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 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Mon, 18 Dec 2006 - 14:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 13:47
Post #41


Member


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



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 11:15) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 10:33) *
Anyone got a copy of The Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1992 (S.I 1992/1209)?


OPSI have a copy...

N.B. This seems to (partially) answer the obvious s.20 question - "what is a prescribed device?" - because s.20 requires "prescribed devices" to be type approved...

Got this one already Andy. I thought it was another (longer) document.
Been thinking about all this over Xmas, Happy New Year by the way to all, and there's absolutely NOTHING to substantiate the use of the Gatso from the rear of a van.
The only thing that has come to light is the answer from the Home Office, in a post further up this page where they say that it can be used from inside a van, as long as it folloes ACPO and Manufacturers handbook requirements.
To be honest I don't think anyone in the whole organisation have evn bothered to look at what a Gatso can and can't do.
It obviously doesn't follow ACPO if it's used from within a vehicle anyway. I think they've asserted the same operational use to RADAR as they have to Laser devices. Their MISTAKE!!!!!
Can you imagine the court, "M'lud, the Home Office says this device can't be used because it doesn't follow ACPO Code of Conduct" when it's used from a van. wacko.gif
I think at the very least there's severe doubt here so the case should collpase before it gets to court anyway.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 13:51
Post #42


Member
Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 13:47) *
I think at the very least there's severe doubt here so the case should collpase before it gets to court anyway.

It is very dangerous to assume that will happen. In my opinion, it is essential that you obtain a copy of the manufacture’s instructions for deployment and operation of the device.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 14:12
Post #43


Member


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



QUOTE (Mika @ Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 13:51) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 13:47) *
I think at the very least there's severe doubt here so the case should collpase before it gets to court anyway.

It is very dangerous to assume that will happen. In my opinion, it is essential that you obtain a copy of the manufacture’s instructions for deployment and operation of the device.

I'm onto this Mika.
Don't expect it will be easy though, but without it the CPS can't bring anything into the equasion themselves that relies on the wording or conditions of use from it. ( I hope)
No assumption, just speaking logically though I know logic takes a back seat where someone's balls are in the vice.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 14:26
Post #44


Member
Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 14:12) *
No assumption, just speaking logically though I know logic takes a back seat where someone's balls are in the vice.

As you have suggested, logic doesn’t have very much to do with the law and a trial would probably go something like the following:

You: “I submit that a portable Gatso cannot be deployed in and operated from within a vehicle and, therefore, there is no case to answer”.

Court – probably the clerk: “Do you have anything to substantiate your submission”.

You: “Yes. Here is a copy [handed] of the manufacture’s instructions for the deployment and operation of the device.” wink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 14:56
Post #45


Member


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



QUOTE (Mika @ Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 14:26) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 14:12) *
No assumption, just speaking logically though I know logic takes a back seat where someone's balls are in the vice.

As you have suggested, logic doesn’t have very much to do with the law and a trial would probably go something like the following:

You: “I submit that a portable Gatso cannot be deployed in and operated from within a vehicle and, therefore, there is no case to answer”.

Court – probably the clerk: “Do you have anything to substantiate your submission”.

You: “Yes. Here is a copy [handed] of the manufacture’s instructions for the deployment and operation of the device.” wink.gif

And a VERY Happy New Year to you Mika. biggrin.gif
As you say 2007 should be a non stop party.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Thu, 11 Jan 2007 - 15:10
Post #46


Member


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



I'm still trying to get the Home Office to open up and post me a decent reply to my questions on using the Gatso from a van.
My most recent post with them http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/free...roval?version=1 only adds obfuscation and uncertainty. I note with interest that the bloody device was tested in a moving van and found to give unstatisfactory results. Not tested from a stationary one mind you,but the "results" (what bloody results...what testing?) would provide accurate info if used in accordance with ACPO. Another piece of useless information. They only compound their own ignorance.

Anyway, my own interpretation is that, yes it was tested in a moving vehicle and the results couldn't be relied upon. Whilst this is true, and if they haven't tested it from a stationary vehilce then was it the fact that the vehicle was moving that caused the poor results, or was it because it was in a vehicle that gave those poor results?
No testing in a stationary vehicle so who knows?

If anyone can add anything to this they're welcome to post on it.
I wonder what a court would think of all this confusion and uncertainty? Where would this stand on the grounds of proof beyond reasonable doubt?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 24 Jan 2007 - 14:46
Post #47


Member


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



Just posting another response to my ongoing Gatos enquiries with the Home Office.
The latest response is as follows:
_____________________________________________________
Reference: T48433/6

24 January 2007

Dear Lynn,

Thank you for your email of 22 December 2006 at 12:59:07 PM regarding
the Gatso 24 device. I will respond to your questions in the numbered order you have requested the information.

