PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] photo and radar don't coroborate in gatso evidence
desktop_demon
post Wed, 23 Jul 2008 - 00:29
Post #1


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,238
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
From: South of the border.
Member No.: 21,303



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - June 2007
Date of the NIP: - 10 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 14 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Ditchling Road S/B, Brighton
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - Flashed by a Gatso24. Got the NIP and declared it must be me as the bike had not been lent to any one and not been stolen (to my knowledge). 4 months later summonsed with information stating I was riding my bike at 38 in a 30 limit. Pleaded not guilty and asked for photo evidence. Got two bad paper prints of gatso frames and a third showing the blow up of my number plate made using the digitising computer. Cannot see number plate either of the two whole frames.
The radar information block shows a detected speed of 38 but I am certain I was doing 30mph. But when the photographs were inspected the bike had travelled less than 4 markers (ie less than 8m) in 0.5 second. So not 38mph. By using the computer and a graphics program i was able to make a superimposed picture from the two originals sent to me. In this way I could take a more accurate estimate of my speed. It turns out to be probable that I was travelling at a speed between 31 and 33mph. A speed probably between 31.5 and 32mph is my best estimate so far. The supplied pictures are not such good quality that I can easily superimpose the two. I have asked for copies of the negatives actually produced by the Gatso. It may be that I was travelling at 30.9mph and so on.

I have been investigating various defences and there are some ancillary bits of information (involving a vicious looking dog running out at me) that I have left out for simplicity. I am particularly interested in how the primary (Doppler radar) and the secondary (two photos, 0.5 second apart and referencing road markings) are supposed to corroborate each other. the radar says 38mph the photos do not support that - they say 31-32mph.
The prosecution alleges this is because I was braking sharply at the time the photos were taken. They point to the brake light being on in the gatso photos. I contest this. It is 21:45 (evening) and the motorbike has the lights always on - what was seen in the photo was the normal back light. If, as the prosecution alleges, I was doing 38mph at the start of the sequence (ie in the first photo) and the two photos indicated an average speed of 32mph then the final speed in the second frame must actually have been 26mph. maths: 26+38/2=32mph

To slow from 38 to 26mph in half a second is quite a rapid reduction of velocity. That is greater than 1g.

I contend that the radar was confused by one or more of a possible number of sources of error:
- reflection from a bus shelter directly in line of sight, several tree trucks and an oblique long iron railing fence
-vibrating number plate
- a flapping/swinging bag carried by the rider and the nature of the rest of the motorcycle that was an "active surface" radar target.

So one strategy (among many) for the defence case could be that the evidence is bad and proves nothing. the radar and photos don't corroborate each other and are therefore of no value. The prosecutor might of course say that even if they don't exactly match both pieces of evidence do agree that I was riding over 30mph. So what ever exact speed I was doing I was committing an offence.
It would seem that the only way to beat that idea is to use a divide and conquor strategy that is that the 38mph radar reading is most obviously flawed and should be discarded. However that would imply that 31-32mph is the correct/uncontested speed. This would be below 35 mph that the ACPO recommend as a minimum speed for prosecution.
I suspect that to use ACPO guidelines in this situation would only work if I was very lucky. They are not law and the actual offence is driving over 30mph. However I might be able to argue the truth (yer honour..) which was that I must have unintentionally rode the bike at 31 mph (or 32, etc) and there fore did not mean to commit an offence. I mean who in there right mind would ride past a gatso at 32 in an effort to get busted for speeding..

any advice or comment?


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:29:42 +0100

This post has been edited by desktop_demon: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 - 07:44


--------------------
When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
17 Pages V  « < 14 15 16 17 >  
Start new topic
Replies (300 - 319)
Advertisement
post Wed, 23 Jul 2008 - 00:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nemo
post Wed, 17 Dec 2008 - 19:53
Post #301


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
From: -------------
Member No.: 2,073



thumbsup.gif

Great result - very well done.. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 17 Dec 2008 - 20:26
Post #302


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Can't wait for the final report. A job well done, and by the way.....
did you see a report lately about someone getting jailed for listening to advice from a so called internet website. Must have been the other lot.


