Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Fife Constabulary - Again
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Prof
1. Fife Constabulary
2. Date of Offence - 20/11/05 12:14
3. NIP dated 22/11/05
4. Received - 24/11/05
5. A92 Lochgelly to Kirkcaldy West
6. Addressed to me
7. Sent First Class Post
8. I am RK
9. 0 points currently

Alleged 89mph in a 70mph dual carriageway. Wrote to scamera unit to request photos/training manuals/certificate of conformance/ pocket book notes etc.

Reply back on the 8/12 with a little back and white photo (sun glaring off car), no distance or speed stamp on databar. Confirmed device is a LTI 20/20 dodgyscope. usual waffle about take it now or face higher penalities later. My FOI requests passed to the FOI officer. Would only get the info I am looking for (training manuals/certificate of conformance/ pocket book notes etc.) once I signed the nip and sent it back too them. Invitation to come and look at the video at the scamera unit.

My reply on the 12/12 stated that I felt intimated and that I would not be viewing the video at their location but would be requesting a copy. Explained that if I was too sign the nip that I would be incrimating myself and giving up my human rights to silence under section 6 blah blah. I explained that the vehicle in the photo provided was not speeding (no distance speed markings on the data bar) and as such no case to answer.

Reply from Scammera Unit on the 14/12 from Karen MacKenzie, Programme Manager of the Fife Safety Camera Unit stating that the photo is to assist in driver indentification purposes only. They are under no obligation to provide the photos I am asking for. Mssr MacKenzie states regarding the signing of the nip:

"THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DRIVER ON THE NOTICE IS NOT AN ADMISSION OF GUILT"

YOU READ IT HERE FIRST GUYS!

Followed by more gentle advisement of sign it or we will do you for S172. Another free invite to attend the scamera unit to watch the video - declined....

19/12/05 Completed NIP, signed under section 6 of the convention of human rights and asterixed to the comments made by K Mackenzie about it being not an admission of guilt.

21/12/05 Conditional Offer sent (very efficent, Happy Bloody Christmas)

Reply from Scammera Unit on the 23/12 with copies of a training certificate (name cut out). Number of device, certificate of conformity etc. NO TRAINING MANUAL, NO POCKET BOOK NOTES, NO VIDEO.

Various correspondence, back and forth re the missing requests (another invite this time from the Chief to attend the unit to watch the video, no thanks!! Training materials being refused under commerical interests section of the FOISA and start of video (includes pre checks) withheld under data protection act.

29/12/05 - Request under the FOISA 2002 and the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to release statements, videos, training materials etc.

11/01/06 - Happy New Year, Letter from Chief Inspector

"I note that you are fully aquainted with the relevant legislation"...... YES!!!!! (Thanks Pepipoo)

Blah about not getting the relevant stuff until the Procurator Fiscal decides to take it to court, then they will be more than happy to assist.

More blah about dodgyscope training manuals not being alllowed to be copied (copyright). I explained that since Civilian Operators are not employees of teletraffic it means that Fife Constabulary must allow non teletraffic employees to read them. Therefore whats their problem????

Admittance that there is currently NO witness statement (This would only come about if I went to court). Invitation to see the pre check video by Appointment (dont think so buddy, I want the tape to get it analysed). First time this statement is used by the Chief.

"SHOULD YOUR CASE GO TO COURT!"

(Used again in second reply)

I then replied asking if the camera operator was a policeman. Reply from Chief was No, the camera operator is civilian, and is allowed to give primary evidence as he is working for the chief constable. No policeman viewed the video, there are no photographs available of the camera itself or the alleged incident with distance/speed markers on it.

Yet another refusal to see the training manuals (How can one prove that the device is being operated correctly if there is no baseline information???).

Anyway count so far:

Scamera Unit Manager - 3 * 2 page replies
Chief Inspector - 2 * 2 page replies
FOI Officer - 2 * 2 page replies

For every this else theres mastercard, Priceless!

No costs in scotland and I am going to request Mr Garrets attendance (Me being a old radio/cellular engineer in a past life).

So the question I want to ask is there anything else I should be doing, or should have done differently??

BR Professor
MX6Storm
Now you have got me curious - I see by your NIP identification that Fife Constabulary actually recognise a locus as "Lochgelly to Kirkcaldy West" - the spot where I saw tha Scamera van, not "Cowdenbeath to Lochgelly" as detailed on my NIP.