Section 10.2 of the code of practice does say "roadside radar must not be operated from a vehicle". This is ACPO guidance and we were content as it provides the simplest approach to ensure the device is operated correctly. However it can be safely operated from the back of a vehicle provided no TETRA radios are in the vehicle or transmit inhibit is activated, the radar is positioned with a clear view of the road and can be properly aligned with the road edge.

In answer to your first question, I can advise that if it was felt necessary to exclude the possible use of Gatso type 24 radar operated from a vehicle, this would have been a condition made on its approval. There is no such condition excluding such use.

In question 2 you asked: “Is it included in the Type Approval Conditions or schedule of use or not?

There are no conditions relating to this use included in the Type Approval Order.

You asked in question 3:” You mention that a FIXED Gatso 24 can sometimes have a separate device which is fixed to the main unit to take pictures. Is it approved in the Attended Actively Operated Mode for taking speed measurements of receding traffic whilst in use in the rear of a van”?

I am able to advise that the optional use of a camera with Gatsometer type 24 radar used in the attended actively operated mode is approved. In this mode it may be used with or without the camera.

The Home Office position in your to question 4 of your letter is that you are not correct. There is no condition preventing use of a mobile unit from the rear of a stationary van.

Finally in answer to question 5 of your letter, the ACPO code of practice does say in section 10.2”: The device must not be operated from within a vehicle." The Code is operational guidance from ACPO and while we expect it to be followed it is not a legal requirement to do so. The radar can be operated reliably from the back of a van provided it is stationary, there are no digital radios on in the vehicle or facilities to prevent them transmitting are being used; the radar has an unrestricted view of the road and is correctly aligned with the edge of the road in accordance with the manufacturer's operating instructions.
Yours sincerely
_______________________________________________

My own comments which I have returned to them are:
Many thanks for your reply. It does however raise further issues that are required for clarification and I would be obliged if you could address these to finalise my enquiry.

1. You confirm that ACPO Code of Practice section 10.2 states that the device MUST not be used from within a vehicle and make the comment that this an expectation but is not a legal requirement. Why "MUST" then only point to it as a meaningless condition? It would have been better as SHOULD, would it not? And why would there be an expectation if it were not required to be met?
2. Since the granting of Type Approval is reliant on the manufacturers handbook and the ACPO Code of Practice then surely this is not just an expectation but is an intrinsic part of the Conditions of Approval.
I refer you to the statement made by Hazel Blears on this subject in the House of Commons.
The article from Hansard 26th April 2006 records her statement as follows:
“Speed cameras used by the police to produce evidence for possible use in court have to be of a type approved by the Secretary of State. The laboratory and field testing undertaken prior to the granting of type approval is designed to ensure that all type approved equipment is accurate and reliable when used in accordance with its type approval conditions, in line with the manufacturer's instructions and in accordance with the Code of Practice drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers. I am satisfied that all type approved speed cameras merit their type approved status and are appropriate for police use.”
Since such a strong emphasis is placed on ACPO, then if it is not a legal requirement perhaps you can refer me to any such documentation or legislative instrument that supports this.

3. Your next answer gives the opinion that if something is not excluded from the Type Approval Condition then it may actually be included.
I am of the opinion that this is the reverse of the facts. Because a specific use is not included means that it has not been given approval for use in this mode, whatever that mode may be. In support of this, if we look at the Conditions of use of other enforcement devices we can see that use from a vehicle is included, as are other uses.
For instance a lot of devices are shown as being approved for use as hand held, some are for gantry mounted and most specifically the Autovelox 104/C-2 is shown as being approved “To be operated on a tripod or mounted on a top edge of an opened side window of a stationary vehicle to enforce one lane nearest to the equipment and in one direction only”
This is a very specific condition of use and gives weight to the fact that usage requirements must be given as specific inclusions rather than included because they have not been excluded. If excluded usage was satisfactory then why have these conditions of use at all? The illogical consequence of including non excluded usage would make it possible to strap a device to the back of a police dog and use the recorded measurements in a court of law. We all know this is absurd. Can you please confirm that since such use of the Gatso type 24, ie from inside the rear of a van, is not included as a means of use then it is indeed excluded, or point me to any legislative document that accepts that excluded usage is acceptable. At the very least there MUST be a Statutory Instrument that gives approval for this.

3. Finally, your statement “The radar can be operated reliably from the back of a van provided it is stationary…” is confusing. Since this device has never been tested in the rear of a stationary van then how do you arrive at this conclusion?
The HSDB state “the device was tested from a moving vehicle and found to give erroneous results. It was not tested from a stationary van.”
Since there is no appraisal on whether it was that the device was in a van that caused the problem or that it was because it was that the van was moving, then any supposition of it being reliable from the rear of a van is mere speculation is it not? Do you have any test results for the device from a stationary van that supports your conclusion or is this a matter of opinion only? If I can point you to Hazel Blears statement once more she says that "The laboratory and field testing undertaken prior to the granting of type approval is designed to ensure that all type approved equipment is accurate and reliable" If it hasn't been tested then it can''t have been proven to be reliable can it?
__________________________________________-
Of course, most of what I'm saying is pure logic but since logic plays no part in the legal system or the people who back it up, I can't and don't expect an answer that pinpoints the legislative requirements that make any device legal when used in an unauthorised manner.
I don't know if any of these answers are of any use to others in the forum but they're free to use if needed and will in any case be posted in the Home Office website shortly.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Wed, 24 Jan 2007 - 15:11
Post #48


Member
Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Wed, 24 Jan 2007 - 14:46) *
In answer to your first question, I can advise that if it was felt necessary to exclude the possible use of Gatso type 24 radar operated from a vehicle, this would have been a condition made on its approval. There is no such condition excluding such use.