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Wed, 17 Dec 2008 - 20:38
Post #303


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,012
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



biggrin.gif Brilliant result DD, sounds like the CPS and RSS were made to look like they've wasted hours and £££££s of public funds on a futile exercise which should have been strangled at birth.

Wish I could have been there, but I look forward to the report.


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thurgarton
post Wed, 17 Dec 2008 - 20:38
Post #304


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 218
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,759



Well done, DD. great result. Like Lynnzer I await the blow by blow account with interest laugh.gif .

Does winning at the AoP stage preclude the pressing of the big red refund button for other "convictions" from this camera cool.gif .

I guess the Happy Christmas bit is supurfluous as far as you are concerned. Will you be sending a card to RSS as a gesture of goodwill? rolleyes.gif


Thurgarton


--------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Chas820
post Wed, 17 Dec 2008 - 21:31
Post #305


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 914
Joined: 6 Jun 2006
Member No.: 6,015



Well done DD a fitting result,just a shame they had to put you through it in the first place. icon_jook.gif icon_jook.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gaza
post Wed, 17 Dec 2008 - 23:42
Post #306


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,070
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
From: At the foot of the Lammermuirs
Member No.: 9,588




brave.gif wav.gif brave.gif


Great result DD. notworthy.gif I admire your determination in seeing this through. For the CPS to go to the extremes they did in order to obtain a prosecution is a disgrace. I suspect the desire to keep at it was driven more by the fact you had turned to PPP for assistance than anything else. I really hope you will take this further. Are there grounds for a malfeasance action? Looking at Wikipedia gives this:-

QUOTE
Under English law malfeasance in public office is also a tort. In the House of Lords judgement on the BCCI Malfeasance Case it was held that this had 3 essential elements[1]:

1. The defendant must be a public officer
2. The defendant must have been exercising his power as a public officer
3. The defendant is either exercising targeted malice or exceeding his powers.

The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on this offence say that the elements of the offence are when:

1. A public officer acting as such.
2. Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
3. To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
4. Without reasonable excuse or justification.


To the ballons in Billiericky:-

jerk.gif laughing4.gif knob.gif pottytrain2.gif thefinger.gif tongue1.gif tool.gif

I am intrigued as to who brought up PACE Section 78. I don't see it mentioned in your skeleton. Was it the DJ?

It would be interesting to see this used in other cases such as where the ACPO guidelines rolleyes.gif are clearly breached.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
guzziman
post Thu, 18 Dec 2008 - 00:06
Post #307


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 14 May 2005
From: newport
Member No.: 2,941



Have a drink, have a drink, have a drink on me, everybody have a drink on me!!!!
Best news this year.
Well done, and well done to all DD's advisors and supporters.

Best regards

Guzziman


--------------------
stevefroberts
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Thu, 18 Dec 2008 - 00:13
Post #308


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,012
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



I might be taking an overly simplistic view here, but if the following applies:

Admissibility PACE section 76
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.76, provides that a disputed confession cannot be used in evidence against an accused person unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was not obtained:
"by oppression of the person who made it; or ...


... and the definition of oppression is:

Oppression
Oppression includes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the use or threat of violence. 2 It should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning: 3 "exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, harsh, or wrongful manner; unjust or cruel treatment of subjects, inferiors, etc, or the imposition of unreasonable or unjust burdens."


... then surely the requirement under S172 for the driver to sign a "confession" under threat of criminal penalty, could be deemed to be an example of "exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, harsh, or wrongful manner" as in 3. above.

So on that basis, maybe we've been going down the wrong track all along with the PACE letter, and should consider a new version based on Section 76? Another trip to Strasbourg, anyone?


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dr Science
post Thu, 18 Dec 2008 - 01:14
Post #309


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,397
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
From: S.Yorks
Member No.: 8,288



QUOTE (Gaza @ Wed, 17 Dec 2008 - 23:42) *
I am intrigued as to who brought up PACE Section 78. I don't see it mentioned in your skeleton. Was it the DJ?


It was the DJ.

Best theory is maybe a face-saving exercise so that the "Abuse of Process" nettle didn't have to be grasped?

