PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Gatso in Camera Van, The final nail in the coffin
Lynnzer
post Mon, 18 Dec 2006 - 14:25
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 - 14:53


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
25 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 18 Dec 2006 - 14:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Blackbird
post Mon, 18 Dec 2006 - 15:10
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,181
Joined: 10 Aug 2003
Member No.: 200



This is a good place to start!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
neil3841
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 03:24
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,184



well on the front of the acpo codes of practice it dosn't say guidleines it says codes of practice but if you find anything more concrete please post it as I think I may come up against this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 07:06
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (neil3841 @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 03:24) *
well on the front of the acpo codes of practice it dosn't say guidleines it says codes of practice but if you find anything more concrete please post it as I think I may come up against this

Have tried emailing from the form on their website but I'm getting an error message so it's gonna be snail mail.
Hi Neil 3841. Whare's the other 3840?
Anyway, I hear from all over the place that prosecutiion come in with the argument that the ACPO Code of Practice are just guidelines. Even have it on a written answer from the Home Office.
There are several references on the forums about Hazel Blears and Paul Goggins more or less stating that they are an integral part of the Type Approval but a final word from ACPO themselves on how the Code should be seen would nail this one on the head I think.
I don't think ACPO would view it as just a set of guidelines which has no bearing in law.
Actually somewhere in the document, perhaps in the forword, it says that it is a standard, and in my view anything that falls short of this is then substandard.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 09:29
Post #5


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Mon, 18 Dec 2006 - 14:25) *
Still building up a defence against use of Gatso from within a vehicle and I want to try and kill the statement that ACPO Code of Practice is just guidleines.

In this context the word “guidelines” is a confusing and misleading. Parts of the ACPO guidelines are just that - for example:
QUOTE
You shall wear a high visibility jacket and thou shall not hide behind a bush.

However, as they form part of the conditions of type approval, sections of the document that relate to the operational use of enforcement equipment are not simply guidelines.

It may help if you talk to Robert Dobson because the tooth fairy informed me that he has some of the conditions of type approval for the portable Gatso. wink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 10:04
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Mika @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 09:29) *
QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Mon, 18 Dec 2006 - 14:25) *
Still building up a defence against use of Gatso from within a vehicle and I want to try and kill the statement that ACPO Code of Practice is just guidleines.

In this context the word “guidelines” is a confusing and misleading. Parts of the ACPO guidelines are just that - for example:
QUOTE
You shall wear a high visibility jacket and thou shall not hide behind a bush.
However, as they form part of the conditions of type approval, sections of the document that relate to the operational use of enforcement equipment are not simply guidelines.

It may help if you talk to Robert Dobson because the tooth fairy informed me that he has some of the conditions of type approval for the portable Gatso. wink.gif

Thanks Mika,
I actually have ALL the conditions, ie the schedule from the Home Office, together with emails confirming my assumption that the use of a Gatso 24 is not within its type approval conditions. They actually say that the use of this information in support of my defence is entirely up to the court
I know that using the Gatso 24 from the rear of a van is not covered and I'm going for a "no case to answer" on this one.
However, I'm just trying to build up other stuff just in case the court deceides to ride all over me. I know that the "must not be used from within a vehicle" section of ACPO is a very strong argument but I hear so many references to courts being told that as the Code of Practice is nothing more than guidelines then it's no use in law.
That's the myth I'm trying to overcome before it might be used against me, if the case goes that far which in my opinion it won't.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 10:26
Post #7


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 10:04) *
I actually have ALL the conditions, ie the schedule from the Home Office, together with emails confirming my assumption that the use of a Gatso 24 is not within its type approval conditions. They actually say that the use of this information in support of my defence is entirely up to the court
I know that using the Gatso 24 from the rear of a van is not covered and I'm going for a "no case to answer" on this one.

Do you have a copy of the manufacture’s manual for the deployment and operation of the device?

My suggestion would be to keep it simple and explain to the court that any suggestion the conditions of type approval referred to in the ACPO code are not legally binding, is a load of old bollocks.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 10:57
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Mika @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 10:26) *
QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 10:04) *
I actually have ALL the conditions, ie the schedule from the Home Office, together with emails confirming my assumption that the use of a Gatso 24 is not within its type approval conditions. They actually say that the use of this information in support of my defence is entirely up to the court
I know that using the Gatso 24 from the rear of a van is not covered and I'm going for a "no case to answer" on this one.

Do you have a copy of the manufacture’s manual for the deployment and operation of the device?

My suggestion would be to keep it simple and explain to the court that any suggestion the conditions of type approval referred to in the ACPO code are not legally binding, is a load of old bollocks.