In my opinion, you are asking them the wrong question.

You need to obtain a court order forcing them to disclose the manufacture’s instructions for the deployment and operation of the device.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 24 Jan 2007 - 15:24
Post #49


Member


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



QUOTE (Mika @ Wed, 24 Jan 2007 - 15:11) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Wed, 24 Jan 2007 - 14:46) *
In answer to your first question, I can advise that if it was felt necessary to exclude the possible use of Gatso type 24 radar operated from a vehicle, this would have been a condition made on its approval. There is no such condition excluding such use.

In my opinion, you are asking them the wrong question.

You need to obtain a court order forcing them to disclose the manufacture’s instructions for the deployment and operation of the device.

Hiya Mika,
got this in mind already following your comments earlier.
I'm at the PTR next Wednesday and if they don't drop the case then, that's where I'll go for it with all guns blazing.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Thu, 25 Jan 2007 - 11:48
Post #50


Member


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



QUOTE (Mika @ Wed, 24 Jan 2007 - 15:11) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Wed, 24 Jan 2007 - 14:46) *
In answer to your first question, I can advise that if it was felt necessary to exclude the possible use of Gatso type 24 radar operated from a vehicle, this would have been a condition made on its approval. There is no such condition excluding such use.

In my opinion, you are asking them the wrong question.

You need to obtain a court order forcing them to disclose the manufacture’s instructions for the deployment and operation of the device.

I have this drafted to send to the clerk of the court assigned to my case. Is it sufficient or will it be better if I attend the Pretrial to make the request personally?
___________________________
With regard to the above case I would be grateful if the court would consider the setting of the trial date at a time no earlier than the end of March.
This is due to the enormous amount of out of area activity in the month of February and early March in connection with my wife's business which requires us to attend various buying events in London, Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds, Paris and Barcelona.
Being the company secretary of this business places a responsibility on me to attend the same events and as my wife requires assistance I need to be with her.
Following this activity it will take me some time to assess all the information which I have requested from the prosecution which will inevitably be delivered in my absence.

I have already made requests for disclosure in previous correspondence and I am advised this will take place once this pretrial hearing is completed.
I would like to ensure though, that three particular pieces of disclosure are made and are enforced by means of a court order to overcome any potential reluctance.

Could I therefore ask the court to impose an order for disclosure of the following:
1.The Gatso 24 Manufacturers Handbook
2.The camera operators logbook relevant to the day of my alleged offence
3.The full session recordings of the Gatso at the place of its employment in relation to this alleged offence.

I give my reasons as follows.
1.In relation to the Gatso handbook I am advised that it contains the full operating procedures that this device is limited to in its use, and furthermore I am informed that this endorses my suspicion that the device was not being used in accordance with its Type Approval Conditions.
Since the prosecution may lay claim that it has no requirement to disclose this under section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act, I wish it to be made clear that this exception is overruled in law when the information is to be used in court proceedings.
2. I require the camera operators logbook in order to assess the written evidence within it in relation to the activity of the operator throughout his shift. This is required in full so that I can assess the integrity of the Prior Opinion requirement in relation to the alleged offence and in relation to the other alleged offences committed during that shift.
3.I require the complete photographic and/or video record of the shift which supports the operators logbook in order to assess them in their full context. Such records will show the procedures carried out at the beginning and end of shift to corroborate the correct setting up and calibration of the Gatso.

I make this submission knowing that the prosecution will probably object to them which is why I ask for the court to make an order for disclosure to avoid any delay in proceedings at a later date.
The withholding of any of this information will not give me the opportunity to properly prepare my defence, and I believe the CPS has a responsibility to provide assistance to, and disclose material useful to the defence even if it is not asked for.
__________________________

comments?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Thu, 25 Jan 2007 - 12:13
Post #51


Member
Group Icon

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



As these chaps are very easily confused, my suggestion would be to keep the letter simple and don’t forget to copy it to the CPS:
QUOTE
Dear Sir,

Application for disclosure of documents, case ref: *****

As my defence relies on the submission that the Gatso 24 cannot be deployed and operated from within a vehicle, I require disclosure of the following documents:

1.The manufacturer’s handbook for the deployment and operation of the device.
2.The camera operator’s logbook relevant to the day of my alleged offence

I look forward to hearing from you….