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
arthurc
post Thu, 18 Dec 2008 - 08:05
Post #310


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 270
Joined: 16 Oct 2008
From: Suffolk
Member No.: 23,289



Well done DD... perseverance paid off. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Thu, 18 Dec 2008 - 09:44
Post #311


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



@Bargepole - s. 78 not s. 76


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
welland1
post Thu, 18 Dec 2008 - 20:39
Post #312


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 167
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
From: South Worcestershire
Member No.: 20,414



QUOTE (thurgarton @ Wed, 17 Dec 2008 - 20:38) *
Will you be sending a card to RSS as a gesture of goodwill? rolleyes.gif



Well to help DD celebrate I took the liberty of creating him a new avatar image. It would make a good card to the CPS and RSS though biggrin.gif Enjoy "DD Slays the CPS Dragon"

Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Thu, 18 Dec 2008 - 21:13
Post #313


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



turns out the DD was "hard enough".

I wonder does RRSs's bill to the CPS get paid in this event - though I still wonder how RSS can bill at all when they run cases with the CPS seconded to them...


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
desktop_demon
post Sat, 20 Dec 2008 - 02:03
Post #314


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,238
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
From: South of the border.
Member No.: 21,303



A horrendously long and detailed report...

A pre-amble:

The main reason this case ever came to trial is because the camera technician could not do his job properly. It was Mr Trill that was supposed to perform the secondary check on each picture and either through incompetence or instructions from higher authority, he failed to do so. Had he correctly detected that the primary and secondary checks did not tally then none of this would have happened. However once the scamerati had got their heads firmly up their arses they were unable to see the stupidity of their position. The RSS were called to respond to the defendant's reasonable observations that something was wrong with the evidence. But rather than point out the error to the CPS, the muppets at RSS ignored all the warnings and went about compounding the farce that had been initiated by dear Mr Trill. In presumption that nothing ever, ever went wrong with the "great god gatso" Mr Langdon just trundled out the same old recycled bollox and, as far as I can determine, just made up the calculations in the report. As a "responsible" ex-policeman charged with "helping the court seek justice" in my opinion he fell short of the required standard. To compound the failure Mr "champagne" Perry, who is the author of the "deluded interpretation" of section 20, seems to have given the CPS very poor advice in this case. It is certainly possible to say that the prosecutor in this case will think twice before accepting any further advice for RSS!

From my consideration of the proceedings it seems that the judiciary (ie the court and the judge) has acted correctly and quite independently of the CPS. The DJ in this case had read the case submissions, was quite clued up and was quick to understand the relevant points made in court. It might be difficult to imagine a more competent person. One might imagine that the DJ had "received wisdom" in the correct resolution of the matter. The gist of that wisdom might be that there may be a point about the abuse of process and the fairness of what the CPS proposed to do. The CPS was bending or misinterpreting the law "with some abandon" and that probably was not acceptable to the sensibilities of the judiciary. It seems the possibility of the Defence making the CPS look totally ridiculous and loosing respectability in the mind of the public was given weight. Convicting an innocent man was one thing but being made to look like total amateurs was a very serious matter.

The idea of exclusion of evidence under the Police And Criminal Evidence act section 78 is that such evidence "would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it". That is a legal point perhaps one stop short of AoP. The DJ used this provision to remedy the abuse that I alleged without having to acknowledge any sort of impropriety by the CPS. However the exclusion the defence had sought was granted on the grounds that the defence had applied on, ie that it would have been unfair. ECHR Article 6 is a right to a fair trial - so we were getting very close to the intended target! However the outcome at the end of the trial allowed all concerned to retire with the correct result and the minimum amount of damage to reputation. Which is pretty much what a judge is supposed to do.

But back to the story....

the night before:


The evening before the trial day was very hectic. Organising bundles of documents, photocopying letters, last minute revisions and then the final "council of war". Friends and representation of BBNG sat around the kitchen table until well gone midnight exploring various scenarios and frequently challenging me to recite my opening speech. By 02:00 hrs I could recite it perfectly and simultaneously point to the relevant documentation. By 03:30 I just passed out...