Curiouser and curiouser .........


May be contacting you for a copy of your NIP Mr Prof Sir...............................


Any comments guys?


Graeme
Prof
http://professor12345.tripod.com/nips

nip10 - NIP
nip11 - no admission of guilt
nip12
nip13- Training Manual / before use video
nip12 -
Prof
Graeme

The place I think you are referring to is just befor the Cluny turnoff where the talivan sits on the old traffic police raised platform.

BR Prof
Prof
Summons Arrived......

Not sure what is in it yet have to wait till I get home.

My first visit is on May the 16th which is 23 days from the summons arriving. What is the time I need to ask (and for them to give me the proof) regarding disclosure?

Re the above.... NIP was signed under duress of sect 6 ECHR and with a copy of the scamera units admission that signing the nip is not an admission of guilt.

Ill strap myself in for the long ride on this one.

BR Prof
Prof
Hi

Im off to court next week for my Plea and have issued the Procurator Fiscal (Fife) with a demand for the video evidence a week before my attendance.

If this doesnt arrive tomorrow then he has failed to provide disclosure.

A couple of questions:

Does he need to provide disclosure before my Pre trial Event

and

What should I plea next week if nothing arrives:

either

A: Not Guilty

or

B: No Plea entered until I get disclosure

From other posts I understand that if I am asked if I am ready or not to go to trial my answer must be no, until disclosure has happened???

BR Prof
Red Kev 01
As far as i am aware if you go to court and the Police have not furnished you with the incriminating evidence you can ask for an adjournment until you receive the relevant information that you require, as the court has to be seen to be giving you a fair crack of the whip.

It is interesting that you mention a few new tactics mainly a "jobsworth" i had heard about this on radio but it only mentioned that it was happening in England not up here in Scotland.

Do you know at what distance the device was pointed at you? Again i was led to believe that if the picture was in any way distorted it could not be used against you, although i do realise that it was a Talivan.

Try and get the video and get expert advice on it. Are you representing yourself? Just as a side issue and it may or may not help you, i was convicted last week on Sec 172 claiming ECHR article 6 but a reputable lawyer in Edinburgh told me in his words "by claiming ECHR 6 you are saying to them yes i know who the driver is but im not telling you" doesnt wash to well with the beaks trust me i know.
Prof
Hi Kev

Yes the NIp was signed (duhhhh) but also the reference from the scammera unit that it was not an admission of guilt.

If prosecuted under section 6 echr then you have a right of appeal once it goes through the echr (and wins in our favour of course)

Im really interested in how they can prosecute you without giving you the evidence....

More later

Prof
jeffreyarcher
Hi Prof,
QUOTE (Prof)
2. Date of Offence - 20/11/05

QUOTE (Prof)
My first visit is on May the 16th

Hmmm, they just made the six months. Fife scammers must be piling them in.
QUOTE (Prof)
My first visit is on May the 16th which is 23 days from the summons arriving.

AIUI, this is only the 'pleading diet'? I.e. the very first hearing? If so, there's no point in going, unless it specifically requires your attendance. Doesn't the summons allow you to plead by letter?
If so, just plead 'not guilty' by letter.
You can't 'not plead' because he hasn't given you the evidence. There is no formal disclosure in Scotland.
An 'Intermediate Diet' will then be scheduled.
QUOTE (Prof)
From other posts I understand that if I am asked if I am ready or not to go to trial my answer must be no, until disclosure has happened???

This is at the Intermediate Diet.
Prof
Thank JA,

I will send a letter to the PF and to the Clerk of the Court tonight.

BR Prof
Prof
Hi Can someone move me/this post into the members only section.

PF bundle (3 sheets) arrived today

Cover leter
Witness statement from Operator
Photo (and boy what a photo it is) of the momment that Mr X pulled the trigger

More, when Im in secure comms
firefly
You're in.

Give us both barrells!
Prof
Ok

http://professor12345.tripod.com/nips/index.album?i=5

Letter from PF enclosing photos

http://professor12345.tripod.com/nips/index.album?i=6

Civvy stating photos are geniune

http://professor12345.tripod.com/nips/index.album?i=7

Interesting photo of the Jag snapped 267 metres away passing another vehicle with the crosshairs on the ground and a motorbike passing the field of view

http://professor12345.tripod.com/nips/index.album?i=8

A close up of mr smiley

http://professor12345.tripod.com/nips/index.album?i=9

More civvy speak for geniune photos

http://professor12345.tripod.com/nips/index.album?i=10

civvy statement

I phoned the head of the camera unit today and asked when I can make an appointment to interview Mr Brown, I was told this was the first time that anybody had made this request and after a 20 minute wait she indicated that I would have to speak to the PF to organise this.