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Thu, 25 Jan 2007 - 12:37
Post #52


Member


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



Thanks again Mika.
This is saving me quite a lot of printer ink......


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 26 Jan 2007 - 18:31
Post #53


Member


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



Been thinking (SMELL THE SMOKE).
The camera van is part of the evidence is it not? At least I believe it is when its physical characteristics makes it impossible for a device to be properly operated.
I mean, ( and this is just an example as I don't want to say specifically what I have in mind here ) if the windows through which a device was pointed were made of reflective glass and were incapable of being opened then this would surely make the calling of the van into the evidential trail would it not?
I wonder what CPS would think about a request for the van to be at the hearing, or would it be refused?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 31 Jan 2007 - 14:52
Post #54


Member


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



Phew, some day.
Turned up for review of case this morning although only as a member of the public in the viewing gallery. Couldn€™t hear a bloody thing being said so asked If I could move inot the press boxes which are far nearer the bench.
Anyway, today€™s the day the civil service have chosen to strike and lots of cases were being adjourned due to time constraints in the short staffing situation.
Nevertheless sat through a few interesting cases such as the weirdo who follows young girls home and masturbates outside their doors. He expected to be allowed home on bail even though he has a record of this, plus rape!!
Honestly!!!!!!

So no mention before dinner time of my review so I ask the clerk if there€™s any problem with the case due to the staffing arrangements.
He told me that he was going to adjourn for a week but I asked if he would agree an adjournment until the end of March due to heavy commitments in the next couple of months.
He called over the CPS woman assigned to the case and this was agreed. She told me that I would need a CPIA compliant defence letter made out for then.
Horror of horrors, she also advised me that she was trying to get an ACPO representative to attend as a witness. Oh, and she also mentioned she was resisting the request for a copy of the Gatso manufacturers handbook. Surprise, surprise.......

She presented me with a couple of bits, which are basically the photo€™s taken, the witness statements of a certain PC in the camera unit and a clerk at the camera unit responsible for processing the film.
Interestingly there€™s also a blown up photo showing the number plate as the plate cannot be seen clearly in the first tow photo's. Are they allowed to introduce this evidence as it's digitally enhanced? I need to make an application to reject it if it's not in keeping with the requirements.
Oh, there€™s also a copy of the Criminal Investigations and Procedures Act 1996 on the disclosure attached.
At the very back there€™s a Police Schedule of Non Sensitive Unused Material listing the witness statements and the photo€™s.

Now, getting to grips with all this stuff seems a bit daunting especially the threat of an ACPO representative being called and the denial of the manufacturers handbook. (I€™ll not rest on this though)
I suppose I€™m pleased in one respect as it underlines their uncertainty in the case needing to go to this length to try and secure a conviction.
So here goes with the inevitable questions.
Firstly the witness statement of PC **Plod says, €œ I am employed as a police officer in **** Police based in the safety camera unit of **** Police.
I have received training in the operation of the Gatso Radar and Traffic Camera.
In accordance with Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 I hereby certify that a prescribed device of a type approved by the Secretary of State, Gatsometer radar type 24 with camera AUS was placed at **********
To the best of my knowledge and belief this device was operated in accordance with the approval given.
It then goes on with several other things such as it location and calibration etc.
What I have here, as far as I€™m concerned is a statement from some member of a camera unit. No mention whether or not it was he who was the operator. In this case, unless this is ascertained before the trial date then it shouldn€™t be able to withstand an objection in court, would it?

Secondly, what in hell is a CPIA compliant statement? Need help in drafting this up please or is it really necessary? The CPS advise me that any request for other information must be supported by the case as made out in the CPIA statement giving reasons why I need stuff.

I€™m up to building up the basics here for the request for the manufacturers handbook but I have in mind asking for access to the specific police camera van. I ant to be able to build a secondary defence in case the court decides that I do have a case to answer following my submission that I don€™t.
As my case is already submitted in skeleton form as being defended on the basis of the non compliance with the type approval schedule of conditions are there any other likely areas that I need to address. I have already told them that if they can come up with the schedule showing the approval of the Gatso in the rear of a van I will consider a change of plea.
My logic in this is that I already know from the Schedule that the Home Office sent me that it isn€™t shown for use in that mode.
Any comments on what I should now be doing, how to construct a CPIA statement etc would be more than welcome. I have a fortnight to do this.
OH, one of the reasons I have asked for lengthy adjournment, apart from the very busy time I€™m genuinely going to have over the next couple of months, is that I€™m trying to time it so that the O€™Halloran case comes through first.

