One cops word against mine. Options

[broosta]

Just got done again. 107 in a 70. Can't believe it. Gutted.

V light traffic, dually, just overtook a car, looked back over my left shoulder up a slip road to see a motorcycle cop stood next to his bike aiming something at me. I slowed down straight away and in fact pulled over into a layby that was v near before the cop had time to get on his bike and catch me up. I was pretending to talk on my mobile and be oblivious to the cop when he knocked on the side window to tell me he clocked me at 107mph with his hand held laser device (looked a bit like Unipar Urban Speed Ace). To his credit the cop was not being a twat at all and if it wasn't the fact he was nicking me for speeding I'd have to say he was a really nice bloke!
He told me about the speed he was accusing me of doing and then cautioned me. Took name, address, d.o.b., occupation, asked if I had any other points on licence, went off to check details, gave me a producer and said I'd be sent stuff in the post about the speeding offence. I was not asked to sign anything.
I told him there was no way that I had been doing 107mph and he explained he saw me driving and knew I was over limit then checked with the laser which confirmed it being 107mph. He showed me the reading on the display still at 107, then demonstrated on another car how it worked. It took less than a second to lock on and get a reading. There was no recording device and no other cop present.

I'm a f twat I know. No excuses.
I guess I'm just going to have to wait and see what happens with the paperwork and go through the whole process to see if they cock up and give me an escape route.

One cops word against mine basically. No other evidence.

[Advertisement]

[cjm99]

One cops word against mine basically. No other evidence

The court will accept his evidence totally.

As you say, you will have to hope they drop a clanger with the process.

Chris

[broosta]

Recieved 2 summons 18/10/04!

One for speeding and one for not producing MOT. The car is mot'd and I did produce cert (along with the rest of my documents) at the police staion and there was no problem what so ever when I produced the mot cert. So that is one cock up for starters!

The speeding summons says:-

" On 01/08/04 at Norwich Norfolk drove a vehicle, namely motor vehicle (car), BMW MXXXXXX, on a dual carriage way road, namely A47 Blofield bypass, at a speed exceeding 70 miles per hour
Contrary to Article 2© of The 70 miles per hour, 60 miles per hour and 50 miles per hour (Temporary Speed Limit) Order 1977, section 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988."

Date of both hearings 08/11/04.

That's it, no other information. No statements, no specific alleged speed. No name or number of PC who spoke to me. It doesn't even say what time the alleged offence occured.

If I intend to plead not guilty I have to actually turn up to plead in person.

It also says, "If you intend to deny any of the allegations then the attendance of witness(es) at court will be required and the case will be adjourned to a future date." What witnesses??

This seems like a cock up to me but I'm not sure how to take advantage of it.
Anyone got any ideas?

[cjm99]

If you intend to deny any of the allegations then the attendance of witness(es) at court will be required and the case will be adjourned to a future date." What witnesses??

The police man who stopped you.



They will consider a ban, and will ultimately summons you to appear in person. Before the trial date, they will (or should) issue you with a witness list and copies of any documents they intend to rely on, plus a certificate of either 'unused material' or a certificate of 'no unused material'.

[broosta]

Thanks for your reply Chris.

I was under the impression that they should already have supplied me with the s9 statements etc. with the summons. If I am supposed to be deciding what to plead then surely I need to know all the details they have about the case :? .

Should I phone them up and ask why they don't think I supplied MOT cert?

[broosta]

I think tomorrow (28/10/04) I will phone them up and see what is going on - unless anyone thinks this may damage my defence chances at all.

[Divbad]

Didn't you get a receipt for your producer? If you were asked for the MOT along with other documents, wouldn't the desk copper have mentioned this when you took them in? Does the cop shop have CCTV?

Bad luck for not seeing the bike cop - but as we bikers all know, "The tw_t in the BMW will never see a bike, no matter what!"

Did the speed gun have a camera attached, or just an LCD readout?

[broosta]

Hi Divbad,

I have contacted the ticket office regarding the MOT and they told me if I send a photocopy of it they will drop that charge. I found this a little odd as I thought only original documents would suffice. I could supply a photcopy of any document they could ever think of! They don't give recepts for producers, well without specifically asking for one anyway. I did argue that if I had not produced it they would have said something to me etc.

As said in another post I don't ONLY drive a BMW! And anyway I did see him but it was a case of as soon as he came into my line of sight, I also came into his .

No there was no camera on the laser detection device, and I now think it is not even home office approved. Haven't been told by them the specific model name but it looks very like an UltraLyte Compact Laser like this http://www.lasertech.com/UltraLyteCompactSpec.pdf but it had a black leather case. In fact when I had a go with it I thought it looked pretty old and older than the one in my link, it looked like there was no glass in the sight?

