ProLaser 4, Expert witness required - Ex military please read |
ProLaser 4, Expert witness required - Ex military please read |
Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 22:38
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 10 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,710 |
Hi
I was recently prosecuted at magistrates court for a speeding offence. Unfortunately the magistrates ignored my defence completely: 1) They ignored my plea that a fair trial was not able to proceed due to no disclosure of the evidence requested under the criminal evidence and procedures act - I was told in no uncertain terms that the prosecution has no obligation to disclose any evidence to me (which is total BS as section 20.1 of PACE clearly states they do) 2) They ignored my defence that the offices was not trained on the device and therefore failed to zero the device in accordance with the operating manual. - The magistrates claimed that although the officer had not known what zeroing meant he had in fact done the test. 3) They ignored my argument that the officer could have potentially not targeted my motorcycle correctly as he was at an angle to the bike and hence slip effect is Highly likely. 4) I also argued that the speed measured could not theoretically be possible due to the stopping distance of the vehicle being 6m more than the distance the officer was away from me when the reading was taken. I genuinely believe the only reason I was convicted was purely based on the fact that I am considered a "lay" person and the court took advantage of this fact to ignore my defence. I'm looking into buying the ProLaser 4 to demonstrate its inability to measure the speed of a vehicle accurately and am looking for some one with experience in Shooting hand guns (or laser devices). I have looked extensively into the accuracy of shooting and it is clear that even professional shooters (such as world champions) would find it difficult to accurately hit a MOVING target at the distance claimed an untrained police officer can acquire a target. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I am looking to contest it at crown court This post has been edited by prolaser4lover: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 22:39 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 22:38
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 1 Aug 2019 - 13:42
Post
#81
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 601 Joined: 7 May 2019 Member No.: 103,734 |
Well then a fair point to ask would be, do any of the eminent members of this forum know of a single case where a court has thrown out a prosecution simply because the operator had not formed a prior opinion as the speed of the vehicle? If not, I would suggest this whole prior opinion thing is as useful as asking for a calibration certificate. Colin Montgomerie when defended by Nick Freeman, according to the Daily Mail, the BBC, and the Telegraph but the rationale seems to have been both the lack of an opinion by the operator, whether prior or not, and the possibility of error caused by shifting quickly from one target to another. I seem to remember that Freeman got hold of the video record of the entire session, which we are told the police would resist. Montgomerie was never defended by Freeman, in the Magistrates he used Mr Shrimpton and Dr Clark and was convicted. In Crown court a QC by the name of Lodder was used with an expert called Campbell. |
|
|
Thu, 1 Aug 2019 - 16:41
Post
#82
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I'm with TryOut on this one: if the operator uses the device correctly and obtains a speed reading, and the device is presumed to be working correctly, that seems to me to be enough evidence for a court to convict.
You could argue that the operator should form a prior opinion or do a special rain dance or whatever else, but I'm not sure that will ever persuade a court to exclude or disbelieve the evidence. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 1 Aug 2019 - 17:20
Post
#83
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
I'm with TryOut on this one: if the operator uses the device correctly and obtains a speed reading, and the device is presumed to be working correctly, that seems to me to be enough evidence for a court to convict. You could argue that the operator should form a prior opinion or do a special rain dance or whatever else, but I'm not sure that will ever persuade a court to exclude or disbelieve the evidence. x2 I cannot see any reason why a court would insist on the opinion of the operator as to a vehicle's speed when they have an accurate reading from an approved device operated in the approved manner. I cannot see how a "guestimate" probably taken from a fair distance, adds anything to the evidence. |
|
|
Thu, 1 Aug 2019 - 17:45
Post
#84
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
Montgomerie was never defended by Freeman, in the Magistrates he used Mr Shrimpton and Dr Clark and was convicted. In Crown court a QC by the name of Lodder was used with an expert called Campbell. How remarkable that the three news outlets quoted as well as every other report of the case should get that wrong, I wonder how that could happen. Unless you are thinking of a different case? -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 09:37
Post
#85
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 601 Joined: 7 May 2019 Member No.: 103,734 |
Montgomerie was never defended by Freeman, in the Magistrates he used Mr Shrimpton and Dr Clark and was convicted. In Crown court a QC by the name of Lodder was used with an expert called Campbell. How remarkable that the three news outlets quoted as well as every other report of the case should get that wrong, I wonder how that could happen. Unless you are thinking of a different case? You seem to have made the classic mistake of expecting the press to report a faithful representation of the facts. Silly boy. However, from the press in which you place so much faith: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/colin-mo...ing-53mq8f2q6hm "He was represented by Michael Shrimpton, representing Mr Freeman’s Manchester-based firm." The reporting in the media of the crown court appeal does concentrate on the 'Freeman brand' so you do have a reasonable reason you have been misled. However, in the crown court Mr Lodder QC conducted the defence. Perhaps you might believe Mr Freeman was pulling Mr Lodder's strings. I hardly think so. You should be more careful in how you choose and quote your sources. |
|
|
Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 09:41
Post
#86
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 720 Joined: 11 May 2014 Member No.: 70,566 |
Montgomerie was never defended by Freeman, in the Magistrates he used Mr Shrimpton and Dr Clark and was convicted. In Crown court a QC by the name of Lodder was used with an expert called Campbell. How remarkable that the three news outlets quoted as well as every other report of the case should get that wrong, I wonder how that could happen. Unless you are thinking of a different case? You seem to have made the classic mistake of expecting the press to report a faithful representation of the facts. Silly boy. However, from the press in which you place so much faith: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/colin-mo...ing-53mq8f2q6hm "He was represented by Michael Shrimpton, representing Mr Freeman’s Manchester-based firm." The reporting in the media of the crown court appeal does concentrate on the 'Freeman brand' so you do have a reasonable reason you have been misled. However, in the crown court Mr Lodder QC conducted the defence. Perhaps you might believe Mr Freeman was pulling Mr Lodder's strings. I hardly think so. You should be more careful in how you choose and quote your sources. Whether you are right or wrong, you've failed the attitude test with that abrasiveness, I fear. -------------------- I reserve the right to be wrong.
