Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Fife Constabulary - Again
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2, 3
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Fri, 3 Nov 2006 - 11:21) *
If we are not ready for the 15th for whatever reason, can I instruct her not to attend (after consultation with the clerk of the court of course)

Sorry, I don't know anything about citing witnesses. Presumably you can, but what expenses they could still claim, I've no idea.
Prof
Ive just asked ACPO if they can confirm if the ACPO code of practice (long filename.pdf) is the correct version.

Lets see what happens now.

BR Pau
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Fri, 3 Nov 2006 - 12:20) *
Ive just asked ACPO if they can confirm if the ACPO code of practice (long filename.pdf) is the correct version.

I thin you miss my point. The 'ACPO Guidelines' are a publication of ACPO (England, Wales & NI), not of ACPOS.
I think that all Scottish forces follow the current English ones, but a few years back, during the General's case, some Scottish forces were still using a previous version of the ACPO (E, W & NI) Guidelines.
Prof
So we need to find out what version Fife is using.

BR Prof
Prof
Quick update

A reply from the area PF today that he isnt allowing a sit down with his office to discuss what productions are being submitted (from both parties) as I am unrepresented and this "makes things difficult"

WTF does that mean??

Ill phone the clerk tomorrow (as I still dont have a prosecution production list) 5 days before trial.

As I am now paying for my witnesses to attend is it worthwhile asking the judge for an immediate adjournment until the productions are sorted out?

BR Prof
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Fri, 10 Nov 2006 - 00:49) *
A reply from the area PF today that he isnt allowing a sit down with his office to discuss what productions are being submitted (from both parties) as I am unrepresented and this "makes things difficult"
WTF does that mean??

I think that this refers to the Crown Office / Proc Fiscal Service's position that they seek not to disclose evidence to accuseds. They will disclose it to the accused's lawyer, though. Although, they will probably deny it, or be evasive as to why (as apparently in your case).
This, of course, is yet another breach of ECHR Art 6 and the right to represent oneself (which presumably is why they're evasive).
There's a couple of ECtHR cases on the subject, to the effect that witholding such evidence, but giving it to his lawyer is O.K. However, when the accused is unrepresented, by not giving it to him, his case is clearly at a disadvantage compared with a represented person, and hence his right to defend himself is prejudiced.
Unfortunately, I've lost the cases due to a hard disk failure.
ISTR that one is french and one is East European.
I might have them at work; I'll check on Sunday.

QUOTE (Prof @ Fri, 10 Nov 2006 - 00:49) *
Ill phone the clerk tomorrow (as I still dont have a prosecution production list) 5 days before trial.

As I am now paying for my witnesses to attend is it worthwhile asking the judge for an immediate adjournment until the productions are sorted out?

Unfortuantely, I'm out of my depth here. How would you get a hearing before a judge at such short notice?
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (jeffreyarcher @ Fri, 10 Nov 2006 - 01:27) *
There's a couple of ECtHR cases on the subject, to the effect that witholding such evidence, but giving it to his lawyer is O.K. However, when the accused is unrepresented, by not giving it to him, his case is clearly at a disadvantage compared with a represented person, and hence his right to defend himself is prejudiced.
Unfortunately, I've lost the cases due to a hard disk failure.
ISTR that one is french and one is East European.
I might have them at work; I'll check on Sunday.

I've found them. Unfortunately, they don't say that at all, sorry for the duff steer.
My recollection was of what I had been told they said, not of what they actually said. icon_redface.gif
Prof
Mmmmmm More smoke and mirrors from the scottish legal system

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/Members_Informat...rimConduct.aspx

Article 11—Documents and Materials

(11.1) A solicitor will receive in the course of defence work the documents, materials or recordings related to the cases in which he is instructed. These documents, materials and recordings will include those disclosed to the solicitor by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (“COPFS”). A solicitor should not give a client, or any other third party, even on a temporary basis, copies of any documents, materials or recordings. There may be exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from this rule in a particular case and if the solicitor believes that such exceptional circumstances exist, he must refer the matter to the Professional Practice Department of the Law Society of Scotland for guidance. If items are to be given to the client or third party, the solicitor must explain that the items must retained securely by them; must be kept confidential; must not be revealed to others, let alone released to others; must not be copied and must be returned to the solicitor by a fixed date which must be as soon as possible having regard to the circumstances justifying giving the items to the client in the first place.