I asked her if she had heard from the PF re my case, to which the answer was no. Funny I said I gave the PF your name as a witness to interview so I am confused that the process you state obviousily doesnt work.

Priceless!!!!!!

Spoke to the clerk of the court who says she cannot give me advice but my ID will consist of only plea and readiness for trial, nothing else. But I should be able to answer queries if the magistrate wants answers.

I left a message for the depute PF who is dealing with my case to contact me to ask where my video evidence has gone too (reflecting on the first page of the NIP - Viideo graphic evidence). Not just these silly photos.

The question is, just exactly when did the civvy think the vehicle was speeding? Considering the heavy flow of traffic cutting across his view, how on earth did he have time to make that judgement?

More later

Prof

PS have also asked for the training certificate to be resent out to me without mr browns name cut out this time.
g_attrill
This is a nice clear precis of the way their civilian operator system works:

http://professor12345.tripod.com/nips/nip13.jpg

QUOTE
The operator was not a police officer. There was no police officer present during the taking of the video evidence. The video evidence was not examined or processed by a police officer. All support staff engaged in this work are authorised to do so by the Chief Constable, in terms of Road Traffic legislation. The video evidence corroborates the primary evidence of the camera operative.
Prof
Main Items that I will base my defence on:

- Accept that LTI is home office approved if it is used in the correct conditions

- Because the operator says it was used in the correct conditions doesnt necessary make it so. To prove this the defendent must be able to examine the training manual and procedural handbook against the video evidence (pre start checks and video of the vehcile entering and exiting the frame)
- The Operator must be able to convince the court that he had assessed the vehicle as possibly speeding, took aim, fired and collected the evidence (the picture doesnt show this level of detail)
- guidelines about using evidence where there are other vehicles in the frame that could cause inaccuracies

- Can a civilian operator give primary evidence?

- Evidence from the scameraship manager stating that "signing the nip is not an admission of guilt". When it obviousily is

- Signed under duress of ehcr section 6.1

- Failure to disclose video evidence and training manual

Anything else I should concentrate on?
Prof
Oh Good Fame at last!

Looks like my case is in the below sheriff court with the below civilian operator, Alexander Brown.....

Sent two letters to the PF now requesting disclosure but no reply, poor show I say chaps.

"Businessman denies 156mph speed

The speed was registered during a police crackdown
A Fife businessman has gone on trial accused of driving at 156mph while holding a mobile phone to his ear.
The car was caught on camera on a dual carriageway near Kirkcaldy last May during a weekend speeding crackdown.

The town's sheriff court was shown the film frame by frame and operator Alexander Brown identified the driver as Ronald Klos, who denies the charges.

The evidence has centred on the technology used in the speed trap. The trial has been adjourned until 1 June.

The court was told the equipment can register the speed of a car in a third of a second.

Laser system

Mr Brown said he was using the laser-based technology on the Sunday morning and registered a BMW doing 156mph.

Further examination of the pictures revealed that the driver was holding what appeared to be a mobile phone to his ear.

Under cross-examination Mr Brown admitted that in his statement he had said he could not identify who was driving.

The car was one of 200 caught on camera during the weekend operation by Fife Police. "
kinell
QUOTE (Prof @ Tue, 28 Mar 2006 - 14:43) *
Graeme

The place I think you are referring to is just befor the Cluny turnoff where the talivan sits on the old traffic police raised platform.

BR Prof


That will be the bit with the sign that says "Police Patrol Vehicles Only"? As this is a civilian vehicle, them being placed there is surely as illegal as you or I being placed there?
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof)
Looks like my case is in the below sheriff court

Why are you in the Sheriff Court?
That seems a bit severe for 89 in a 70.
The only reason that the PF would normally summons you to the Sherriff Court, rather than the District Court, would be because he is going for a ban icon_eek.gif (the District Court can't ban you for a one-off, only for 'totting-up').
QUOTE (Prof)
with the below civilian operator, Alexander Brown.