A final thought. Having sat and considered all the stuff I've been presented with just before I pressed the Add Reply button, I wondered about the photo's.
These show quite clearly a measurement exaclty like those from a static Gatso, ie time and distance.
The second photo gives a camera timing of .5 sec which to my mind makes this camera one being used in a completely different mode from that of an Attnded Actively Operated one. This is more of an Attended Automatic mode with no prior opinion of Mr Plod.
Secondary check is made by the second photograph as far as I can ascertain.
The Gatso isn't type Approved for use in the Attended Automatic Mode.
Comments?

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 - 15:47


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 31 Jan 2007 - 16:20
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,633
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The plate must be visible and readable in the roiginal, although 'zooming' (as in using a digital magnifying glass) is allowed, digital enhancemnet is not.

Get the ACPO guy in and ask him about 10.2 if he wants to talk you through why it shouldn't be in the van.

You have to insist on the manufacturers handbook, and resist an adjournment if they won't give it!

There is a few posts on here of defence statements, you need to find one and blag its pro-forma, guide is to use as little detail as possible, so corroboration not being via an device in a non approved manner.

I note the approval requires the Gatso to be on the edge of the carriageway, not via those pics it aint, it looks at least 2 metres (width of the pavement) from the edge!

Simon


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 31 Jan 2007 - 20:59
Post #56


Member


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



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 31 Jan 2007 - 16:20) *
The plate must be visible and readable in the roiginal, although 'zooming' (as in using a digital magnifying glass) is allowed, digital enhancemnet is not.

Get the ACPO guy in and ask him about 10.2 if he wants to talk you through why it shouldn't be in the van.

You have to insist on the manufacturers handbook, and resist an adjournment if they won't give it!

There is a few posts on here of defence statements, you need to find one and blag its pro-forma, guide is to use as little detail as possible, so corroboration not being via an device in a non approved manner.

I note the approval requires the Gatso to be on the edge of the carriageway, not via those pics it aint, it looks at least 2 metres (width of the pavement) from the edge!

Simon

I've got no way to form an opinion if the picture was digitally enhanced or not really. All it shows is an enlargement. I'll get it posted shortly to show what I mean.
In the meantime, I thought from memory that the van was around fifteen feet from the side of the road. Might be wrong. I know it should be within 10 feet but there's no way I can prove otherwise and I doubt if it would carry any weight in court anyway. In any case, there's a requirement for the camera to be at a given angle to the road and I guess someone out there will be able to make a calculation on this from the pictures, based on the road edge and the angle of the camera.
My pressing concern now though is making this stupid CPIA Compliant Statement. Do I need to complete this. Will it mean that I can't request further info without it following the basic defence support.
Also does anyone know about the double photo aspect. In the Attended Actively Operated Mode, the prior opinion of the Plod is the primary evidence and I was always under the impression that the Gatso would take a single photo to support this opinion. Is it usual for it to be taking two photo's in this mode?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dr Science
post Wed, 31 Jan 2007 - 22:40
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,396
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
From: S.Yorks
Member No.: 8,288



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Wed, 31 Jan 2007 - 14:52) *
The Gatso isn't type Approved for use in the Attended Automatic Mode.
Comments?


Odd. I thought it was. Its no different to fully automatic unattended, except there is a copper stood by the Gatso to make sure no-one nicks it. It does require the secondary check though. If you can get them to admit it was really being used in attended/supervised automatic mode, then you can get them for no secondary check.

Example CPIA defence statement is here.

Have a plan B for what you will do if you get the manual and it says that its OK to operate it from inside a vehicle. I don't know if the UK version manual is different, but the original Gatso 24 design was intended to be operated from a moving or stationary vehicle, a tripod or a fixed post. I know that some US forces (Washington DC?) operate GATSOs from a post welded in place of the passenger seat in a patrol car. Australian state of Victoria has a similar arrangement, but I don't think its the Gatso model 24, but a close relative.

If you do get the manual, make a big attack on the use-on-a-curve thing. From a home office FOI I know that the manual says it should be operated on a straight piece of road or a curve of not less than 1200 metres radius. Also, if it is operated on a curve, challenge the alignment of the camera to the road. They say nothing about it in their statement and probably haven't kept a record. Make them prove that they aligned it correctly, then ask, how can you have aligned it correctly when it was on a curve, so there was no straight line to align it against?

Just some thoughts.

Dr.S.


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

Dr.S
Telephone calls may be recorded for the purpose of detection and prevention of crime.
I am an engineer/physicist, not a lawyer. My answers are based on The Laws 'O Physics (which ya' can 'ne change, Cap'n).
The law of the land is a much more slippery and changeable thing.

"The only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden violence" - Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations
NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Thu, 1 Feb 2007 - 12:25
Post #58


Member


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



QUOTE (Dr Science @ Wed, 31 Jan 2007 - 22:40) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Wed, 31 Jan 2007 - 14:52) *
The Gatso isn't type Approved for use in the Attended Automatic Mode.
Comments?


Odd. I thought it was. Its no different to fully automatic unattended, except there is a copper stood by the Gatso to make sure no-one nicks it. It does require the secondary check though. If you can get them to admit it was really being used in attended/supervised automatic mode, then you can get them for no secondary check.