(11.2) Some documents, materials or recordings may be of a sensitive nature and should never be given to the client. These documents should only be shown to the client in circumstances where the solicitor is present and it is possible to exercise adequate supervision to prevent the client retaining possession of the material or making a copy of it. Before showing the client the material, the solicitor should ensure that he has redacted the material to obscure any information tending to identify the home address or contact details of a witness. Some examples of sensitive material or documents are listed below:-

(a) A precognition or statement of a victim of a sexual offence;
(b) A photograph or pseudo photograph of any such victim or a deceased victim;
© A medical or other report or statement relating to the physical or mental condition of any such victim or a deceased victim;
(d) Any document, other than a document served on the client by the Crown or by a co-accused, containing the addresses or telephone numbers of witnesses or their relatives/friends or information from which there addresses and telephone numbers can be deduced;
(e) Any video or audio recording of a statement made by a vulnerable witness; and
(f) Any record in relation to previous convictions or outstanding charges of complainers or witnesses.

(11.3) In the event of a solicitor ceasing to act on behalf of a client, that client being unrepresented, any documents, materials or recordings which had been disclosed should be returned to the COPFS. If there is a transfer of agency, the documents, materials or recordings should be transferred on receipt of a mandate to the new solicitor. When a case has been concluded, a solicitor holding material disclosed by the COPFS should arrange for the material to be stored securely or to be disposed of as confidential waste.

Guidance Note
From time to time the Society has been asked to give its views of the practice of giving to accused persons, or other third parties, copies of the precognitions or statements of witnesses and of other documents associated with the accused’s case. This is particularly relevant in view of the solicitors obligations in relation to the material received from the COPFS under disclosure arrangements which have been put in place following the judgements of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the cases of Holland –v- HMA 2005 SLT 563 and Sinclair –v- HMA 2005 SLT 513.

In the vast majority of criminal cases, the accused is in receipt of legal aid and it has been judicially declared that the accused has no proprietorial claim on the case papers. These belong to the solicitor.

The view of the Society is that solicitors should not give copies of precognitions, statements, documents or recordings to the accused or third parties unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from this general practice. Exceptional circumstances might include a case of particular complexity, necessitating giving the accused copies of documents to allow proper preparation. A fraud case, for instance, where documents were originally in the possession of the accused, might be such an exception. Another example would be a request from an appropriate investigative or statutory body, such as the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission or the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Where a solicitor believes that there are exceptional circumstances, he must refer the matter to the Society’s Professional Practice Department for guidance. If the solicitor does give access to copies of documents, materials or recordings, he must ensure that a written record is kept of the reason for the documents, materials or recordings being given to the client or third party and of the fact that the recipient has been advised of the terms of the Code and the conditions of possession.

Information contained in the documents, materials or recordings which is sensitive, should only ever be used or disclosed to others for the limited purpose of the preparation and conduct of the proceedings. This is designed to ensure that a solicitor can disclose sufficient information to enable proper preparation to take place, for example, by disclosing to an expert witness but to reinforce the clear rule that such material should not be made available to persons unconnected with the case.

The Code makes it clear that sensitive material should never be disclosed. There are unfortunate worrying examples of problems which can arise if the guidelines are not observed, for example, copies of witness statements could be circulated in the public domain leading to witnesses being intimidated. Statements of victims of sexual crimes could be used as a form of pornography within prison. An extract from a firearms register, complete with addresses and type of weapons, has already been circulated in a prison.

Any sensitive material held by the solicitor should be retained securely and, if it has been given to the solicitor on condition that it is returned, the solicitor should return it to the issuing authority in accordance with that undertaking, as soon as it is no longer required by the solicitor.

Where a solicitor ceases to act and another solicitor takes over acting, the solicitor should ensure security and confidentiality of the material concerned and either return the documents and materials to the COPFS or transfer them to the incoming solicitor.

Solicitors are reminded that in receiving documentation, material or recordings from the COPFS, or other third parties, that they are accepting an implied undertaking to comply with the terms of this Article.
Prof
Just phoned the clerk of the court.

There are no productions lodged by the Crown?????

She suggested calling the PF?

I think I should wait until the trial and call an objection based on non disclosure of any productions?

Answers on a post card? comments/suggestions?

BR Prof
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Fri, 10 Nov 2006 - 14:54) *
There are no productions lodged by the Crown?????