Are you sure he's a civvy?
ISTR that he was a constable.
Prof
From the Chief Constable

"The operator was not a police officer. There was no police officer present during the taking of the video evidence. The video evidence was not examined or processed by a police officer. All support staff engaged in this work are authorised to do so by the Chief Constable, in terms of Road Traffic legislation. The video evidence corroborates the primary evidence of the camera operative."

About 10 years ago I was up in front of the beak at a district court for speeding, not sure why its a sherrif court this time round.

0 points currently on the licence

"The only reason that the PF would normally summons you to the Sherriff Court, rather than the District Court, would be because he is going for a ban (the District Court can't ban you for a one-off, only for 'totting-up').
"

This the same PF as did Kloss, maybe he thinks hes superman!
Prof
What looks apparent though is they are going for the picture prosecution without video.

even though the nip states it was videographic evidence

My ID is on the 23/08 this could be fun
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof)
<...> they are going for the picture prosecution without video.

I have no experience of Fife, however AFAIK, the video is not routinely produced in court by the prosecution. They just use a still off of it.
Prof
But how can they send you a Nip saying that they have videographic evidence if they dont use it in court?
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof)
But how can they send you a Nip saying that they have videographic evidence if they dont use it in court?
They probably do have it; but AFAIK, there's no requirement to actually use it.
All a NIP has to tell you is the time, place and nature of the offence. Anything else is basically irrelevent.
Prof
Just spoke to the deputy PF who was dealing with my case (as my ID is next week)

Asked her about videos, manual, precog the witnesses etc.

She explained that the case had been given to someone else to deal with as she was unsure if I could precognise the witnesses as I am defending myself. They are going to contact me (we will see)

Im fairly confident that they are now going to go down the line that they dont need to give me the video as they will rely on the photos. The first photo actually shows 4 vehicles in the frame (vehicle 1 and 4 being in front and behind me on different lanes). The cross hairs are pointing on the ground under the car!

How they can defend that photo I do not know but I am going to push for the video.

I may have to engage dr michael clark as my expert witness but still a bit stuck on how to contact him.

mmmmmmm...



QUOTE (kinell @ Wed, 9 Aug 2006 - 23:03) *
QUOTE (Prof @ Tue, 28 Mar 2006 - 14:43) *

Graeme

The place I think you are referring to is just befor the Cluny turnoff where the talivan sits on the old traffic police raised platform.

BR Prof


That will be the bit with the sign that says "Police Patrol Vehicles Only"? As this is a civilian vehicle, them being placed there is surely as illegal as you or I being placed there?


Interesting point, I cant remember if the fife talivan has a blue light or not. Its certainely a civilian driving the vehicle but I suppose they have a sanction from Fife Constabulary.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof)
I may have to engage dr michael clark as my expert witness but still a bit stuck on how to contact him.

You could try PMing blackdouglas.
However, I think Dr. Clark only operates via solicitors.
The problem with this sort of thing, in Scotland, is that there are no costs. So, even if you win, you still have to pay your solicitors' and experts' fees.
I would imagine that the total outlay would be a few thousand pounds.
Prof
Well, My ID is on wednesday morning and no reply/disclosure from the PF.

Im thinking about issuing a formal complaint to the PFs office on Tuesday afternoon and mentioning this at my ID.

Thing is there appears to be no complaint procedure against the PF office (Strange, they handle complaints against the police).

mmmmmm.
jeffreyarcher
There was quite a big article in the Glasgow Herald about a month back. It was concerning complaints from defence solicitors about the ongoing failures to disclose by the PFs (nothing to do with road traffic), despite ECHR and Scottish High Court judgements. They're angling for a change in the law, because PFs are just giving two fingers to these judgements, and to the Crown Office's practice directions.
Prof
Thanks Jeffrey, have tried searching for it and cannot find it. any links??
Prof
Off to my ID tomorrow, wish me luck!
Prof
Formal written complaint faxed to the pfs office tonight in regard to their lack of communication and professionalism......

lets see what happens tomorrow.
Percy Cution
Good luck and keep smiling like the guy in the Jag!
Prof
Well well well, what an interesting ID.



Turned up at Ned corner (just round from Chad valley and down the road from Jakey st)



Just before the 10am session started I was called into a small room by a female fiscal depute for a cosy little chat.