The morning after the night before:


Alarm rang and I sat straight up awake! Into shower, suit and action. Thankfully in that order! Carefully checked the bags/books/documents. Recited my speech and off I went to court for 09:30. Keith, my McKenzie friend, was in the building at 09:45 and Dr Science and Andy were in position by 10:00 and we were in action. I was a little nervous on arrival - this was the big day - but as the court rose and the lady DJ took her chair, I felt I was as ready as I have ever been. I felt no nerves, I felt quite calm, I felt very focused. This was to be a "total defence". No quarter was to be given, everything was to be challenged. If the worst came to the worst then the prosecution would have to prise my licence "from my cold dead hands", as Charles Heston once said. Jaw set and eyes narrowed, I was prepared for the worst. As this was the "real thing" I thought it better to be as humourless as possible.

As it was, it might have been better to have packed a picnic....


and so, let battle commence:

The DJ sits, we all sit and she asks about the day's business. The Prosecutor and I mention the Abuse of Process. The DJ notes we can have the judgement on AoP at any time. She said that sometimes it is better to hear the evidence before considering AoP. The Prosecutor said that in his opinion the court should hear the evidence, but he would say that. I was making some comment when the DJ looked at me and said, "It is conventional practice to stand when addressing the bench Mr Demon". Arghhh! I had forgotten to stand up! Eeek! Embarrassed or what? The Prosecution was invited and opened with a statement about relying on the Defence expert reports. "Here we go" I thought, but then something weird happened. The DJ looks a bit puzzled and asks if Prosecution relied entirely on the defence evidence. Prosecution says, "yes". DJ said it was most unusual as the Defence should by convention be the first to present its own evidence. The DJ intimated there was some "deeper issues" with such a course of action. She asked what had the prosecution "bought to the party". This might have been an oblique remark about the discarding of the RSS report. The Prosecution looked rather dispirited that it might need some evidence of its own to proceed "to the half way mark". A most unexpected interjection!

I didn't quite understand this bit entirely but.... The DJ suggested to the Prosecution that they "should not lead on the defence witness". Or it was something like that. It seemed basically that the DJ was implying that the Prosecution should lead its own witnesses and the Defence should be able to lead its witnesses. It sounds a good idea but I have not heard of it stated like that before. Of course, I am not a lawyer. The prosecutor submitted that the expert reports had been agreed, so the CPS could rely on them. The DJ wasn't having it. After some further discussion she said she would retire to allow the Prosecution to consider its position. The court rose, out strides the Prosecutor to take further instructions and we had a short break. I got the impression that things were not going so badly for me. At any rate the DJ was not having any of the CPS story line. I discussed developments with my Mckenzie and we went over for a quick conference with the Andy. Everyone agreed it was an interesting start. No one could quite understand the DJ's line on the prosecution relying on the defence evidence but we weren't going to complain.

Court rises, DJ returns and off we go again. Mr Prosecutor is asked what the new Prosecution position is. The Prosecutor replies that Mr Trill the camera technician will be called to lead the photographs as "real evidence". So I jump up and object to the introduction of evidence that has been rendered inadmissible due to section 20(4). I added that the attempt to re-introduce the evidence amounted to abuse of process. The DJ asks me to explain my objection and I give my best try at the prepared abuse of process speech, which went something like this;

"The Defence has made this abuse of process application because it takes issue with conduct of the CPS in the prosecution of this case since the middle of October of this year. Prior to that date the CPS case relied upon the provisions of RTOA section 20 and the Defence had prepared its case accordingly. Since the middle of October the CPS has stated that it does not rely on RTOA section 20 and this has put the Defence at some disadvantage. Having considered the situation, the Defence believes that the actions of the CPS amount to an abuse of process and requests the court exercise its judicial discretion to remedy the situation."