I've scoured the internet for a manufacturers manual Mika but it seems they're like duck's teeth.
Any ideas?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 11:01
Post #9


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 10:57) *
I've scoured the internet for a manufacturers manual Mika but it seems they're like duck's teeth.
Any ideas?

As they are crucial to the preparation of our defence, make a formal request for disclosure of a copy and Robert Dobson may already have one. wink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quattro
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 11:45
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 9 Mar 2005
From: Yorkshire
Member No.: 2,532



Good luck on your quest

A fried of mine wrote to ACPO on 8th April 2006, and finally after asking his MP to write to them as well, got a reply from Meredydd J Hughes who said that he was answering in his capacity as the ACPO Lead on Road Policing Issues. The reply was written on 8th August 2006.

His letter follows :-

QUOTE
Dear sirs

I have downloaded a copy of the ACPO code of practice for speed cameras.

Your code of practice states that, 'Hand-held devices are capable of measuring vehicle speeds from a minimum range of 50 feet to a maximum of 2,000 feet and recording speeds from a minimum of 5mph to a maximum of 155mph. Operators should avoid carrying out measurements for enforcement purposes at the extremity of the measurement field. Clearly the steadiness of sighting of the hand-held device affects operating range, but does not affect accuracy. In any case the device will not display any speed reading unless a proper 'lock-on' has occurred.'

And also, "The evidence from attended actively operated equipment corroborates the operator's prior opinion the target vehicle was travelling in excess of the permitted speed limit for the road or class of vehicle."

I have been informed by the Home Office that, "The police need to form a view of the speed of a vehicle before measuring it and the view of the ACPO Road Policing Enforcement Technology Committee is that devices operating to only 500m fulfil the operational need.

All of this seems to be reasonable as 2,000 feet is around 610 metres and your code of practice, or 'set of operational standards', does say, "Operators should avoid carrying out measurements for enforcement purposes at the extremity of the measurement field.

My question is, "How does bolting the equipment into the back of a van make the equipment more reliable as it is hardly a stable platform (with suspension and buffeting from passing vehicles), and also how does it make the operator more able to form a prior opinion, as he is now forming this opinion from up to 1,000 metres and not 500 metres as before?

I would have thought that the ease of making such an opinion would be much worse as he now has to look past the laser and video camera and out of a small window at distances of up to 1000M whereas before he was outside with an unrestricted view making his opinion at 500M.

This simply does not add up and your clarification would be appreciated.

Many thanks
Hughes was aware that the operator in question was supposedly making a prior opinion from over 800M


QUOTE
As the officer with responsibility for the ACPO codes of practice for road policing enforcement equipment, I can confirm that this material is guidance issued to the Police Service and therefore non-adherence to the code of practice does not preclude court proceedings. The code of practice is drawn up as a result of extensive research within forces, and sets out the way that the equipment should be used.

And

QUOTE
Turning to Mr ********’s specific questions that he requests you ask me, my response is simply as follows, namely that we rigorously test the use of our enforcement equipment from within our vehicles, and are unaware of any performance deterioration caused by vehicle suspension or passing vehicles. Whilst the equipment – in this letter the LTI 20/20 – may be certified at up to 1000 metres, it is for the individual officer to be challenged as to his or her use of that equipment particularly at longer ranges. Given the nature of British terrain and road construction I suggest that it would be comparatively rare that the equipment is used at the furthest extent of its technical envelope.

So, hopping from one foot to the other – we have tested everything and it’s all ok – we say that they shouldn’t use it above 500m and 610m but if they do then it’s for you to challenge them about it. A civilian who has had two months in the van can override all of our extensive and indeed expensive research if he feels that he can!

I know this is about the LTI and your quest is not, but I am just giving you some idea of what you are up agaisnt.

If they don't answer, ask your MP to ask the question.

Hughes's address is 'South Yorkshire Police, Police Headquarters, Snig Hill, Sheffield. S3 8LY.' He may like to be kept informed by copying your ACPO mail to him cool.gif


--------------------
The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. Richard Brunstrom. - Now that is worrying!

Prior opinion? - http://www.witlessandswindle.me.uk/

Don't bother clicking, someone's nicked it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quattro
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 11:58
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 9 Mar 2005
From: Yorkshire
Member No.: 2,532



QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 07:06) *
Actually somewhere in the document, perhaps in the forword, it says that it is a standard, and in my view anything that falls short of this is then substandard.


Foreword
The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 required the Home Office Type Approval of evidential radar speed meters. The Road Traffic Act 1991 expanded this provision to allow for the type approval of other devices used in the enforcement of road traffic law.
While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.
These standards are in your hands.
R Brunstrom
Chief Constable
North Wales Police
Head of ACPO Road Policing Business Area


--------------------
The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. Richard Brunstrom. - Now that is worrying!