She first of all informed me that my complaint (lack of professional behaviour by the PF Office) was now being handled by the area PF himself.



We were there an hour going through my letters and points. Too be honest I could easily screw her over on this forum with some of the comments she made but will PM them to a faithful few .



She initially asked why I had no solicitor and I explained that I was saving my money for the appeal.



She said it might be better that these speeding machines are very technical. I replied that I was once a radio communications engineer (ironically I went for interview at Police HQ a few times for a Police Radio Techy- glad I never got the job though as I ended up in computing £$£$££).



She went through my initial list of disclosures, gave me a copy of my signed (under duress) S172 and told me that Im not entitled to the tape. I explained that under the CPA 1995, CJA 2003 and DPA section 35 that they didnt have a leg to stand on, this was my evidence, I am entitled to it. (I would say that half an hour was used on this subject alone.) They offered me a copy of my section and the pre and post checks. I refused explaining it had to be it all. They intimated that an expert may be able to get a copy but not me. I said "let Ma, Lady decide!" (Ma lady and Ma Lord is the term used for the beak in a sherriff court).



Civilian Operator arguement (those 6 questions) she said she would not answer them its up to my own solicitor to find the answers. My reply was that I could not find the answer to the last question and would challenge her in court when the civilian operator was in the stand over his competence and his ability to impersonate a policemen. (a matter for trial I was told)



The adjournment until after Halloran, she said it would be very unusual as there is existing case law to base this on but its a decision for ma lady.



Re the pre and post checks she muttered something about ballantyne vers ?? thats case law and states that the equipment doesnt need checked everytime its used (any help here would be appreciated)



She told me that the ACPO enforcement guide was a "confidential document" hehehehehe



Now the bombshell, I went on about precognising the witnesses, which she didnt object too (as I was an intelligent chap :-) and asked me if I had the witness list.



What witness list???



This one where another PC is on the witness list?



No, I say, who is this (no reply, I can only assume its the pc that delivered the witness statement and photos who will be there to do an ID check on me)?



I ask for his statement, she mumbles that Im not entitled to it. (Ballocks) I refer to CPA 1995. She stops me in mid flow and asks if we can reconvene in 1/2 hour. I tell her Im busy. She will get back to me.



Do I hear a large clanning sound somewhere?



Im ushered back into the court, where a string of chavs are up and down in the dock.



Im up, this is it, I have my documents in front of me ready to go great guns and demand the tape.



Ma Lady starts the conversation and confirms that I am representing myself and I am still pleading not guilty. She states that she cannot force me but suggests I get a solicitor for my trial then quickly moving on notes that I havent been given all my disclosure by the PF. Each time I try to open my mouth she carries onto the next sentance. I get my edge in, " Apologies that Im not ready Mam, This is due to the unprofessional behaviour of the PFs office" she carries on. New ID set for the 01/11 and new trial set for the 15/11. She asks if I understand and before I get the whole word Halloran out of my mouth she states that items for trial cant be discussed here. I acknowledge this, the clerk recites the dates and I am free to go.



Just got home and the deputy pf has left a message saying that she needs me to confirm what items are missing.



all in all a rather good morning. Ive recognised that my s172 debate isn’t really valid as the photo of mr smiley in the jag is soooooo me (with a moustache as well) and I was thanked for being so candid. So I am going to concentrate on the video disclosure, civilian operator and the technical use of the lti (will keep the s172 argument in the defence summary for the halloran decision).



Come on Halloran, we are all waiting for you now.



Moderators I have some key items that I dont want to publish on the bbgf that may be useful, who will I PM?
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof)
Thanks Jeffrey, have tried searching for it and cannot find it. any links??

Sorry, no. I read it in the paper.
ISTR that it was a Saturday. I don't know if it's still the case, but Saturday articles didn't used to be published on the web.
QUOTE (Prof)
CJA 2003

Isn't that England only?
QUOTE (Prof)
The adjournment until after Halloran, she said it would be very unusual as there is existing case law to base this on but its a decision for ma lady.

