PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Unsigned forms - The Scottish Experience??
r11co
post Fri, 9 Jan 2004 - 12:45
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 8 Jan 2004
Member No.: 751



Has anyone here seen through to conclusion (either court or case dropped) the unsigned form process within a Scottish Jurisdiction?

There's precious little out there about it beyond 'Scotland is different'. It is up to a point but all the RTA's are the same ones that apply to the rest of the UK.

Help/advice/reassurance required smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Fri, 9 Jan 2004 - 12:45
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Sun, 18 Apr 2004 - 15:50
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (I've had enough)
And why Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 not the normal 1988 act as amended?

Because speeding's in tbe RTRA 1984. :?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
I've had enough
post Sun, 18 Apr 2004 - 16:04
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
From: Scamera Heaven
Member No.: 838



QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
Because speeding's in tbe RTRA 1984. :?


It has been some time since I last "graced" this forum icon_redface.gif

Best Regards, IHE.


--------------------
Road Safety not Roadside Robbery
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil
post Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 12:19
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,097



I've had enough wrote:
QUOTE
Consider the facts on mine:

S172 notice to hire company (they named my wife)
S172 notice to my wife (she named me)
S172 notice to me (my wife filled it out with my name and address and did not sign it)
With the exception of the first two S172, my circumstances are identical.

jeffreyarcher wrote:
QUOTE
presumably he doesn't know that your wife filled it in yet.

correct.

I have drafted this letter, which I am intending the send back to the Procurator Fiscal:

Dear Procurator Fiscal,

With regard to the above summons for an alleged speeding offence. I believe that the police evidence may be inaccurate and would like to seek disclosure of the video (or photographic) evidence.

Please confirm “In addition the police statements include reference to the accuracy” are fully certified:
This would entail a certification for the vehicle used to verify the accuracy of the speed, followed by 2 officers’ signatures (a calibrated speedo would not be sufficient because only one policeman saw its reading), who witnessed the tachometer reading, immediately prior to the camera being used, and following the use of the camera on that day.

“The case against you is based on a speed camera and in due course documentation will be served upon you which means it may not be necessary for us to lead any evidence from police witnesses at all in court.”
The speed camera has to be used for CORROBERATION purposes only, and cannot be used on it own. In simple terms, there must have been a police officer visually monitoring the road and deciding himself that a vehicle is breaking the speed limit.
From the height of the overbridge, I believe the courts will find it difficult to believe that an officer can manually ascertain the speed of my vehicle, given that he must be outside the speed camera vehicle monitoring station, in order to pass instructions to another police officer inside the monitoring station about a possible speed offender.
Therefore I conclude that standard procedure, as written by the “Association of Chief Police Officers” has not been followed.

The full procedures for the activity by which I am summoned to the Court of Law will be requested, with evidence of compliance being required, cross examined, and used to disprove my alleged speeding incident.


Also, you incorrectly told me that there was a signed S172 form which will be used to confirm myself as the driver of the said vehicle. I must tell you that due to varying circumstances it is IMPOSSIBLE to ascertain the identity of the driver of the vehicle without first viewing the Photographic evidence, and possibly thereafter.
The circumstances involved are:
It may have been myself, as the driver. It may have been my wife. The alleged incident occurred on a journey of 300+ miles from East Kilbride (G75) and Coleshill (B46), in which the occupants of the vehicle meant that at least 4 toilet stops were required during the journey, and a swap of driver occurred more than once. The identity of the driver is currently unknown to myself.


Due to personal circumstances, can please point me in the direction of the logistical process for attending court, and requesting a timing change for the intermediate Diet/ Trial, to nearer 2pm in the afternoon:
I have a job to go to, followed by a wife and three children between the ages of 3 months and 4 years to look after at home, therefore the timing of the court appearances will not benefit the trial. If I were to attend at 10am, given that I will have to travel 220 miles, through peak period traffic, I can only assume that I will have two choices for attendance:
Leave home at approximately 4am, on the mornings of the intermediate Diet/ Trials, and possibly not be sharp minded with my evidence;
Stay in/ near Annan the previous night, at either cost to myself/ state, and travel up the evening before, leaving my wife to carry out the household duties herself on both occasions.
Due to my diabetes, combined with the stress of both these circumstances may lead to ill health.


Thank you, for your helpfulness in my request for disclosure of the evidence against me, in which you have taken time to realign the sentiments to the correct body.