And I added the comments of Sir Roger Ormrod from Archbold and other authorities about "manipulation of court process to deny the defendant a protection provided by law". This seemed to be received resonably well and I continued by submitting an opinion of the Thornley and Griffith judgements. I said they were concerned with service of the photographs. I repeated the point by reading the "no tally - no prosecution" line from the last paragraph in Griffith. I concluded by adding that the two cases were distinguished from the instant case because the Defence had requested the attendance of the camera operator under section 20(8) and the gatsometer was operating outside of the conditions of its type approval. I asked the DJ to exercise "judicial discretion" to exclude the unreliable photographic and chronometric evidence produced by the Gatsometer. I also asked for an "adverse judicial comment" on the behaviour of the Prosecution in this case. Sat down. Looked back at my Mckenzie, he nodded and the pit crew gave thumbs up. Phew!

The DJ looked thoughtful and asked the LA to provide a copy of the current version of RTOA section 20. This caused some consternation ( I mean,- the court not having a copy of the law...) but I was able to assist because I had a copy of Wilkinson's with me. So I lent the DJ my Wilkinsons and also my copy of Archbold to refer to the description of Abuse of Process. I was asked if it was an up to date version and I replied smugly that it was the new 2009 edition. The DJ made some joking remark about my being "a bit ahead of myself". She then ordered a short recess to consider the various points of law. We all stand up and DJ exits stage left with quite an armful of books.

In the break I made several quips to the prosecution about Mr Trill taking the stand. "I am dying to ask him why he can't do his job", I said to the prosecutor. "What do you mean? He is fully trained", came the reply. "Then why are we here? Because if he had carried out his job, he would have seen that the checks fail to tally, as we have now agreed. And you propose to bring the same man to court to give evidence that he can't do sums! I just can't wait....". The prosecutor looked a bit nervous at the prospect of my cross examination. "And its not just the sums is it?" I asked rhetorically. "That half as second is going to be a problem." The Prosecutor made some lame comment about the half second was from a calibrated device and could be relied on, when I pointed out that the presumption of accuracy had been rebutted by proving the device did not conform to Type Approval. "So now, Mr Prosecutor you must PROVE the interval was exactly half a second. I want you to bring that half a second into court so that I can measure it. If you say you are bringing in REAL evidence then bring that half a second in as well. Without it you are lost" He looked so dejected that I thought I should go talk with the BBNG at the back of the court. Discussion there centred on good questions to trip up Mr Trill. We were in full swing constructing mental punishments when the usher asked the court to rise and the DJ returned.

It seems that the DJ had seriously considered the arguments regarding abuse. She was a little bemused about the defence not wanting a stay of prosecution. She had considered the situation and had come to the conclusion that an application of PACE section 78 was an appropriate solution for the problem of the "inadmissible" evidence. The DJ invited me to make an application and asked the Prosecution for comment about exclusion of evidence via PACE s78. The Prosecutor said the photographs should be admitted as "real evidence" under the common law but couldn't add much more. DJ asks LA to show me a copy of Blackstones (turned to the right page) and to point out the wording of section 78. The Legal Advisor drew near, pointed to the section and quietly said to me that "it could be very advantageous to make an application via this route". She pointed to the bit about excluding evidence if it would be unfair to adduce it. Ah that "unfair" word again, seems that we were thinking on the same lines. Excellent. The DJ smiled and nodded. I sensed that I was being given "a very big hint" as to the courts preferred way to proceed. Best not to refuse m'lady, methinks.

Judge suggested another short recess and went out again to let me think about a PACE section 78 application. Presumably the DJ would prefer it if I did not continue with the abuse angle but was willing to substitute a more "politically acceptable" PACE section78 to the same end. I had a discussion with my Mckenzie and then with Andy in the public pit at the back of the court. We all seemed to think it might be a good idea to follow the "advice" from the bench. So, if the cap fits...

The DJ returned to hear my application and I asked for the Gatsometer evidence to be excluded under PACE s.78. The DJ then asked the Prosecution about their position on PACE s78 exclusion. Prosecution said it was not warranted but made little other real comment. I think the prosecutor sensed that things weren't going too well. There was some discussion about technicalities but I only had to sit and listen. There seemed to be a lot of that. And quite a few long pauses in mid sentence by Mr Prosecutor. In one particularly difficult answer poor Mr Prosecutor started to dictate what the judge should think about some point. Having just given some "rather emphatic guidance" to the judge he suddenly realised his mistake. Opps. The DJ did her "I am not amused" face and the prosecutor was reduced to humble apologies. The stress was obviously a factor.