Example CPIA defence statement is here.

Have a plan B for what you will do if you get the manual and it says that its OK to operate it from inside a vehicle. I don't know if the UK version manual is different, but the original Gatso 24 design was intended to be operated from a moving or stationary vehicle, a tripod or a fixed post. I know that some US forces (Washington DC?) operate GATSOs from a post welded in place of the passenger seat in a patrol car. Australian state of Victoria has a similar arrangement, but I don't think its the Gatso model 24, but a close relative.

If you do get the manual, make a big attack on the use-on-a-curve thing. From a home office FOI I know that the manual says it should be operated on a straight piece of road or a curve of not less than 1200 metres radius. Also, if it is operated on a curve, challenge the alignment of the camera to the road. They say nothing about it in their statement and probably haven't kept a record. Make them prove that they aligned it correctly, then ask, how can you have aligned it correctly when it was on a curve, so there was no straight line to align it against?

Just some thoughts.

Dr.S.

Thanks DR S.
I have it from the Home Office that it can't be used as a mobile device in the automatic mode, either attended or unattended. I guess that makes it quite simple to argue. The big problem is that even it was being used in that mode, I know they won't admit to it. I already have confirmation from them that it was being used in the attended actively operated mode. They won't make any concession on this point I doubt.
This then opens up the prior opinion aspect. It'll be a bugger to defend though as it'll be my word against plod's. Even though the geezer was sitting looking along the line of sight of the camera, ie at traffic that had already past the van and were in camera range, I'll need the van to be at the court to make this point. Don't know whether they'll go for that.
I'm onto the road bend thing already. This was one of my opening comments in the early postings I made. I'd really like someone who could work out the angle of the camera to the road as this might be very interesting.
As for the manual, from my own belief, as the device is approved for use according to the manufacturers handbook and it doens' show such use as being approved the this will kill all argument on this. If it does give approval then any conflict between that and the ACPO Code of Practice always comes down to the ACPO Code as overriding the manual.
I'd just like to ascertain for definite if the manual does exclude or at least not mention the use from the back of a van.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dr Science
post Thu, 1 Feb 2007 - 23:42
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,396
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
From: S.Yorks
Member No.: 8,288



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Thu, 1 Feb 2007 - 12:25) *
As for the manual, from my own belief, as the device is approved for use according to the manufacturers handbook and it doens' show such use as being approved the this will kill all argument on this. If it does give approval then any conflict between that and the ACPO Code of Practice always comes down to the ACPO Code as overriding the manual.


My expectation of priority would be:-

Specific Type Approval conditions (if any)
Above
Manufacturer's instructions (if any)
Above
ACPO code procedures (if any)
Above
General good scientific/industrial measurement practice
Above
common sense

Dr.S


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

Dr.S
Telephone calls may be recorded for the purpose of detection and prevention of crime.
I am an engineer/physicist, not a lawyer. My answers are based on The Laws 'O Physics (which ya' can 'ne change, Cap'n).
The law of the land is a much more slippery and changeable thing.

"The only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden violence" - Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations
NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Mon, 5 Feb 2007 - 14:29
Post #60


Member


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



Well, no response to the original Defence Statement on here but I've redrafted it a bit.
As it's a requirement of the court that requests for disclosure must be judged on their merit and supported by valid reasons as to why info or documents are requested this statement looks very comprehensive.
Believe me, I REALLY want certain info and have put a very well thought out set of reasons to obtain same.
Here goes:

DEFENCE STATEMENT under s.6, CPIA 1996 as amended by CJA 2003

Nature of the Defence
1. It is alleged that on the 20th February 2006 my vehicle exceeded the 30 mph speed limit. It is understood that the device used to measure the vehicle's speed was a Gatso type 24 device with a camera attached and operated from inside a camera van whilst being used in an Attended Actively Operated Mode. I do not believe that the vehicle was speeding.

Matters of fact on which I take issue with the Prosecution
2. I believe that the device, a Gatso type 24 was being used in the rear of a camera van which is in breach of the schedule of conditions of the Type Approval which apply to it. I believe the Schedule to the Agreement states € The equipment mounted on a tripod may be used in the attended actively operated mode as tested€€€.€ It has not been tested and approved for use in a vehicle.

3. I believe that the device was not being used in the correct operating mode applicable to its Type Approval conditions.

4. I believe that the device was being used in a manner outside of the requirements of the manufacturers handbook.
I have it on good authority that the Manufacturers Handbook makes no recommendation for the use of the device from within a vehicle.

5. I take issue with the Prosecution€™s unwillingness to disclose material that has been requested, namely the complete manufacturers handbook of the Gatso type 24, the operators full session logbook and the complete photographic record of the session at the said location.

6. I take issue that the Home Office Type Approval Certificate together with the Schedule of Conditions applicable to it has not been disclosed as requested in previous correspondence.