Yours sincerely,


Any thoughts???

Phil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The General
post Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 12:35
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Member No.: 550



There is no formal right of disclosure in Scottish Law, although as I understand it, a request is not normally refused.

Personally - I would not go into too much detail - play your cards closer to your chest. Part of their game is to demoralise you and grind you down!

Best of Luck

The General
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil
post Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 12:50
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,097



Thanks for the reply, The General,

my aim is such:
put enough in my letter to show the Procurator Fiscal that there is grounds to disprove the alledged speeding incident, against myself.
Although, the letter may not be entirely factually correct, yet, by the time I go for my intermediate diet, I expect to factualise the sentiments into reality. I'm also hoping that the Procurator Fiscal will drop the case, as opposed to doing her homework!

Also, although the 'disclosure' may not be law in Scotland, the Procurator Fiscal has sent me a letter informing me to contact her again if I have not been provided with the 'evidence' by mid May.

Any thoughts on what I should leave out. My medical condition is not what I'd call life threatening, but some B&B back to the Procurator Fiscal to leave ownership/ guidance of my health in her hands.

Phil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Wed, 21 Apr 2004 - 01:54
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (Phil)
Any thoughts on what I should leave out.

I'm with The General on this, more comment below.
What is to be gained by forewarning the Fiscal of your defences? Forewarned is forearmed, after all.
Just to confirm, there was a plea entering session on 7/4/04? If not, I would enquire about 7/7/04 being more than 6 months after the offence and thus being 'out of time' (see firefly's post).


QUOTE (Phil)
Dear Procurator Fiscal,
Please confirm “In addition the police statements include reference to the accuracy” are fully certified:
This would entail a certification for the vehicle used to verify the accuracy of the speed, followed by 2 officers’ signatures (a calibrated speedo would not be sufficient because only one policeman saw its reading), who witnessed the tachometer reading, immediately prior to the camera being used, and following the use of the camera on that day.

I don't think you should tell the Fiscal what is required. I'm sure she knows much more of the law then you or I. Even if she was wrong, just becuse you say that she is, isn't going to change her mind.

QUOTE (Phil)
The speed camera has to be used for CORROBERATION purposes only, and cannot be used on it own. In simple terms, there must have been a police officer visually monitoring the road and deciding himself that a vehicle is breaking the speed limit.

As above.

QUOTE (Phil)
From the height of the overbridge, I believe the courts will find it difficult to believe that an officer can manually ascertain the speed of my vehicle, given that he must be outside the speed camera vehicle monitoring station, in order to pass instructions to another police officer inside the monitoring station about a possible speed offender.

She knows what the JP(s) in Annan will believe, you don't.

QUOTE (Phil)
Therefore I conclude that standard procedure, as written by the “Association of Chief Police Officers” has not been followed.

Scottish Forces are not in ACPO (England & Wales), although IIRC The General thinks that they do follow a previous issue of the England & Wales guidelines.


QUOTE (Phil)
The full procedures for the activity by which I am summoned to the Court of Law will be requested,

That's your problem, not hers.

QUOTE (Phil)
with evidence of compliance being required, cross examined, and used to disprove my alleged speeding incident.

That just looks like a threat to me.

QUOTE (Phil)
Also, you incorrectly told me that there was a signed S172 form which will be used to confirm myself as the driver of the said vehicle. I must tell you that due to varying circumstances it is IMPOSSIBLE to ascertain the identity of the driver of the vehicle without first viewing the Photographic evidence, and possibly thereafter.
The circumstances involved are:
It may have been myself, as the driver. It may have been my wife. The alleged incident occurred on a journey of 300+ miles from East Kilbride (G75) and Coleshill (B46), in which the occupants of the vehicle meant that at least 4 toilet stops were required during the journey, and a swap of driver occurred more than once. The identity of the driver is currently unknown to myself.





So, you've just said that the driver named on the form may not be the driver. A possible 'attempt to pervert the course of justice' charge for whoever filled it in.
There's no point in alluding to the unsigned form. She knows now, and knows the significance (you said that she got angry).
She will already be looking into this (assuming that there isn't already 'guidance' from above, and assuming that an unsigned form is not admissable).

BTW, what did she say?