DJ said we could have a coffee break as she would need to consider law at some length. Court rose and we all went downstairs to the court cafe for a coffee (a tongue twister!). There was a lot to discuss as it was by no means certain that the prosecution were not going to be allowed to let Mr Trill loose with his calculator. The discussion centred on what what likely to happen and what line of attack should be prepared if Mr Trill was allowed to mount the stand. The mood seemed more positive and I myself felt "in thrall to the joys of the chase". All this certainly made the adrenaline pump. After some consideration we came to the conclusion that Mr Trill would be in an impossible situation given his previous track record and he could be dismissed as a threat to the defence case.

After 20 minutes we all trooped back to the court room and heard the further Prosecution argument for allowing evidence to be introduced via Mr Trill. DJ asked the Prosecution in great detail how it intended to adduce the "real evidence" via Mr Trill. The judgement of Thornley was discussed and the DJ seemed to be of a mind that it was to do with issues of service and did not mention section 20(4). In any case the gatso in the instant case had failed its TA and so could not be relied on. The prosecution said that they intended not to rely on section 20. The DJ queried what "not relying on section 20" entailed as there did not seem to be many provisions in section 20 to enable it "not to be relied upon". The arguments went round a bit like this and then prosecution admitted they did not rely on section 20 because the evidence would be inadmissible if they did. The DJ then questioned the Prosecutor on why the photographs would be more reliable if they was adduced as real evidence but not via section 20. The DJ dryly observed "They would seem to be the same thing but apparently are reliable if adduced via one method but not by the other". The prosecutor gave further rather confused reasoning but the DJ tied him in knots. His position was rapidly becoming hopeless. The prosecutor seemed to be repeating the RSS supplied "crib sheet" in a vain hope that if he said the words in the right way and with the right intonation then the magic spell might work. The DJ invited him one last time to realise he was on a one way ticket to nowhere but the Prosecutor held out. He was determined that Mr Trill would produce the photographs! Cue the top hat and rabbit? But no. It was not to be.

The judge then said the court would rise for a long recess and would reconvene at quarter past two. So we took that as a hint we could go for lunch and the defence team retired to find a local cafe and to discuss the results so far. We were in such a buoyant mood that when we finally found it, we all piled into the cafe and did not see the queue for service. As I shouted the orders from the back, the lady at the front of the queue turned to see who was making the noise and pushing ahead. Gulp! It was the DJ getting her sandwiches. Oh err.... The lunch break was spent in discussion about the morning's developments but also to try to fathom the best course of action should we ever get to meet the fabled Mr Trill. There was some doubt he actually existed! The mood was positive and slightly surreal as the possibility of an aquittal hove into view. Dr Science had a chance to catch up on the case because he had been waiting to be called as a witness. We were all anxious to tell him we were winning when he announced he had concluded as much. When asked why he was so sure, he replied, "when a camera technician one has never met before threatens to deck one, one knows one is on the winning team!" An insight indeed...

With refreshment taken, we all returned to the court and were on station for the resume of play at 14:15. The court stood as the DJ took her chair and we all sat down quietly with a sense of anticipation. The court was silent except for the DJ ruffling her papers. I was caught in the reverie of the moment but my Mckenzie friend, Keith, remembered his solicitors training and made the notes from which he wrote up the following report. In the next 15 minutes the Prosecution's case sank silently without a trace. It seems we were but ships passing in the night (or maybe ship and submarine). As the DJ read out the words of the judgement I was grinning like a Cheshire cat.

The judgement:


In this case, the charge was exceeding the 30mph speed limit. The Crown's evidence consisted of the record from the Gatsometer device. The experts called by the defence, and accepted by the prosecution, showed that there was a difference between the primary measurement (radar) and the secondary (photographs). This difference exceeded 10%, and therefore the machine was operating outside the conditions set for its type approval. The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, section 20(4) provides that evidence from a prescribed device cannot be admitted unless the device is operating within the conditions of its type approval. The Crown therefore agreed that the photographic evidence could not be introduced under s.20.