She suggested calling the PF?

I think I should wait until the trial and call an objection based on non disclosure of any productions?

I don't think that they have to lodge anything with the court.
Any disclosure (if required) is to the defence.
Prof
Well, Im just about ready.

What a gig this has been so far.....

Finishing touches are being prepared for Wednesday.

Wish me luck.....

BR Prof
jeffreyarcher
Best of luck, Prof. thumbsup.gif
Prof
Thanks JA

will report when I get back.

Hi Ho, Hi Ho, its off to Court I go!

Prof
Prof
Well, Well then

A mini victory, more later....

Adjourned to feb next year as I cited Human Rights Issues not being able to get the video.

Crown and Police need to allow me, my solicitor and experts to see the parts of the tape required.

More later.

Prof
popdog28
Was this at the I.D?? Mine is Monday, and I have had NOTHING, not a photo or witness list. Is an adjournment giving them more time to collect evidence if they aren't ready at present?
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (popdog28 @ Wed, 15 Nov 2006 - 16:08) *
Was this at the I.D?? Mine is Monday, and I have had NOTHING, not a photo or witness list. Is an adjournment giving them more time to collect evidence if they aren't ready at present?

Full trial, read back on the thread. rolleyes.gif Dislcosure of the video was refused at ID; it seems that it then became a trial issue.
popdog28
Sorry J.A, I hsould know that this was prof's trial. Read this thread enough times.

Seems disclosure in Scotland really hit & miss.
Prof
Quick reply, (Mums birthday so need to be somewhere else)

It was a trial diet,

- Sheriff has asked me to get legal representation to raise a devolution order because of my issue of human rights
- Sheriff noted the S172 - self incrimination issue with a big grin, he told me that he had been hearing about the european court pending decision from solicitors all over the place :-)
- Civilain Arguement died a death (for me to argue about at trial)
- Prescibed devices issues - (break light beams ver lti operation) is a matter for trial
- Sheriff stated that he would not be comfortable going to trial with the lack of video disclosure and s172 issue (I would have too many rights for appeal)

He advised me to seek full legal representation and asked me (smile) if I wanted him to adjourn the trial , to which I agreed.

The PF did not approve as there were 5 witnesses.

I pointed out to ma lord that I had only been disclosed a list of 2 crown witnesses. his lordship instructed the pf to disclose the names of the other crown witnesses to me.

5 witnesses for a speeding charge when there is only 1 operator in the van.... what are they trying to pull.

My expert for the tape analsys has too be a graduate electronic engineer (my onc and radio ham qualifications dont cover).

okay more later.

BR Prof
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Wed, 15 Nov 2006 - 17:26) *
- Sheriff has asked me to get legal representation to raise a devolution order because of my issue of human rights

Was it perhaps a devolution issue?
Did you not then ask him for legal aid, due to the complexity of the case?

QUOTE (Prof @ Wed, 15 Nov 2006 - 17:26) *
5 witnesses for a speeding charge when there is only 1 operator in the van.... what are they trying to pull.

Was there any indication that one of them may be an expert?

QUOTE (Prof @ Wed, 15 Nov 2006 - 17:26) *
My expert for the tape analsys has too be a graduate electronic engineer (my onc and radio ham qualifications dont cover).

I think that your onc is more than Mr. Garratt has. rolleyes.gif
Prof
PRIZE Comment for the day

Discussing the disclosure of the video tape (which went on for some while) discussing why I need more than the 3 seconds they were prepaered to show.

PF: Mr Prof has engaged in numerous correspondence over the issues relating to the disclosure off the video, including the calibration checks
Sheriff: So you have have viewed the tape?
PF: Ah well, ah no, its been held by the police, I only received it this afternoon.

PRICELESS!!!!


Okay pop pickers top 5 witnesses for the crown as per mori poll and my intuition are:

No 5 civy opp (no surprise)
No 4 PC who corroborates civy opo for startup checks (no surprise)
No 3 PC who corroborate end of day checks (mmmmmm!)
No 2 Optician who can claim that a 59 year old still has good vision
No 1 PC medic who will claim that civy ops medication doesnt give him the shudders

(all rhetorical you understand!!!)
br prof
Prof
Was it perhaps a devolution issue?

Yup that was it!

No indications that one was an expert.

Yup mr garrett is toast as I understand??