7. I require access to the actual camera van used and with the Gatso positioned as it was at the time of the alleged offence and I take issue with any objection to inspect said vehicle.


Reasons
8. The Manufacturers Handbook and the ACPO Code of Practice are intrinsically linked to, and are a substantive part of the Type Approval Agreement.
The strict compliance with procedures as set out within the Gatso Manufacturers Handbook and the ACPO Code of Practice must be followed in order that a device keeps within its Approval Conditions or produces evidence which can be relied on in court.
Hazel Blears has substantiated this confirmation in a reply in the House of Commons.
The article taken from Hansard 26th April 2006 records her statement as follows:
€œSpeed cameras used by the police to produce evidence for possible use in court have to be of a type approved by the Secretary of State. The laboratory and field testing undertaken prior to the granting of type approval is designed to ensure that all type approved equipment is accurate and reliable when used in accordance with its type approval conditions, in line with the manufacturer's instructions and in accordance with the Code of Practice drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers. I am satisfied that all type approved speed cameras merit their type approved status and are appropriate for police use.€
A further statement from Paul Goggins, Parliamentary Under Secretary, Home Office confirms this. Written Answers dated Monday 27th February 2006 €œ All speed enforcement technology used by the police to produce evidence for use in court has to be of a type approved by the Secretary Of State€€€ Once a device has been Type Approved, it cannot be changed in any way without Home Office agreement€..€
Type Approval is so heavily dependant on the Manufacturers Handbook that the Home Office prohibit any amendments to it which have not been agreed beforehand by themselves.
The ACPO Code of Practice is so important in the Approval Conditions that the procedures within it override any conflicting requirements in the operators handbook.
To emphasise the importance of the ACPO Code of Practice Chief Constable R Brunstrom the Head of the Road Policing Business Area, states in his Foreword in the document €œIt 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.€
These statements make no room for compromise.

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, section as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 section 23.20.4 states €œA record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless;
(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.€

It therefore follows that disclosure of the manufacturers handbook, which is an integral part of the Approval recognised as such by a senior member of the government, is central to the defence of this case.
The document, Evaluation of the Gatso Speedometer contains at Appendix 1 an extract from the Gatso Instruction Manual. This is released unhindered by the Home Office upon request and is of a very technical nature. As this is already in the public domain, a request for the manual itself so that other parts of it can be considered is no greater an actionable breach of confidence. Disclosure does not compromise national security or threaten individual rights.
Section 41 of the FOI Act provides that information is exempt if the information was provided in confidence to the department and where its release could be considered an actionable breach of confidence.
Section 43(2) of the FOI Act provides that information is exempt if 'its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).' Since there are no commercial interests in the release of this information and having already been released in the public domain by the Home Office, it cannot be resisted on these grounds.
Copies of the Manufacturers Handbook are held by the police and are not third party documents which cannot be demanded from another party.

9. It is my belief that the operator of this device was not using it in a mode applicable to its type approval since it was being used to take measurements of receding traffic. This mode of operation is applicable to the Fixed or Trailer Mounted devices only.
According to the Home Office Research and Science Branch in response to my question to them on the correct use of the Gatso in a mobile situation €œTo avoid any possible doubt, the Gatsometer BV Type 24 radar has been tested and approved with effect from 17th June 2005 for use in the attended actively operated mode measuring approaching traffic€
The Gatso 24 is able to take completely automatic recordings without any human intervention. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to PROVE without doubt that the correct procedure was being followed. Since the resulting secondary evidence by the Gatso is in itself insufficient to prove an offence, I believe that the proof of correct operation is required to substantiate the charge made. Failure to prove correct use in the Attended Actively Operated mode, casts reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.
Section 15.3 of the ACPO Code of Practice states €œThe device is operator critical (see glossary) for each and every offence and cannot be used in an unattended/automatic or attended/automatic mode merely because a camera has been attached.€œ
Further, the Glossary of Type Approval Terms for Attended Actively Operated mode states €The evidence of the operator is critical to the use of the device and the integrity of the evidence gathered. Where the device can work automatically once set in operation, it is not sufficient for the officer to be in the vicinity of the device merely to ensure its safekeeping€œ.
To confirm my suspicion, and also to confirm the information I have from Safespeed For Life, that the device was not being used in the mode for which it has approval, the operators logbook and the corroborating film taken at the site are required under the disclosure rules.
Any discrepancy in the correct procedures being followed in relation to the actual mode of use will be immediately apparent but only when viewed in their entirety and simultaneously. The production of a single record from the logbook and the corresponding photographic record of the incident will be insufficient to prove inconsistency or otherwise of operational procedures throughout the session and the integrity of the process employed.
The full session records will inevitably show offences being committed by other drivers and this disclosure might be construed as breaching the rights of other individuals, therefore being the subject of resistance by the prosecution. This matter is fully covered in the Data Protection Act 1998: €œThe withholding of personal data is exempt from the provisions of non disclosure when it is required for the purpose of, or in connection with any legal proceedings.€
Further, according to the Attorney General€™s Guidelines on Disclosure, section 13 ,€It should also be borne in mind that while items of material viewed in isolation may not be reasonably considered to be capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the accused, several items together can have that effect.€
10. Since the Gatso set-up procedures should be documented on the same photographic record and in the operators logbook, disclosure will also have a secondary function of substantiating that the correct roadside calibration was carried out which is an important part of the procedural requirements.