Although obviously not binding, the English High Court have refused to hear an appeal concerning S172 until the ECHR hears O'Halloran, Francis et others.
QUOTE (Prof)
Re the pre and post checks she muttered something about ballantyne vers ?? thats case law and states that the equipment doesnt need checked everytime its used (any help here would be appreciated)

If she means Valentine v McPhail (and Mackie v Scott), it says nothing of the kind. It refers merely to the fact that the prosecution in Scotland don't have to prove type approval.
QUOTE (Prof)
She told me that the ACPO enforcement guide was a "confidential document"

Nonesense; it's on the web.
QUOTE (Prof)
I ask for his statement, she mumbles that Im not entitled to it. (Ballocks) I refer to CPA 1995.

Alvin Lee Sinclair v Her Majesty's Advocate.
QUOTE (Prof)
Ive recognised that my s172 debate isn’t really valid as the photo of mr smiley in the jag is soooooo me and I was thanked for being so candid.

I guess you're screwed on O'Halloran, then. sad.gif
Prof
Cheers Jeffrey

I am more than sure now that they will go down the line that accepted case law (in scotland) says that they dont need to prove type approval, that the device doesnt need to be checked everytime it is setup or closed down.

This will need to be challenged technically so I better get my dusty books back out.

back to normality today.
Prof
Im getting to precognise the civilian camera operator (granted by the PF)

Is there anything I should particulary ask him?

Apart for questions relating to his parents marriage ;-)
Haddaway And Shite
What marriage.
Prof
The fight goes on.

Latest letter arrived today in response to some FOI questions. Some interesting answers below:

3: Copies of the service book for Camera LTI 20/20 UK Serial No: UK448138 and the associated Lastec Video System for the period of Jan 05 to Jan 06.

3A: There is no service book for the lti camera as the calibration certificates at the safety partnership website are the documentation in relation to the accuracy of the equipment. url address.

4: Details of any repairs or updates to Camera LTI 20/20 UK Serial No: UK448138 and the associated Lastec Video System for the period of Jan 05 to Jan 06.

4A: There were no repairs carried out on this equipment for this period

7: Can you confirm if the Home Office of ACPO have tested the LTI 20/20 against the effects of “slip” as part of the “prescribed tests”

7A: The equipment in question is deemed suitable for use by the calibration certificates referred to previousily above and that all other possible measures to ensure the equipments suitability have been carried out by the Home Office (OOHH OOOO, WHAT ABOUT SLIP TESTS THEN???)

In this respect you should contact the Home office for this information at the following address.

8: Documentation issued by the Home Office in respect to issues arising from the misuse of the LTI 20/20 Speedmeter.

8A: Please contact the Home Office as in the above answer.

9: The number of unsigned NIP/S172 forms returned within the last 12 months

9A: There is no legislative requirement to keep unsigned Nips/S172s forms as any forms which are returned to the Safety Unit unsigned are then followed up by the Parntership in order to determine the driver of the vehicle. Those individuals who consistently refuse to sing the NIP/S172 forms may ultimately face prosecution by the courts.

14: What was the rationale for siting the camera at this point?

14A: The decision in respect of where to site the Partnership mobile cameras within Fife are taken for Operational reasons (MY COMMENT, YOU MEAN MONETARY REASONS) in respect of road safety concens and agreed upon by the members of the Partnership. The Camera Unite follows the guidance and standards of the Scottish Camera Safety Programme.
--------------------------------------------------


More interesting ammo for me:

1: There is no service book for the camera (How can they corroborate that it works every day without issue?)
2: They will not confirm or deny they know about slip
3: Tey have not answered the question about receiving any circulars on the subject of slip from the home office
4: They will follow up on unsigned forms, confirming that it is the signature that proves yoru guilty (and therefore incriminating yourself. Which goes against what the Programme Manager of the Unit told me in writing right in the beginning- Oh Ill have fun with her on the witness stand)
5: Fife Partnership have no firm KSI figures for siting the vehicle at the A92 police raised platform. The decision is quite obviousily a monetary one.
Prof
REPORT FROM MY ID TODAY 01/11/06

Ok, went down to chad valley at Kirkcaldy once again.

Was held for the last case of the day, 3:45pm!!!!

No-one else was in the courtroom apart from the beak, the clerk and the PF.

I started the conversation off detailing that whilst there was significant progress, the PF had failed to provide me with an up to date productions sheet and a copy of the video.

I made the point of requesting the video under the criminal procedures act 1995, article 6 of the human rights act and section 35 of the dpa 1998 Act but to no avail.

The PF stood up and agreed there was protracted discussion about the tape but the Crown was going to insist that they do not give me a copy.

The Sherriff relayed this back to me, I asked if I could object and she said yes you can.