Br Prof
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Wed, 15 Nov 2006 - 16:00) *
Crown and Police need to allow me, my solicitor and experts to see the parts of the tape required.

Was that specified, or was it up to you?
E.g. could it be interpreted to mean only the calibration checks plus your bit?

One of the witnesses may be a local authority roads department employee, who would be there to give evidence as to the accuracy of the measured distance, painted on the road, which the police use for checking the vehicles speedometer / odometer.
QUOTE (Prof @ Wed, 15 Nov 2006 - 23:18) *
Yup mr garrett is toast as I understand??

Perhaps, perhaps not.
A Crown Court case does not create any authorities.
The judge's opinion may be based on the new Eglish Criminal Procedure rules which only came into force this month (although, I believe that they may have been 'dry-running' them for a bit longer). They, of course, do not apply in Scotland. That said, the ruling (posted elsewhere by Blackdouglas) didn't mention the new CPRs.
Prof
popdog28 how did you get on?

prof
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Mon, 20 Nov 2006 - 18:56) *
popdog28 how did you get on?

But answer in your own thread. rolleyes.gif
Prof
Well well well

It appears that Fife Scameraship do not have a site audit form or Measurements (Collisions, fatalities etc) for the raised police platform on the A92 near Kirkcaldy West.

Ive now registered a complaint with the information commissioner to force the scameraship to hand over the information if they have it but in the meantime the following has came to light:

- Fife record officer can find no details for the mobile site
- Fife FOI appeal reviewer can find no details for the mobile site
- It is not registered on the scottishsafetycameras camfinder site
- The scottish camera liasion officer cannot find any details of the site.

I asked them too review this decision and pointed out, from the Scottish Safety Camera Programme Handbook:

Cost recovery system for speed and red light camera enforcement

Handbook of Rules and Guidance

4. RULE 1: SITE SELECTION AND ENFORCEMENT


This rule relates to the selection and assessment process for all sites at which a partnership intends to enforce: new, existing, and pre-scheme. All sites, enforced and dormant, must be included in the partnership Operational Case relative to that operational year. This information should be provided in the Operational Case templates and checklist documents as appropriate. Recovery of costs cannot commence at any site until the Scottish Advisory Board has approved the Operational Case.

4.2 NEW MOBILE CAMERA SITE

A mobile site is a stretch of road on which mobile enforcement can take place. It must have a clearly defined start and end point. A site may only cross over different speed limits if each speed limit section meets the required speed criteria but offences can only be detected within one speed limit area at any one time. Monitoring must take place at each speed limit section. Enforcement can take place at any safe location within the site but only in the direction of the identified accident problem – except on a single carriageway, where enforcement can take place in both directions. Site conditions must be suitable to allow for safe access and a Health and Safety risk assessment must be undertaken as part of the site selection process. The camera deployment operators must also undertake a risk assessment of the site prior to each deployment.

A new mobile site should show accidents distributed evenly along a stretch of road. The requirements for a mobile site selection are as follows:

Requirement
Comment


1. Site Length
Between 0 and 20,000 metres (20 km).
A site can only cross over speed limits if each speed limit section meets the speed criteria.

2. Number of Accidents
There must be a minimum number of accidents in the last 3 years for a site to qualify. The number of accidents (reflected as points) required are represented in the assessment table below.
See section 10.2 for guidance on how to measure accidents.


3. Speed Criteria
The 85th percentile speed must equal or exceed the Lord Advocates current enforcement threshold for site speed limit.
See section 10.2 for guidance on how to calculate the 85th percentile speed.

4. Suitability Assessment
All partners must be in agreement that there is no suitable alternative road safety measure.
An appropriate local audit trail should be maintained.


5. Visibility and Conspicuity
The site must comply with the visibility and conspicuity requirements.
See section 5.

The location of accidents should determine the length of a site not the total number of points. Site lengths should not be extended to include stretches

of road where accidents are not happening. Partnerships must be able to provide data on the exact accident locations within the site in order to justify

the chosen length.
--------------------------------End of copy from document------------------------
As it can be seen very clearly from the above. There is a National Requirement to identify each Camera Site with a number of factors. Factors that include the original question:

13: How many road traffic accidents (involving serious or fatal injuries to I) pedestrians and II) other motorists had occurred in each year in the preceding three years at this stretch of road?

I received a reply to my reply from a Tracey Bork, FOI Reviewer from Fife Constabulary today indicating the same reply as before:

Fife Constabulary does not have this information, Fife Council will have it.