One other point of contention is that after he 'got' me with the laser he lost sight of me due to the brow of a hill as he got on his bike and it was a good 5 mins until he tapped on my window as I was parked up. Basically there is nothing iron clad linking my car to the number on his laser detector - it could have been anything's speed.

[viper]

Bottom line is your fuck*d if they witness you at high speed then does the follow pursuit. Pointless saying was not you as the cop was on a bike and one would imagine has good eye sight so this argument is fairly lame

[broosta]

I think you misunderstand, at no time was I seen driving by the cop whilst he was also in motion. i.e. there was never any persuit. I pulled over into a layby just over the brow of the hill and so he did not pull me over. I was already parked up a good few mins before he arrived. He could not see me parking but only after I had already parked.
Therefore the cop's eyesight condition is completey irrelevant.

[viper]

Yeah sure but the police officer will say he identified your car which he obviously did as he pulled up to your vehicle. This argument is very lame you would get lashed if you tried this at the magistrates

[broosta]

I'm not so sure I agree but what is your advice as to what I SHOULD do then?

[sjpage]

HI broosta
just though i would give you my opinion

It is just his word against yours, but unfortunately he will be believed over you (no matter what lies he concocts ) and as it's over 100mph you would be looking at a ban, unless you could plead that you needed your car for your Job or some other important reason

I'm sorry to say i cant think of any way to disprove his word, you could probably show evidence of recent speeding cases where cameras have been wrong this may help but no guarantees

also you could request the a copy of the calibration certificate for the device he used , you never know maybe they wont be able to find it

and you could maybe show that he used the camera against ACPO guidelines (if he did so) but remember they are only that - Guidelines

Presentation of evidence:-
(a) The eventual success of any prosecution depends upon the accurate observations by the officer operating the device and the professional presentation of evidence before the court. It is in this area that the integrity of devices will be closely scrutinised.
(B) Operators should not only record evidence concerning the target vehicle, such as speed, direction of travel etc., but additionally, note the presence of any other vehicle in the vicinity, which may be used in defence when contradicting prosecution evidence. (With accurate sighting this problem is unlikely to occur.)

NOTE: The need to document all evidence is obvious as the memory of the operator must dim with the passing of time.

Ask for the relevant copies of pages from his notebook to see that he has done so

or you could always try the loophole suggested here
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=3120

[jeffreyarcher]

and I now think it is not even home office approved.

If the device is not type approved by the Secretary of State, the evidence from it is inadmissable. And, since there's only one policeman, his opinion evidence is insufficient to convict.
It is for the prosecution to prove that the device is approved, although, a statement from the policeman to that effect would suffice, and you would then need to disprove it.

[Divbad]

and I now think it is not even home office approved.

If the device is not type approved by the Secretary of State, the evidence from it is inadmissable. And, since there's only one policeman, his opinion evidence is insufficient to convict.
It is for the prosecution to prove that the device is approved, although, a statement from the policeman to that effect would suffice, and you would then need to disprove it.

If the policeman says it is "type approved", you may want to check with the Home Office just in case there was any, ahem, "misunderstanding" by the esteemed officer.

[broosta]

Just received letter from cps today containing the PC's 'Speed Offence Report' and the device he used was a Unipar Urban Speed Ace which IS Home Office Approved .

I have to enter my plea on monday 08/11/04.
If I plead not guilty on monday can I still change the plea to guilty before the next court date without incurring a penalty at all?

If the courts believe everything a PC tells them, e.g. "the device said he was doing 107mph", why are most of the devices used now able to record the readings? To me that says the PC's word is not enough or why bother with a camera?

[peteturbo]

Broosta,

seconded. If they dont want to release the video why do they bother to use it at all? There are many cases when the police dont bother to turn the in car video on for the provida system and i'm not aware of a case where its been decisive against them.

[broosta]

Attended court yesterday to state my plea of not guilty on both counts.
PTR set for 1/12/04
Witnesses from cps include the pc who stopped me and the desk sergeant who was working when I produced my docs.
As I did produce all docs as requested why do they want the desk sergeant to appear as witness? I haven't checked yet but assume the cctv would also support my defence :? .
Guess I'll just have to wait for them to send me their case bundle.

[broosta]

Hi, can someone please clarify for me the purpose of a Pre Trial Review and what will be expected of me?

[broosta]

Anyone?
I'm in court on wednesday for the PTR and just want to know what will happen :? .