So I did. The Sherriff then stated it would be a case for trial (set for the 15th of November)

The PF also noted my production list to which they objected as items had been downloaded from the internet.
The Crown wants me to bring witnesses to each one of my productions, which include:

1: Pages 2,3 First Letter from Ms Karen MacKenzie, Programme Manager, FSCU
2: Pages 4,5 Second Letter from Ms Karen MacKenzie, Programme Manager, FSCU
3: Pages 6,7 LTI Calibration Certificate for Camera 448138
4: Pages 8,9 Letter from Chief Inspector Lumsden re Civilian Operator
5: Pages 10,11 Letter from Chief Inspector Swanston re Video Evidence
6: Pages 12,13,14 Letter from Allan Green re FOI requests
7: Page 15 Letter from RPET Committee/ACPO
8: Page 16 Copy of Alleged Incident and Signed Section 20 certificate for Photo
9: Pages 17,18 Copy of The Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1993
10: Pages 19,20,21 Copies of 3 Written Questions answered in Parliament (Hansard- 25/04/06)
11: Pages 22-26 BBC Website re Programme - Inside Out - South West: Monday February 28, 2005
12 Pages 27, 28 BBC Press Release "Slipping" speed cameras could lead to innocent drivers being fined”
13: Pages 29-37 Daily Mail Article on unreliability of the LTI/Teletraffic 20/20 Camera
14: Pages 38, 30 Mail on Sunday article on Civilian Operators and impending English Case
15: Page 40 Photos/Graphics of LTI 20/20’s Beam Pattern
16: Page 41 Copy of LTI Error Conditions

The following will also be submitted as productions:

17: Copy of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational use of Enforcement Equipment
19: Copy of the “Guidelines for the handling of video tape” from the Police Scientific Development Branch
20: Copy of the Scottish Safety Camera Programme, “Handbook of rules and guidance”



I asked the PF what productions they objected too, their answer was all of them!

I then pointed out that the base document for my defence was the ACPO code of practice which the camera operator recognised and confirmed that they use it. I would also be citing the safety manager. Both of these witnesses should cover off, 1,2,3, 8, 17, 19, 20

The paper articles will have too go.

Im ordering a full copy of hansard to give to the PF for that day

Im not sure who I can get too speak to the Prescribed Devices Act (Its Law, perhaps I should cite my MP??)

Anyway, the gist of it is that I am going to need to get some help on this one as the crown are being really dirty and not wanting to fight fair.

Any suggestions on how I start the trial on the 15th by requesting for an adjounment??

BR Prof
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Wed, 1 Nov 2006 - 16:54) *
Im not sure who I can get too speak to the Prescribed Devices Act (Its Law, perhaps I should cite my MP??)

No need, I don't think.
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46), section 279A(3), as amended by section 28(2) of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997.
(3) Any order by any of the departments of state or government or any local authority or public body made under powers conferred by any statute or a print or a copy of such an order, shall when produced in a prosecution be received as evidence of the due making, confirmation, and existence of the order without being sworn to by any witness and without any further or other proof.

QUOTE (Prof @ Wed, 1 Nov 2006 - 16:54) *
Anyway, the gist of it is that I am going to need to get some help on this one as the crown are being really dirty and not wanting to fight fair.

I doubt that anyone here has the level of expertise required. Scots law is full of techicalities to trip up the unrepresented accused.

QUOTE (Prof @ Wed, 1 Nov 2006 - 16:54) *
Any suggestions on how I start the trial on the 15th by requesting for an adjounment??

From what you have posted, the Sheriff has said that the issues that you raised are now for trial, i.e. you will have to make submissions on the points; therefore, he is not going to allow an adjournment before it starts.
The Rookie
How do you appeal in Scotland against the total refusal to let you see the evidence - perhaps you should protest the use of the photo's as being mere extracts (and a printed copy) from the original, and as such of no evidential battle!

Simon
Prof
"Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46), section 279A(3), as amended by section 28(2) of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997.
(3) Any order by any of the departments of state or government or any local authority or public body made under powers conferred by any statute or a print or a copy of such an order, shall when produced in a prosecution be received as evidence of the due making, confirmation, and existence of the order without being sworn to by any witness and without any further or other proof."