I notice that from the below appeal presented to the IC earlier this year:

Information relating to mobile safety camera operations
Applicant: Mr James Robertson
Authority: Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police
Case No: 200600440
Decision Date: 26 July 2006

The same question was raised, IE:

d) How many road traffic accidents (involving serious or fatal injuries to I) pedestrians and II) other motorists had occurred in each year in the preceding three years at this stretch of road

To which, it was noted the reply from the IC website:

d) In response to the request for details of the number of accidents on this stretch of road, the force provided tables showing statistics on road traffic accidents at all camera locations within Edinburgh and the surrounding area.

I put it to the Information Commissioner that there is a deliberate ploy by Fife Constabulary or Fife Safety Camera Partnership to not reveal the number of road traffic accidents at this location.

I find their response unsatisfactory and request that this matter goes to appeal for your consideration

More later.

BR Prof
Prof
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES LIST DISCLOSED BY THE CROWN

1: CAMERA OPERATOR AB
2: PC WHO OVERSAW FIRST DISTANCE CHECK
3: CAMERA STAFF
4: CAMERA STAFF
5: PC (STILL TO FIND OUT WHAT HE HAD TO DO WITH IT)

With the camera manager cited as my witness it means that all of fife camera unit was out in court for the whole day.........

5 witnesses for moi!
Prof
Hello Peeps

Another ID again tomorrow but still no movement on the video. I know have it from a Top Scottish Motoring Solicitor and A Top Academic Law Professor that withholding the tape is prejudicial to my case.

Ill stand my ground and see what happens (How long do you get for contempt of court? :-)

Some Updates.

Fife Partnership have now revealed that they do not have any Site Audit Forms for any of their sites (You know the form they are meant to send to the national partnership so they can rake back the money) They have revealed that in 2005 at the part of the A92 where the alleged offence took part there was 1 death and in 2006 0 deaths (with low numbers for personal injury cases)

Justification for siting the camera on the A92- Because there had been reports of speeding (Kerching)!

Nothing to do with safety then....

Any news on the civilian case yet.

I have yet to precognise my other 3 witnesses all of whom work for the partnership.

More later.

BR Prof
Prof
Well,

Another ID today, Sherriff has ruled that either the PF and I come to some form of agreement over the tape disclosure. I preempted this and sent a letter last week (that the PF mislaid,,,duh!) that suggested I would be happy with the 5/6 excerpts covering the important issues. No reply yet from the PF.

So the Sheriff set out another ID for the 12th of Feb (and the PF huffed and puffed).

Tape disclosure issue may have to go to the High Court. hehehehe.

BR Prof

PS.... Taxed vehcile on line yesterday, left receipt with all the detals attached to windscreen. got issued a FPN for not displaying a tax disk. Have issued a formal complaint to dvla that their site doesnt say it cannot be used. ANPR now records the vehicle as having tax.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Mon, 15 Jan 2007 - 16:08) *
Sherriff has ruled that either the PF and I come to some form of agreement over the tape disclosure.


Or?
Prof
Or

He will need to rethink the trial date as we wont be ready for trial on Feb the 27th.

He suggested that I may have to go the High Court to force the PF to handover the tape.

My current position is that I would accept a excerpt tape containing all the necessary parts I asked for. If they dont want to give me that Im going to the High court, sod the cost, its refreshing too find a sheriff thats not going to let the pf get all their own way.

BR Prof
jeffreyarcher
So what's next? Presumably by the 12th the PF will either have provided the 5/6 excerpts, or told you to eff off. If the latter, the 27th will have to be adjourned to allow you to go to the High Court?
And what exactly are you doing in the High Court, i.e. what type of hearing is it?
Prof
Dont know, now I out of my depth so I will probably engage Graeme Walker to do the business for me.

Might make a Scottish Precedent here over tape disclosure.

What was so funny was there was a number of cases in front of my ID where there was cctv footage and the pf had no issue sending that to the defence.

BR Prof
The Rookie
I trust you raised that at your hearing........although the DPA wouldn't apply AIUI to cctv as no data is captured of other people just there picture,

Simon
Prof
Graham Walker has quoted 1500 plus vat for the request for the video (to be handed to the defence) to go to the High Court.

This may become a precedent in Scotland.

Mika, whats the chance of getting some sponsorship here?