The Crown argued that the evidence provided by the photographs, whereby the expert reports put the speed at slightly in excess of 30mph, could be introduced as “real evidence” via another route. The prosecution's case was that the decisions in DPP v Thornley, and DPP v Griffiths, allowed such evidence to be introduced, even though the provisions of s 20(8) had not been met. (This sub-section deals with the time limits for the service of documents by the prosecution on the defence). The crown sought to extend the decision in Thornley to include s.20(4).

In neither of the cases above was the accuracy of the device in question. Both cases consider the relationship between s20(1) and (8), and the interests of justice. In this case, the judge considered s 20 in its entirety, and observed that the evidence of the photographs which gave an indicated speed depended on the machine functioning correctly. To provide an accurate speed, the photographs must be taken 0.5 seconds apart. The judge further observed that the Crown would be relying on the workings of a machine on which the Crown admitted they could not rely, (because of the more-than 10% difference between primary and secondary measurements).

The Judge had heard defence submissions that the continuance of the prosecution in these circumstances amounted to an abuse of process. The defence also made an application under s 78 PACE, which allows the court to exclude evidence where it is fair to do so. The judge concluded that to allow the Prosecution to introduce the photographs in these circumstances would be unfair within the meaning of s78 PACE and ruled the photographs inadmissible as evidence. The Prosecution then offered "no evidence" and the case was closed in favour of the Defence.

The costs;

After recovering my composure, I made an application for a wasted costs order as the "burden on the defence had been exceptional in this case". The DJ said she would listen to and decide on a order for fixed costs if I could present an application before the end of the sessions that afternoon. This gave rise to my madly rushing about and ignoring the festive mood of the PPP guys and the gentlemen of the press. I had to get back home, assemble the costs and return with all documents correct. So I missed the immediate aftermath and the happy mood that accompanied it. I was still "geared for battle" and threw myself into the costs issue as though my life depended on it. Of course this was really some sort of "suppressed shock" psychological thing and I was close to displaying "headless chicken" symptoms myself. As the crowd went back to Demon HQ I was busy typing and copying and managed to return to court just after 4pm. But my luck was obviously measured. I submitted a very reasonable application of £3100 being made up of experts, solicitors and transcription fees and so on. Oh and my "technical advisor's" fees. The DJ said she had not seen my technical advisor but I replied that he had been waiting to be called, like the camera technician but the case had collapsed before I had a chance to call him. She wrinkled her nose again and said I would have to be taxed as this was beyond a simple cost refund. Personally I thought it was a bargain, cheaper than those muppets at RSS and my experts had actually achieved some result. Anyway I got a costs order and all the forms for submitting to the taxation process. Here's hoping I get a partial refund of some costs within 6 months! Its all changed now. see: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/4290.htm

the aftermath;

I returned to demon HQ to down a glass of fizz and then I and the PPP chaps went to the gatsometer site for a team photo. The realisation that it was all mostly over now was a strange thing. There was no urge to rush out and burn the damned gatsometer that had caused all this trouble. No urge to curse the prosecutor for dragging me all this way. In fact I was mildly grateful to the judge for injecting some sanity into the warped and fantastic opinions of the CPS as aided and abetted by RSS. There is only so long one can take part in a pantomime before it begins to loose its magic. The Prosecution case died last October and the prosecution's "make believe" could only keep the idea alive a little longer before the whole charade crumbled.

In the end it seems I only played a small part in this story. All I did was notice that Fate had dealt me a winning hand which, try as they may, the scamera partnership could not overcome. Luck also gave me the presence of mind to hold my nerve and see this thing through. Convinced of their own invincibility, the Prosecution embarked on a series of more desperate and outlandish actions. As Dr Science observed, every time they took away the stick I was beating them with, they gave me an even larger one to continue with. In the end they were beating themselves with their own stick. I did nothing other than "sell tickets" to see the most remarkably ill conceived and pointless legal action I have ever been involved in. It seems a shame that all the effort made by the various people concerned could not have been directed to some more profitable adventure that might have given some return for the large sums spent .

We could have "fed a whole village in Africa" with half the effort and cost...

If you have read this far - respect!