Thanks JA , I will staple this to the ever so efficient reply I got from Tony Williams, the House of Commons Information Office, who has just sent me a copy of hansards from the 25/04/06- amess/blears/speed cameras with a covering letter.

Surely the day of the trial I can call foul as I have not seen the video evidence? (In any shape or form)

BR Prof

Me thinks its time to speak to my solicitor
Prof
Response back fro Fife constabulary re my video (and is it still intact?)

I can confirm that the video recording you refer to is intact and in the possession of Fife Constabulary. However, as stated in out previous response, you must make a request for access to this tape via the PF.

In respect of the LTI Training /Operator Manuals I must refuse your request for access (I asked under the copyright law, section 45) . I do so on the grounds that law enforcement activity and health and safety of the public and the operators may be comprised.

------------

What you mean that defendents may have proper reasons to complain about the operators not forming prior opionon or handling the gun properly.

Do you ever get the feeling that they (Police and the CPS) know this is a big pile of fudge but are too frightened that it will come out into the public.

BR Prof
Prof
Response back fro Fife constabulary re my video (and is it still intact?)

I can confirm that the video recording you refer to is intact and in the possession of Fife Constabulary. However, as stated in out previous response, you must make a request for access to this tape via the PF.

In respect of the LTI Training /Operator Manuals I must refuse your request for access (I asked under the copyright law, section 45) . I do so on the grounds that law enforcement activity and health and safety of the public and the operators may be comprised.

------------

What you mean that defendents may have proper reasons to complain about the operators not forming prior opionon or handling the gun properly.

Do you ever get the feeling that they (Police and the CPS) know this is a big pile of fudge but are too frightened that it will come out into the public.

BR Prof
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Thu, 2 Nov 2006 - 13:18) *
I will staple this to the ever so efficient reply I got from Tony Williams, the House of Commons Information Office, who has just sent me a copy of hansards from the 25/04/06- amess/blears/speed cameras with a covering letter.

I doubt that S279A would apply to Hansard.
Prof
So I would have to call Hazel Blears MP as a witness to speak to her written answers?

mmmm

I take it that I would then also need to call someone from ACPO to speak to the Code of Practice Manual then??

confused, Prof
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Thu, 2 Nov 2006 - 21:17) *
So I would have to call Hazel Blears MP as a witness to speak to her written answers?

That's obviously preposterous; they're taking the piss. The problem is that they know that you probably don't know the answer. I think that the answer's probably in ss(1) and ss(2).
ss(1) says that an original would stand on its own.
Yours won't be an original, so I think that ss (2) is the answer, so it would have to be a certified copy, which I presume that yours isn't.

QUOTE (Prof @ Thu, 2 Nov 2006 - 21:17) *
I take it that I would then also need to call someone from ACPO to speak to the Code of Practice Manual then??

Unless we know the way round it, probably. I'm sure there is a procedural way round it, it's just that we don't know what it is.
The problem is that you're up against it time wise now. Had it not been for that, I think that you could have written to the PF and asked him to agree it, and if he wouldn't, what he disagreed with about it.
The other problem is, merely because you authenticate the ACPO gudelines, it proves nothing about their use in Scotland. You would also have to get something from the local constabulary to confirm that they used them.

Also, remember, AFAIK, if you get a witness, you are liable for their expenses.
Prof
JA

My precognition interview with the operator confirms he recognises the acpo cop as a document they use. I intend to use the crown witness plus my own (the unit manager) to confirm this.

Surely the certied copy of hansard (on house of commons headed paper) would be sufficent for the blears questions/answers.

I could also ask my MP to confirm it as well (good old gordon!)

BR Prod
Prof
Ive faxed the PF earlier today requesting a meeting early next week to discuss.

Prof
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Prof @ Thu, 2 Nov 2006 - 23:07) *
Surely the certied copy of hansard (on house of commons headed paper) would be sufficent for the blears questions/answers.

IMO, yes; sorry, I didn't realise that you had a certified copy.

QUOTE (jeffreyarcher @ Thu, 2 Nov 2006 - 21:50) *
Yours won't be an original, so I think that ss (2) is the answer, so it would have to be a certified copy, which I presume that yours isn't.
Prof
Sheriff Officers tell me that I can cite the camera manager (the one that told me filling in the nip is not an admission of guilt and who I will ened to speak to the calibration and acpo docs) will cost me £50 plus whatever cost expenses she has.

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)

BR Prof.
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.