QUOTE (Phil)
Due to personal circumstances, can please point me in the direction of the logistical process for attending court, and requesting a timing change for the intermediate Diet/ Trial, to nearer 2pm in the afternoon:
I have a job to go to, followed by a wife and three children between the ages of 3 months and 4 years to look after at home, therefore the timing of the court appearances will not benefit the trial. If I were to attend at 10am, given that I will have to travel 220 miles, through peak period traffic, I can only assume that I will have two choices for attendance:
Leave home at approximately 4am, on the mornings of the intermediate Diet/ Trials, and possibly not be sharp minded with my evidence;
Stay in/ near Annan the previous night, at either cost to myself/ state, and travel up the evening before, leaving my wife to carry out the household duties herself on both occasions.
Due to my diabetes, combined with the stress of both these circumstances may lead to ill health.

So, you send her a letter pointing out how useless she is, and then you ask for her help? Come on.

Might be better to try the court first: http://www.district-courts.org.uk/annan.htm.
There's also some procedure stuff here, http://www.district-courts.org.uk/unrepresented.htm.

QUOTE (Phil)
<...> in which you have taken time to realign the sentiments to the correct body.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The General
post Wed, 21 Apr 2004 - 14:26
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Member No.: 550



Great advice from Jeffrey. I don't mean to appear rude, but don't think the police/courts will play it by the book. They will twist and construe.

For example, how evidence was obtained will, I think be ignored in court and make no difference to the outcome. What you need to concentrate on is undermining the evidence.

Keep at it though, the more communication you send, the harder they have to work.

The General
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil
post Thu, 22 Apr 2004 - 09:13
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,097



The General wrote:
QUOTE
the more communication you send, the harder they have to work
That was my initial thought, although I have not sent any, yet. What bearing on my case will 'extra' communication have? I don't mind giving them work to do!

Can anyone suggest what letters or phonecalls, with relevant subjects to send to whom (Procurator Fiscal/ Clerk of Court)? I'm confused now, given a few days to mull it over?

The PF told me on the phone that I must present my defence before the 'intermediate diet'. Is this correct? Does she want to do her homework to avoid the case being dropped?

Should I keep in contact with the PF, or direct my questions/ requests to the Clerk of the Court?

Regarding the unsigned NIP...
jeffreyarcher wrote:
QUOTE
A possible 'attempt to pervert the course of justice' charge for whoever filled it in.
what is the liklihood of this? Can I suggest that as my wife was expecting our 3rd, she had temporary insanity! I have other evidence to backup my claims - she expects me to spend hours doing DIY in the home after I get home from a hard days work!
I thought that when I was sent the 'conditional offer' the NIP had been processed, and accepted? Or does the fact that I'm possibly going the dispute myself as the named driver bring the 'pervert the course of justice'? Should I just rely on the fact that the unsigned form cannot be used to identify myself?

Phil.

P.S. how do I quote someone, properly, in this post???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The General
post Thu, 22 Apr 2004 - 12:00
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Member No.: 550



Keep it simple. As for all the evidence, e.g. Police Statements, copy of police video, list of witnesses and any other evidence proposed to be led by the Crown.

You need to plead not guilty to get this, but you can do this by letter in advance of any proposed diet. You should get a pleading diet where you can outline your defense, but do not go into detail. Just claim you beleive the police evidence to be inaccurate and want independent experts to analyse it.

See Jeffrey on the other stuff.

The General
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Fri, 23 Apr 2004 - 01:52
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



[quote=Phil]The PF told me on the phone that I must present my defence before the 'intermediate diet'. Is this correct? Does she want to do her homework to avoid the case being dropped?[/quote]
Unfortunately, believe it or not, no one on pepipoo has actually been to court in Scotland yet, so no one knows.
The General has his 'main event' soon, but he is represented. Although, AIUI, he has doen most of the communication with the PF.
Firefly, who is doing his own, has his plea entering session soon.
This page, http://www.district-courts.org.uk/unrepresented.htm, makes no mention of having to present your defence before the 'intermediate diet'. It may, of course, be wrong.
I watched a speeding 'main event' (represented) last year (not in Annan); the defence's case was that there was no evidence that the Provida (car mounted time & distance) equipment had been calibrated. This was only brought up near the end of the defence case.
The PF complained that he should have been notified that this was an issue before the trial, so that he could provide same. The PF's complaint fell on deaf ears as the accused was found not guilty on this basis.
I suppose it's possible that the fact that you are unrepresented makes a difference.
Quite how you can disclose the basis of the defence case when you haven't even seen the evidence against you escapes me.
If you are forced into it, I would suggest.
1) There is no evidence that you were the driver of the car at the time of the alleged offence.
2) Notwithstanding the above, you believe the video / photographic evidence to be inaccurate; hence the reason that you have requested same. So that it can be examined by your independent expert. Obviously you do not know until you have received the entire video, had it examined by your expert and received his report whether this actually will be part of your defence.
(A potential problem here is that the video evidence may well identify you, thus doing away with 1) )

You should note that the oft quoted section (Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section 12(1)) which requires the signature is different in Scotland. It is RTOA 1988, Section 12(4).
This new sub-section 12(4) was added by the Road Traffic Act 1991, Section 85.
Section 12(4) was further amended by the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 Section 5.