BR Prof
Mika
QUOTE (Prof @ Tue, 30 Jan 2007 - 22:44) *
Mika, whats the chance of getting some sponsorship here?

Please drop me a PM with your phone number.
popdog28
Hope u manage to get the sponsorship prof. I have attempted in vain to obtain video, and have been told in nop uncertain terms that the answer is "no". However, I am getting an expert to look at my video at the cost of £300. So if anyone wants to chuck me a fiver.......... dry.gif
Good luck and I hope a precident is set
Prof
popdog28, what reasons did they give, were they hiding under the dpa?

No reply from the PF, so it looks like we are off to the high court.

Hi ho Hi Ho its off to court we go.......again!

BR Prof
popdog28
Reasons.......I think you are just being plain silly! I have asked my brief, who says I cannot get a copy of the tape, but they will release it to an expert that I am paying. So in a way, I am getting disclosure, but in another way I am not.

Its just the way it works north of border, nobody gets disclosure. Wrong I totally agree.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (popdog28 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2007 - 16:01) *
Reasons.......I think you are just being plain silly!

Who said that? Your own solicitor or the Crown?

QUOTE (popdog28 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2007 - 16:01) *
who says I cannot get a copy of the tape, but they will release it to an expert that I am paying. So in a way, I am getting disclosure, but in another way I am not.

You are represented, Prof was not (although, it seems that he may be now).
There is apparently a couple of ECtHR cases on this very point (I haven't been able to track them down myself).
Whilst it may [*] be permissible to withold evidence from a represented accused (his representative, who is preparing his case, has access to it, so the accused is not prejudiced), it is not permissible to withold it from an unrepresented accused. That strikes at the very heart of the right under ECHR Art. 6 to represent oneself.
[*] Protection of witnesses etc.; hardly applicable in a speed camera case.
Prof
Yup JA and such a point was clearly made by the Sheriff in my Favour!!!

He did say though that I might have to go to the high court for specificiation of the tape.

In baillieweb there are a number of video disclosure cases in Scotland. Some for and some against. The rule of thumb seems to be if the disclosing (any evidence) to the defendent (Such as witnesses names and addresses, or other details) may cause intimidation (Badgering witnesses etc)

Or in Child Sex cases where the tapes are obviousily recorded from the child's statement.

They are hiding behind this as there is no good reason why (even the 5 excerpts I have asked for) the tape cannot be disclosed to me under caveat or restrictive conditions.

Unless, of course, the tape shows a number of errors that they do not want to be brought up.

Grahame Walker has been discussing the case with me but does not represent me at this time. He is actually putting together a registered members part of his website to advice drivers on Scottish law. More on that later.

Popdog, also interested in who told you that it was being silly?

BR Prof
Prof
Popdog

If your up for it, subject to what happens tomorrow, I will take on the costs of going to the high court for this but wonder if you would want to append your case details as well.

Not sure what its called but have seen enough transcripts of collective cases being pulled together for the same issue.

BR Prof
popdog28
Prof, I have mailed u. The opinion of being "silly" is an opinion formed by me, on the info provided by my brief. Yes, legally you should be able to get a copy of evidence against you, but it doesn;t work like that. Yes, you are supposed to see all evidence against you 7 days prior to your hearing, but it doesn't stop the P.F producing a photo or like on day of trial.

Wrong. But it is accepted in the everyday court procedure. Or so my brief tells me.

Again, good luck Prof, and if I can help I will. Any update will be posted in my thread
Prof
Ok Just back.

Two steps forward and one back.

Different Sheriff (and another bumbling PF Depute who knew diddly about the case). so I had to explain from scratch. His view point was rather clear on the matter.

Presented the two letters that were recdel to the PF requesting the evidence.

Have I seen the evidence? A: No
Is the crown using the tape as evidence: PF- Not Sure ...... Duhhhhhhh Answer from me,: Yes they are
Do you know whats on the tape? A: No, because I havent seen it.

Decision was for the PF to avail the material he will be using at the trial (IE the 3 seconds of incident) AND anything other on the tape that might be of use to my material case. IN the PFs Offices. Date to be set for this

If I want to use it or subject it to technical analysis, I then have to Petition the court for it (How many different ways is there to ask for this tape?).

The Sheriff will not delay the case at the end of the month, ANOTHER ID (I was screaming abuse of process here) to be set for next week.