Prior opinion? - http://www.witlessandswindle.me.uk/

Don't bother clicking, someone's nicked it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:29
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Quattro @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 11:58) *
QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 07:06) *
Actually somewhere in the document, perhaps in the forword, it says that it is a standard, and in my view anything that falls short of this is then substandard.


Foreword
The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 required the Home Office Type Approval of evidential radar speed meters. The Road Traffic Act 1991 expanded this provision to allow for the type approval of other devices used in the enforcement of road traffic law.
While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.
These standards are in your hands.
R Brunstrom
Chief Constable
North Wales Police
Head of ACPO Road Policing Business Area


Got all this on file already. Very interesting but it still carries little weight with some courts. That's why the letter is going off to the ACPO today asking them "in a roundabout way" on their opinion that despite what the authorities say, the ACPO Code of Practice is nothing more than mere guidelines. Get it?
a bit of obfuscation doesn't hurt.
Mika will ask about the handbook. Many thanks


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:37
Post #13


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:29) *
Mika will ask about the handbook. Many thanks

Why ask ACPO?

In my opinion, you need to arrange a mention hearing in court and formally request disclosure of the manual.

The manual should clearly explain how the equipment must be deployed and operated for enforcement purposes.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:42
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Mika @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:37) *
QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:29) *
Mika will ask about the handbook. Many thanks

Why ask ACPO?

In my opinion, you need to arrange a mention hearing in court and formally request disclosure of the manual.

The manual should clearly explain how the equipment must be deployed and operated for enforcement purposes.

Being cautious first Mika. I don't want to nail my foot to the floor if the manual doesn't support my case or worse still confirms the prosecution case.
Anyway, I have already asked for the manual as well as a thousand other things which might have some bearing on the defence.
If it comes, or if I manage to get a copy, then I'll only present it if its any good to me.
Of course, you might already have knowledge of this?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:47
Post #15


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:42) *
Being cautious first Mika. I don't want to nail my foot to the floor if the manual doesn't support my case or worse still confirms the prosecution case.

If the manufacture of the device says that it can be deployed in the back of a van, in my opinion, you are going to have difficulty convincing three wise magistrates that it can’t. blink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:55
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Mika @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:47) *
QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:42) *
Being cautious first Mika. I don't want to nail my foot to the floor if the manual doesn't support my case or worse still confirms the prosecution case.

If the manufacture of the device says that it can be deployed in the back of a van, in my opinion, you are going to have difficulty convincing three wise magistrates that it can€™t. blink.gif

I thought that might be the case but as it's unlikely I'll get to see the handbook, Public Exemption Certificate etc then it's not easy to see how it can be used by the prosecution. It's use would surely be invalidated if it wasn't shown to me within the permitted timeframe?
In any case, the use of the gatso from the rear of the van still doesn't have type approval according to the schedule in the CTS.pdf in my earlier post.
Another consideration is that where there exists a conflict of detail, the ACPO Code of Practice overrides the manufacturers handbook.

This post has been edited by lYNNZER: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:58


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:07
Post #17


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:55) *
In any case, the use of the gatso from the rear of the van still doesn't have type approval according to the schedule in the CTS.pdf in my earlier post.

That’s why it’s most unlikely that the manufactures handbook will say that it can be deployed from the back of a van.

Don’ think of the ACPO code and the manufacture’s handbook etc. as two completely separate things – which came first, the chicken or the egg? wink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:15
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Mika @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:07) *
QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 12:55) *
In any case, the use of the gatso from the rear of the van still doesn't have type approval according to the schedule in the CTS.pdf in my earlier post.

That’s why it’s most unlikely that the manufactures handbook will say that it can be deployed from the back of a van.

Don’ think of the ACPO code and the manufacture’s handbook etc. as two completely separate things – which came first, the chicken or the egg? wink.gif

Bugger me Mika!
And I thought Sudoku was a real challenge.
I get what you mean in every respect but my grey matter must be turning black or something, and NO, I'm not a scammer............


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:19
Post #19


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:15) *
Bugger me Mika!

I’m a bit fussy, are you a Law Lord? blush.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:25
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Mika @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:19) *
QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:15) *
Bugger me Mika!

Are you a Law Lord? blush.gif

No, BUT.
Actually with my Christian name I don't even get the recognition I should. It's well known now from the Sunderland Echo article that my name is Lynn.
When I was called into court the clerk stopped me halway down the "aisle" and said "No, It's Lynn Robson we need in court.
An explanation that it wasn't the first time someone had made that mistake and she went crimson. Told the bench that I had even been called on to attend for a smear test by the NHS at one time. I think it was their only amusement of the day, especially when I produced the Schedule and asked for a no case to answer verdict.
Didn't know it was only a hearing to set a PTR though.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

25 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: Saturday, 22nd September 2018 - 14:05
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.