Also, you say that you were driving from E.K. down South. I assume that you joined the M74 at junction 5? Did you do so when the street lights were on? If so, can you rember if the 70 MPH roundels were lit? Because the bulbs are currently dud.

[quote=Phil]Regarding the unsigned NIP...
jeffreyarcher wrote:[quote=Phil]Should I just rely on the fact that the unsigned form cannot be used to identify myself?[/quote]
Yes (and the inaccurate video/photographic evidence).

[quote=Phil]how do I quote someone, properly, in this post???[/quote]
CODE
[quote="Quoted person"]

Or use the "quote" button at the top right of the post that you're replying to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
firefly
post Fri, 23 Apr 2004 - 16:40
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,714
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
From: ex-Scotland
Member No.: 298



Hi Phil,

I would have responded sooner but I have had very limited access time this week because I have been on a driving instruction week and just sat (and passed) my LGV class C test!

Anyway........

QUOTE (Phil)
The PF told me on the phone that I must present my defence before the 'intermediate diet'. Is this correct? Does she want to do her homework to avoid the case being dropped?


You absolutely must disclose any evidence you wish to use, in good time, to the PF. This works both ways. They have to oblige and do the same for you. The intermediate diet is the court's way of ensuring that all the evidence is in place and both parties are ready for full trial which will probably take place 10-12 days subsequently. That is how it is looking in my case.

Stage 1 : Conditional Offer issued
Stage 2 : You refuse the conditional offer or fail to respond.
Stage 3 : A citation is issued for a court date (pleading diet)
Stage 4 : A date is issued (subject to you pleading not guilty at the pleading diet - either by post or in person (you or your brief)) for your trial date.
Stage 5 : You attend the intermediate diet
Stage 6 : You attend the full trial, subject to stage 5 being in order.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil
post Tue, 27 Apr 2004 - 13:09
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,097



Scottish Law must adhere to the European Law, therefore I guess the Yorke Compliant NIP cannot be used to identify me.

http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk/publications...ns/CO_Pcode.pdf
page 5/ 16...

QUOTE
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
International and European Law
The Human Rights Act 1998 and the Scotland Act 1998 require
Scottish prosecutors to act in a way which is compatible with
the European Convention on Human Rights. The Scotland Act
1998 also makes it clear that the Scottish Executive must act
compatibly with the United Kingdom’s international obligations
in general. In some cases, these obligations will be relevant
to decisions about prosecution.


page 13/ 16...
QUOTE
REVIEW OF DECISIONS TO PROSECUTE:
Discontinuing proceedings
Where the prosecutor has advised an accused person, or has
stated publicly, that no proceedings will be taken he has no
power to reverse that decision.
However, where the decision has been taken to commence
criminal proceedings the prosecutor remains under a duty
to ensure that the decision remains appropriate in the public
interest. Where there is a change of circumstances or where
the prosecutor receives new information it will be necessary
to consider whether the prosecution should continue. Where it
is no longer in the public interest to prosecute or where it is no
longer considered that there is sufficient evidence the prosecutor
should not proceed with the case.


I would have hoped the unsigned NIP would be regarded as 'new information'.

I don't expect the PF to send me a letter of discontinuance, today, but is this the reason the 'intermediate diet'?

FF - I cannot see that the postal service is good enough, assuming I receive the evidence against me within 7 days, to have the evidence against me analysed, and sent back! I have already notified the PF that I will use the lack of signature to negate the NIP for identity, and the lack of calibration certificate for accuracy of photographic evidence.
Congrats on passing your class 'C'. wav.gif Big trucks now!

Phil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Tue, 27 Apr 2004 - 23:24
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (Phil)
I would have hoped the unsigned NIP would be regarded as 'new information'.