This post has been edited by desktop_demon: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 - 10:32


--------------------
When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
desktop_demon
post Sat, 20 Dec 2008 - 02:27
Post #315


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,238
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
From: South of the border.
Member No.: 21,303



After the case we went up to the Gatso to take a team photo. As the photographer stepped back into the radar beam his camera went wild!
Attached Image


Also the local Evening Argus will be running a story this monday. Will post a link if it happens.

A warning - I hope we can move this to a "publicly accessible" area on PPP soon. Maybe "cases completed", so that the general public can read about the story and the details. A few interested parties have asked for links or further information so this would be the most convenient way to give information and also draw traffic to PePiPoo. If any members have comments about this intended course of action then do PM me.

This post has been edited by desktop_demon: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 - 02:37


--------------------
When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Sat, 20 Dec 2008 - 02:38
Post #316


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



Brilliant write-up. Many thanks.

things that jumped out at me.

"They would seem to be the same thing but apparently are reliable if adduced via one method but not by the other"

in a nutshell. good 'Judging' smile.gif

"when a camera technician one has never met before threatens to deck one, one knows he is pissed off about something!"

he did this in a court building ? naughty technician. perhaps he saw the huge target that would be painted on his chest when he took to the witness box. maybe just maybe he may be more careful in his work future - but don't take bets on it, far too many photographs and far too little time given to the task.

"Convinced at their own invincibility, the Prosecution embarked on a series of more desperate and outlandish actions. As Dr Science observed, every time they took away the stick I was beating them with, they just provided me with an even larger one."

once again the good Dr S comes up with a golden phrase.

Kudos and respect DD (and to 'the team'). you've made quite a few peoples' Christmas more cheerful.

This post has been edited by bama: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 - 02:41


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Sat, 20 Dec 2008 - 08:23
Post #317


Member
Group Icon

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



QUOTE (desktop_demon @ Sat, 20 Dec 2008 - 02:03) *
Here's hoping I get a partial refund of some costs within 6 months! Its all changed now. see: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/4290.htm

Any outstanding costs can be recovered in the County Court via a civil action against the Chief Constable.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cargy
post Sat, 20 Dec 2008 - 13:16
Post #318


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
From: Devon
Member No.: 16,048



I have to admit, I do love the extremely well executed "psyching out" of the prosecutor between rounds (so to speak!).

But then there is so much to love about the way you've handled this whole thing from the get go.

To me, the prosecution's attempts to "win at all costs and justice be darned" were apparent to me from the day they stitched you up by turning a "quick chat" into a PTR. If they had had a nanogram (did I make that up?) of sense they would have realised just what they were taking on there and then.

But, of course they proceeded feeling safe in the knowledge that justice is an uphill struggle in motoring courts, that the mags could be bamboozled, that Judges are often influenced by politics and other forces (the recieved wisdom you suggested, perhaps?)etc, etc.

What is really scary about all this is the fact that had this happened to most people without the talent and quick wits of your good self, we would have seen yet another innocent processed, convicted, fined and beladen before being shoved out of the door to make way for the next innocent victim.

Top marks to yourself and the PPP avengers for drawing a little blood from this supremely arrogant and utterly out-of-control behemoth.

As I said earlier:


Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Carl


--------------------
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Quis tacet consentit
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Sat, 20 Dec 2008 - 13:47
Post #319


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,012
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



Excellent write up DD, I read it all and I've taken the liberty of posting a potted version on the MSE forums, which seems to have silenced the "you were speeding so pay up" brigade.

Just one minor criticism: when going to trial, ALWAYS have your costs schedule printed up and ready to hand over as soon as you hear the words "case dismissed". The Judge (or Mags) can then make a costs order on the spot, and it avoids all the nit picking and backsliding that you are now experiencing.

Once again, well done for seeing this one through to the bitter end.


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chas820
post Sat, 20 Dec 2008 - 16:48
Post #320


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 914
Joined: 6 Jun 2006
Member No.: 6,015



A superb write up DD,it had me smiling and laughing all the way through.I wish i could have been there.Good luck with your costs.Have a great Christmas and a CPS free New Year icon_jook.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

17 Pages V  « < 14 15 16 17 >
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:21
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here