11. I require to be able to inspect the camera van and the Gatso within it to determine the manner in which they were used. Since the primary objection is upon the failure of the Type Approval Conditions, which are that the device cannot be used from within a vehicle, it is entirely reasonable that I have the opportunity to inspect the said vehicle to confirm its fixture and mode of use within it.
I have it on record that the Camera Van was modified to accommodate the fitting of the Gatso. Although this is an obfuscating issue as there still exists no Condition of Approval for use from within a vehicle, whether modified or not, the construction of the vehicle and the placement of the device within it is therefore extremely relevant to the defence.

12. My issue with the non disclosure of the Home Office Type Approval Schedule of Conditions is that this is the single most important factor in the consideration of this alleged offence. Failure to produce said Schedule of Conditions showing that the Gatso does indeed have approval for use from within a vehicle would in effect mean that the device was not in fact approved thus placing myself in the position of having no case to answer.
It has been suggested that since the use from within a vehicle is not excluded by the conditions it is therefore able to be used in such manner. This is a nonsense.
Inspection of other type approval conditions show that only an included use is allowed. Should non excluded use be allowed simply because they had not been excluded this would result in the Gatso, for instance, being suitably approved by virtue of its non exclusion, for use from the hump of a camel in a speedboat. This is of course absolute nonsense.
13. In consideration of the request, above, for disclosure of the actual Schedule of Conditions for the Gatso type 24 I also require disclosure of any evidence to the effect that non excluded conditions are included by default, plus disclosure of the Statutory Instrument which gives approval for this amendment, if it is not a part of the existing Schedule Of Conditions. My disclosure request is entirely consistent with the defence of this case. Failure to disclose Conditions of Approval and amendments to them is the failure of the Prosecution to substantiate an offence has been committed.

Points of law - disclosure
14. The amended test for disclosure of unused material in compliance with Part V of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires the prosecutor to disclose any €œprosecution material which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused.€
I submit that the requests made are entirely reasonable and consistent with this requirement and the denial of them will not be in the interests of justice and the proper application of the law.
15. The Attorney General€™s Guidelines on disclosure gives further weight to the request for disclosure of unused material as requested.

16. The ruling from the HOUSE OF LORDS, SESSION 2003-04 , 12th REPORT, [2004]UKHL 3, on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Crim 2847:Rowe and Davis v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 1,
{arose from the proceedings in which an important ruling had been given by the Court of Appeal in England (paragraph 20 above). Having reviewed the facts of the case and the development of English practice, the Court found that the applicants' rights under article 6 had been violated. In doing so, the Court recognised it (paragraph 60) as a "fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that criminal proceedings, including the elements of such proceedings which relate to procedure, should be adversarial and that there should be equality of arms between the prosecution and defence. The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party. In addition Article 6(1) requires, as indeed does English law, that the prosecution authorities should disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused".
This, as noted above (paragraph 15) had been the domestic law under the Attorney General's 1981 Guidelines, but had ceased to be so in 1996. The Court continued: €œHowever, as the applicants recognised, the entitlement to disclosure of relevant evidence is not an absolute right. In any criminal proceedings there may be competing interests, such as national security or the need to protect witnesses at risk of reprisals or keep secret police methods of investigation of crime, which must be weighed against the rights of the accused. In some cases it may be necessary to withhold certain evidence from the defence so as to preserve the fundamental rights of another individual or to safeguard an important public interest. However, only such measures restricting the rights of the defence which are strictly necessary are permissible under Article 6(1). Moreover, in order to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, any difficulties caused to the defence by a limitation on its rights must be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities.€}

Points of law €“ other issues
16. The use of the device in such a manner, that is from within a vehicle, is in breach of the requirements of the schedule of conditions which apply to it. The resulting measurement made by it is therefore inadmissible in a court of law under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991, Section 23, 20 , 4 as the measurement made by it is inadmissible on the failure to meet the conditions of its Type Approval.

Right to a Fair Trial
17. Failure for full disclosure, including advance disclosure, of any material fact may constitute a denial of my rights to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and may be construed as such should further proceedings be heard in a court of appeal.


Long winded I agree, and maybe too long, but I think any magistrate will find it hard to deny my requests for disclosure.

Have sent this out now, copied to the mags so will await and see what transpires. The PTR is on 26 March.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 - 22:24


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

25 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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, 23rd June 2018 - 10:06
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.