|
|
|
Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 09:55
Post
#87
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 601 Joined: 7 May 2019 Member No.: 103,734 |
Montgomerie was never defended by Freeman, in the Magistrates he used Mr Shrimpton and Dr Clark and was convicted. In Crown court a QC by the name of Lodder was used with an expert called Campbell. How remarkable that the three news outlets quoted as well as every other report of the case should get that wrong, I wonder how that could happen. Unless you are thinking of a different case? You seem to have made the classic mistake of expecting the press to report a faithful representation of the facts. Silly boy. However, from the press in which you place so much faith: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/colin-mo...ing-53mq8f2q6hm "He was represented by Michael Shrimpton, representing Mr Freeman’s Manchester-based firm." The reporting in the media of the crown court appeal does concentrate on the 'Freeman brand' so you do have a reasonable reason you have been misled. However, in the crown court Mr Lodder QC conducted the defence. Perhaps you might believe Mr Freeman was pulling Mr Lodder's strings. I hardly think so. You should be more careful in how you choose and quote your sources. Whether you are right or wrong, you've failed the attitude test with that abrasiveness, I fear. Abrasive or not. I am correct and I responded like-for-like, see the bold above. It would be a shame to leave an incorrect legend on the forum when it is incorrect. Perhaps Logician is now happy to have the correct information to be added to his other knowledge gained on the Interwebnet. As the discussion is being left on this thread it might be deemed relevant for the OP. It would be a shame to see him appear in court with the wrong information. This post has been edited by TryOut: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 09:56 |
|
|
Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 10:24
Post
#88
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I doubt whether the names of the relevant lawyers is material to any matter that might be at court.
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sun, 4 Aug 2019 - 01:53
Post
#89
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
I did say "according to" various news sources Mr Freeman was defending Colin Montgomerie in my original post, but I am very happy to accept that it was in fact a member of Mr Freeman's firm who defended him in the Magistrates' Court. The successful appeal in the Crown Court may have been led by Lodder QC, but perhaps TryOut can tell us who instructed him. I am sure Andrew Perry can tell him if he does not know himself.
-------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 08:59
Post
#90
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
Whilst what you have posted might well reflect some accurate trigonometry, as written it is gibberish - e.g. "At 91m 6.3m is 84.7m". That said, it would be presumptuous to assume that your presentation before an appellate court would be of the same standard as an on-line argument. Bear in mind that the "appellate court" in the first instance will be a Crown Court. As I said earlier this will be presided over by a Crown Court judge and assisted by two "lay" Magistrates. It is highly unlikely that any of these will have expert knowledge and also to be borne in mind is that success with your argument depends on findings of fact. Each of the Magistrates has an equal say in those findings meaning they can outvote the judge. You also have to do more than cast reasonable doubt (and this is where the judge may direct the Magistrates). The device used to measure your speed is assumed to be working correctly and operated in the approved manner unless you can prove otherwise. The calculations you (or your expert) have produced would have been considered when the device and its operation were approved. As I understand it (from your post #12) it is the operation of the device rather than the device itself you base your argument on. Perhaps it might help us understand the validity of your argument if you told us the speed/limit alleged (which you have not done despite being directly asked in post #26). How much error do you suggest this mis-operation produced? This is quite important because the charge is exceeding the speed limit, not travelling at any particular speed. Does your argument (regarding the mis-operation) show that the inaccuracy was so great that you would have been travelling below the speed limit? Remember you have to prove this "on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that it is more likely than not to be true). So how much of an inaccuracy does your expert say the misoperation was responsible for? Or does he say that the device, as operated, cannot be relied upon to measure your speed with any accuracy at all? Why does there have to be 2 lay magistrates, is it no longer the case that a single judge can sit on a crown court case. Just curious. -------------------- STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING
Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about. |
|
|
Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 09:14
Post
#91
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
The speed limit was 30 and I was alleged to be doing 47. My understanding is that all you have to do is demonstrate that the reading was not accurate at then it becomes inadmissible in court. Sorry my friend but you are wrong. There is case law where you can be sentenced for speeding on the grounds that if there were was an inaccuracy in the speed detection, then you could still be found guilty on the fact the equipment or use of the equipment cannot be as inacurate as you may portray, especially when. The court may agree that there were some inaccuracies, however they would also form the opinion that you were speeding, it only needs to be 31mph. You are looking for a +56.6% error, anything less than that, you must of been speeding. It was case law used against me in my defence of speeding when I brought into doubt the non approved police pilot time/distance measuring device. I had to drop my defence to inaccuracy in the calibration of the equipment between different road markers and proceed with non approved type. -------------------- STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING
Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about. |
|
|
Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 10:36
Post
#92
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
Why does there have to be 2 lay magistrates, is it no longer the case that a single judge can sit on a crown court case. Just curious. s.74(1) Senior Courts Act 1981 and rule 34.11 Criminal Procedure Rules prescribe at least two and no more than four magistrates. A single judge can conduct a case management hearing or state a case for the High Court or hear the appeal if the respondent agrees. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:05 |