But the PF doesn't know that you're 'Yorke compliant'.
Remember, they may have a way of getting an unsigned form in; we don't know yet. However, they may not.

QUOTE (Phil)
I don't expect the PF to send me a letter of discontinuance, today, but is this the reason the 'intermediate diet'?

As firefly has said, intermediate diets are standard in Scotland.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil
post Mon, 17 May 2004 - 14:17
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,097



Hi,

an update...
I called the Procurator Fiscal's office this afternoon, to inform them that from the Procurator Fiscal's letter
QUOTE
for any reason if you do not receive it before the middle of May, I would ask you to contact my office again to ensure that nothing has gone astray
...as I have not recieved any further information.

The assistants cannot locate the files immediately, today - they may be processing the case. I have been informed to call back on Wednesday afternoon, to talk to the Procurator Fiscal herself on this. Which again is another two days.
Does the '7 day' rule for evidence against refer to the Intermediate Diet in Scotland ??? 16 days until the Intermediate trial...

Phil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Mon, 17 May 2004 - 15:50
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (Phil)
Does the '7 day' rule for evidence against refer to the Intermediate Diet in Scotland ??? 16 days until the Intermediate trial...

As far as the traffic video is concerned, I think yes, because the Road Traffic Acts are the same, however, I suspect that it doesn't really matter, because there can be any number of intermediate diets, and they would probably just schedule another one. The purpose of an intermediate diet is basically to check that evreyone is 'ready to go'.
What would happen if it wasn't ever produced, I don't know. That may have to be tested at the trial proper. Firefly or The General may be able to help on that one.

You haven't answered my question about whether and when you entered the M74 at junction 5. If you did, can you remember if that's the last speed limit sign before you got caught? If so, it appears that the nearside roundel has a non compliant label on the back.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
Direction 42. (about 5/6ths the way down).
42. - (1) The back of any sign shown in a diagram in Schedules 1 to 5, 7, Part II of Schedule 10 or in Schedule 12, or prescribed by regulation 53, other than the sign shown in diagram 651, 970, 971, 972, 973.2, 973.3, 2610, 2610.1, 2610.2, 7101.1, 7102, 7103, 7104 or 7105 shall be coloured -
(B) grey, black or in a non-reflective metallic finish in any other case, except that -
(ii) information about the manufacture of the sign required in order to comply with British Standard Specification BS 873 or a corresponding EEA Standard, occupying an area not exceeding 30 square centimetres, may be indicated on the back of the sign in characters not exceeding 5 millimetres in height.

The facing of the label is shiny pseudo silver colour. That appears not to be permitted. The label may also be too big.
I've been dying for someone to run one of these defences since I found it.
Gassit's solicitor told him to forget it in the District Court; he'd have to go to appeal. However, there are other factors at play in your case. icon_mrgreen.gif Something to throw into your defence, anyway.
The problem with signs is that there is a presumption of compliance; i.e. it is for you to prove that they don't comply, not for them to prove that they do. And you can't prove what they were like at the time. There is, however, a maufacturer's date on it which may help.
Perhaps you should ask the Fiscal which it is; i.e. is it a BS 873 or a corresponding EEA Standard, and if a EEA standard, which is it. Hehe. You need to know so that you can check whether it is required to comply, or not.

The relevence of all that to your case is The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Section 85.
85.-(4) Where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in section 82(1) is provided on a road, but a limit of speed is to be observed on the road, a person shall not be convicted of driving a motor vehicle on the road at a speed exceeding the limit unless the limit is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above.
Even if the motorway is lit where you were caught, motorways are not restricted roads.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil
post Tue, 18 May 2004 - 10:14
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,097



QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
You haven't answered my question about whether and when you entered the M74 at junction 5. If you did, can you remember if that's the last speed limit sign before you got caught? If so, it appears that the nearside roundel has a non compliant label on the back.

Yes I would have entered at J5, assuming I started the driving way back in November, although I cannot remember if we swapped drivers at any point prior to allegedly speeding, although we may have swapped drivers on the hard shoulder :!: icon_question.gif
I like the sentiments on the road sign compliance. I may well use it.
How did you come to inspect the sign icon_question.gif icon_question.gif icon_question.gif

QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
Perhaps you should ask the Fiscal which it is; i.e. is it a BS 873 or a corresponding EEA Standard, and if a EEA standard, which is it. Hehe. You need to know so that you can check whether it is required to comply, or not.