Mixed feeling about having another Sheriff but it was fun watching the dippy depute PF flounder as he had no knowledge of this case.

So, if the court assumes that Mr Garret is an expert then who from our ranks is the expert in tape analsys?

BR Prof
The Rookie
I think the recent high court appearence by Mr Garret (full transcript on MCN) will provide for some nice pointers on how to tackle Mr Garret!

Simon
Prof
Let the court know I had the Preston Transcript but Sheriff bounced me (was expected) saying thats its not a matter for the ID
Prof
Ok as from 2am this morning, I have lodged with the court:

A Petition to adjourn the case until the ECHR ruling
A Petition to refute the evidence of the Section 20 Certificate (Civvy Arguement and Prescribed Devices)
A Petition to request a copy of the video for a,b,c reasons

I should state that I had done all this previousily but what has come out in the wash in the last 24hrs is that the requests need to be served on the court on the proper proforma templates (language, format etc), not just in a usual letter format.

Seems pedantic, but hey, were in Scotland!!!!

I will cleanse the ones I sent and get mika to post them tonight.

There is also a full manual of all the proformas available on the scotcourts site. More later

BR Prof
Prof
Ahhh some success.......

My three petitions, above, as well as a 4rth devolution issue (ECHR Human Rights Issue) has now been accepted as correct by the Clerk of the Court and will be placed in front of the Sheriff for my next ID.

Seems like, all you had to do was to use the right forms!

More later. Prof
Prof
Crafty beggars, PF passed it back to the camera saftey unit to organise. I got called from them and clicked right onto the fact that they wont know about the arguement regarding watching start of day, start of shift, end of shift etc tests.

Explained my POV, was told that I would only be able to watch my incident. However, I can watch it by the frame if I so wished. So off tomorrow to do that and record the lti settings.

My petition for the whole tape goes in front of the beak on Monday.

More later
Prof
Oh what fun, quick report from this morning's tape viewing

Tape consisted of two excerpts

Start of day validation
Alleged incident

Quick report, full report later

SOD validation did not check vertical alignment, just horizontal

Alleged incident:

1st frame with car full in view

12:14:45 NR34 Blank
12:14:46 NR06 Blank
12:14:46 NR07 *(preset) 089mph 266.7m
12:14:46 NR15 *(preset) 089mph 266.7m
12:14:46 NR16 Timeout blank

My estimations NR34- NR07 = 23 frames (50fps) = 0.46s

0.46 - 0.3 for the lti to calulate the speed = 0.16

0.16 - 0.1sec for the machine to report speed

= 0.06 seconds for PRIOR OPINION TO HAVE BEEN MADE!!!

Hes Having a Laugh!!!! A 59 year old operator with presprictive lenses and medication!

distance at NR07 = 266.7
distance at NR15 = 266.7

8 frames at 50fps = 0.16 second
rate of travel at 89mph = 39.55 metres per sec / 0.16 = 6.33metres
(no change of distance on databar, still sits at 266.7M

More later, BR prof

The Crosshairs are definitely on the ground, which could concurr with the fact that the device had no vertical alignment.

Oh the fun I am going to have.

BR Prof
Prof
Well, back again.

On fire today Imsoooooo Hoooot!

Short version

Another non interested different PF but with a nice new understanding locum Sheriff.

Outcome:

Have accepted Devoultion Minute even though it was late (leeway for self representation)
Have accepted Crown Primary Evidence Challenge (S20 form) even though it was late (leeway for self representation)

Both of these are to be considered just before the trial diet

Have forced the PF to go back and come back to another ID next week with the following:

- Find out if the alignment checks are on the video
- Find out how many there are (Start of day, Start onsite and End of Day)
- Come back with a final statement over viewing the part of the tape with hgvs in it just prior to the alleged offence

Ive ditched the full tape arguement and have agreed to do any examination at the safety camera unit (their equipment is good enough for this stage, I would through another spanner in if I find anything credible.)

Gave the dep PF a copy of my report from my Friday's 4 second viewing and noted the Operators Superhuman powers in being able to offer prior opinion in 0.06 of a second and noted there was no vertical alignment as part of the start of day checks.

Dep PF sat glum as hell as his lordship and I bantered on.

"if these calibration checks are on the video, I think its only right that Mr Prof has the ability to view them! We will have to wait until the PF decide what they want to do with the HGV part."

YES, YES, YES.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.