. Not so wise if one's just going on a fishing expedition.

But that is essentially the problem. If you look at something like R v Spiby 1990 then they both state that evidence produced by a computer is admissible as real evidence if the machine is reliable - and in that case the prosecution provided evidence that the computer was reliable. If you scroll forward to O'Shea vs Coventry mags they are still looking at self contained devices like a thermometer. If I have a thermometer in front of me I can be certain it is reliable because I can inspect the whole device, just as you can with a laptop or a Gatso speed camera.

However, if I have a thermostat that controls heating in the next room, I can't be certain that reading is correct. I can give evidence to court that the thermostat was set to 20C and when it is set to 20C then the room should be 20C, but I can't be assured there is no error with the thermostat, wiring, boiler, radiators... the list goes on.

Scale that up to HADECS3 which is much more complex then there is no guarantee that because one part of the system has a particular value then you can be sure that every part of the system is using that same value. Neither the defence nor the prosecution have the option of a fortiori inspecting or bringing in the system to court to show it is or isn't working reliably. Because of that the prosecution's case is necessarily weakened compared to a self contained device. Further to that if there is no image from aux camera then the defence can show that at least one part of the system was unreliable, and it is the part that would have proved or disproved the defence case.

Personally for SP's question I think there is a standard burden of proof, but just as in the thermostat case I think the court should consider the cameras, signs, wiring and control computers as one complete system, rather than discrete parts which do not affect the workings of each other. There is nothing for instance to show that the camera was at fault compared to the wiring to the control room.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 21:58
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 15:03) *
Neither the defence nor the prosecution have the option of a fortiori inspecting or bringing in the system to court to show it is or isn't working reliably.

Why the heck not? Last time I checked a defendant was still entitled to challenge and examine the evidence being used against his. Sure, the costs would be high, but in principle I can't see why you couldn't ask that a defence expert be allowed to examine the whole system to determine if there are any faults.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 22:14
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 22:58) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 15:03) *
Neither the defence nor the prosecution have the option of a fortiori inspecting or bringing in the system to court to show it is or isn't working reliably.

Why the heck not? Last time I checked a defendant was still entitled to challenge and examine the evidence being used against his. Sure, the costs would be high, but in principle I can't see why you couldn't ask that a defence expert be allowed to examine the whole system to determine if there are any faults.

Because it can't be done. You aren't talking about unscrewing one box and banging it onto a workshop bench. You're talking about a piece of hardware that relies on a connection to dozens of different pieces of hardware and software, without which it cannot be thoroughly tested or even turned on.

Imagine examining my NHS laptop for evidence. But first I remove the network connection, wireless connector, RFID reader, smart card reader, keyboard, and I don't tell you the login for te computer, virtual workspace or any of the applications within. Try to use that machine to "prove" anything.

In that situation you have to rely primarily on logs, unless you are delusional and/or a fantasist.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 22:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 23:46
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 23:14) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 22:58) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 15:03) *
Neither the defence nor the prosecution have the option of a fortiori inspecting or bringing in the system to court to show it is or isn't working reliably.

Why the heck not? Last time I checked a defendant was still entitled to challenge and examine the evidence being used against his. Sure, the costs would be high, but in principle I can't see why you couldn't ask that a defence expert be allowed to examine the whole system to determine if there are any faults.

Because it can't be done. You aren't talking about unscrewing one box and banging it onto a workshop bench. You're talking about a piece of hardware that relies on a connection to dozens of different pieces of hardware and software, without which it cannot be thoroughly tested or even turned on.

Surely if it's a very complex system, that just makes examining / testing it more complicated and expensive. If a HADECS 3 camera system can work in one place, it clearly can be dismantled and re-assembled somewhere else. It might be one hell of a job, might end up costing a fortune, but you haven't provided an explanation as to why it is impossible.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- michael8626   61mph in 50mph limit, M25 - Mistaken identity?   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 21:46
- - NewJudge   QUOTE (michael8626 @ Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 2...   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 21:59
|- - michael8626   QUOTE (NewJudge @ Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 22...   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 22:13
- - Jlc   Only the 1st NIP has the 14 day requirement. Rega...   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 22:07
- - Jlc   HADECS3 has an auxiliary shot of the limit. HADEC...   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 22:16
|- - michael8626   QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 23:16...   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 22:54
- - Logician   They obviously have a clear enough picture to be a...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 01:09
- - kernow2015   The picture says lane 2 - can you remember how ma...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 05:29
- - michael8626   Yes, I was in lane 2, the vehicle overtaking me wa...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 07:39
|- - Jlc   QUOTE (michael8626 @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 0...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 07:47
|- - michael8626   QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 08:47...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 08:00
|- - The Rookie   QUOTE (michael8626 @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 0...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 08:43
- - Logician   We are assured that interlocks on the system mean ...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 09:21
- - Jlc   My guess would be the sign in question was display...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 09:32
- - michael8626   Thanks everyone. I was the driver, I have informe...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 10:04
|- - Jlc   QUOTE (michael8626 @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 1...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 10:28
|- - Jlc   QUOTE (michael8626 @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 1...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 10:38
- - nosferatu1001   My understanding is that they do not have to provi...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 10:07
- - Logician   Yes you are mad, they are unlikely to give you any...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 10:28
- - michael8626   I was made redundant earlier this year after 24 ye...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 11:15
- - Logician   Well you are entitled to your day in court, and I ...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 11:35
- - michael8626   Thanks for the vote of confidence! 😂 I am ...   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 22:51
|- - cp8759   QUOTE (michael8626 @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 2...   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 00:22
|- - Logician   QUOTE (michael8626 @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 2...   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 09:28
- - NewJudge   QUOTE (michael8626 @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 2...   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 10:26
- - notmeatloaf   Whilst it is certainly good you have conviction an...   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 14:53
|- - 666   QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 1...   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 15:53
||- - cp8759   QUOTE (666 @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 16:53...   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 19:01
|- - Colin_S   QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 1...   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 11:25
- - Jlc   The Type Approval is silent on any such requiremen...   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 15:11
- - The Rookie   It can.... there was an old M25 Gatso case, the ca...   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 16:06
- - notmeatloaf   To get type approval you need to prove the camera ...   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 19:35
|- - southpaw82   QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 2...   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 20:18
|- - notmeatloaf   QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 21...   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 13:35
|- - southpaw82   QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - ...   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 14:29
|- - cp8759   QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 1...   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 15:45
||- - southpaw82   QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 16...   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 18:45
|- - Mayhem007   QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 1...   Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 11:27
- - NewJudge   QUOTE (Colin_S @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 12...   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 12:49
- - The Rookie   I believe that was the gentlemen with the unpronou...   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 14:34
- - notmeatloaf   There is a common law presumption that machines ar...   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 20:03
|- - cp8759   QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - ...   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 20:06
||- - notmeatloaf   QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 21...   Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 14:03
||- - southpaw82   QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - ...   Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 14:47
|||- - notmeatloaf   QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 1...   Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 16:23
||- - cp8759   QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - ...   Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 21:58
||- - notmeatloaf   QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 22...   Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 22:14
||- - cp8759   QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - ...   Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 23:46
|- - southpaw82   QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - ...   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 20:08
- - southpaw82   This is feeling like a case where expert evidence ...   Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 16:45
- - notmeatloaf   QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 1...   Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 17:07


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 - 11:22
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