That'll be my next question, if the Procurator Fiscal does not drop the case when I call her on Wednesday afternoon...

Thanks,

Phil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil
post Wed, 19 May 2004 - 14:30
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,097



The Procurator Fiscal was apparently having a difficult case icon_shaking.gif therefore was still at court, hence not in the office today.
I explained that I was phoning regarding the evidence, as requested to do so. The file was still not available, but again, may be in process, and the kind girl said that due to the timescales for providing evidence against me to me, she would attempt to assist getting the evidence for me.

I'll happily icon_bounce.gif call on Friday afternoon for an update.

QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
You haven't answered my question about whether and when you entered the M74 at junction 5. If you did, can you remember if that's the last speed limit sign before you got caught? If so, it appears that the nearside roundel has a non compliant label on the back.

Jeffrey,
do you (or a.n.other contact) have any copies of evidence, from differing times, maybe dating back to November? I will ask some friends to provide me with photos of the offending signs, but if you have knowledge of the whereabouts of other evidence on this side it'd be much appreciated.

Regards,
Phil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Thu, 20 May 2004 - 00:49
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (Phil)
do you (or a.n.other contact) have any copies of evidence, from differing times, maybe dating back to November? I will ask some friends to provide me with photos of the offending signs, but if you have knowledge of the whereabouts of other evidence on this side it'd be much appreciated.

Unfortunately, the earliest evidence I have is some photos I took on Sat 24/4/04. They're traditional film, but aren't developed yet.
As I said, ISTR there's a manufacturers date on the sign; that, of course, doesn't say when the sign was actually put up. ISTR, maintenance of that road is now sub-contracted to Amey Highways. I don't know when they took over, but it's at least a couple of years. I suppose I should see what the date says, and we could take it from there.
I'm a bit loathe to stop on the motorway and inspect the sign. When I get some time off, I might contact the traffic police in Motherwell.
I could take some measurements at the same time (I think it's too big as well as being the wrong colour), however I'd like to hunt down a similar label on a non motorway road to make a manual copy of to use as a template. I couldn't say I'll be able to do this before the 2nd June, though.
BTW, you never said when time you passed the sign; see my previous comments about the dud lights, although they would suffer from the same 'evidence at the time' problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil
post Sat, 29 May 2004 - 21:39
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,097



All,

after chatting with jeffreyarcher for a loooooong time Friday afternoon,(thanks for the time and common sense) I am going to site the following in my case - defense against speed camera:

QUOTE (Title: ACPO Code of Practice for Operational use of Enforcement Equipment)
1.8 Who is responsible for maintaining the Type Approval standards?
The Home Office, ACPO Road Policing Enforcement Technology, the equipment supplier and the operator share responsibility for ensuring devices remain within the specification agreed for the Type Approval. For the Home Office, Road Policing Enforcement Technology and the operator it is a matter of the integrity of the process; for the supplier it is a contractual obligation. The Home Office reserves the right to suspend or revoke Type Approval.
The operator must ensure a device is calibrated annually. Annual calibrations can only be carried out by the manufacturer or organisations approved by Home Office PSDB. The annual calibration is vital and a device is not within type approval unless the operator has the certificate of calibration. Most devices will also have a sticker applied to them showing the date of the last calibration or the due date of the next.
The annual calibration should not be confused with the necessary periodic checks of calibration of devices against known distances or speeds. These periodic calibrations are a fundamental part of the operator’s procedures.


Does any one have official links to the Home Office details that mention this?
I Guess this must have been used on many an occasion - whether in English Law or otherwise.


Still working on other defenses... icon_study.gif


Phil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil
post Mon, 31 May 2004 - 09:59
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,097



Good morning,

just had plod (nice enough guy) serve the evidence against me.
There was one witness statement, signed.
There was also a joint signed statement regarding testing of equipment.
No certificates of calibration (see last post). Would this require to be 'served'?

Point of interest
QUOTE
The videotape described in the schedule below is a document kept or on behalf of the holder of a paid office, namely the said <CC>

However, I only have received 2 poor quality black and white stills, which according to the other threads, are not admissable.

There are 2 days until intermediate diet. So I cannot intimate my expert advice in time for this.
This does conform to the 7 day rule, as this is for the trial. However, if I do not get more evidence 'served', then I think the CPS are slipping.
I assume this is just following their B&B further than the normal letters.

Phil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Wednesday, 8th December 2021 - 21:32
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.