Hi.
today i went to court again for a pre trial hearing ( this is the third time for this pre trial hearing )
much to my disgust yet again the prosecution failed to supply the paperwork we requested ie:
questions we are asking,

1, what sort of check was this ?
2, was there a GSM mobile device in the car ?
2b, if so was this device on or off ?
3, did he have a TETRA radio in this vehicle ?
3b, was this turned on or off ?
4, what was being transmitted over this radio at the time of the check?
5, did the officer do a caliburation check after the alleged offence ?
6, can we have a copy of the officers certificate of competence ?

Yet again none of the above was forthcoming.
Then to my surprise the judge said he couldnt understand why i was pleading not guilty !
When we asked for a further adjournment to obtain the above his response was "i dont understand why this paperwork will make any difference as ACPO GUIDELINES are only guidelines after all"
he then give us a 14 day adjournment to instruct a expert witness
so can anyone answer my question please
IF THESE ARE ONLY GUIDELINES DO THEY HAVE TO BE ADHERED TOO?

many thanks
peteats

Simple answer - NO - however keep trying. All it will do if they are non compliant is not allow them to net off the profits they make from Scamera activity. You have the possibility of claiming an "abuse of process" if you have attended court on 3 occasions and the CPS did not provide satisfactory disclosure (evidence). Do you have a solicitor or are you a LIP (Litigant in Person) ? Your solicitor should have stuffed the CPS at the third hearing.

Rgds
Zapata

Rgds
Zapata

They are NOT guidelines, they are a code of practice or a set of operational standards. Try reading the foreward, -

Foreword
The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 required the Home Office Type Approval of evidential radar speed meters. The Road Traffic Act 1991 expanded this provision to allow for the type approval of other devices used in the enforcement of road traffic law.
While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.
The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.
These standards are in your hands.
R Brunstrom
Chief Constable
North Wales Police
Head of ACPO Road Policing Business Area

And yes they should be adhered to.

However they are NOT adhered to and trying to convince a Magistrates court that they should be, is like trying to shovel fog into a tidy heap.

We do need a little more information though.

What exactly are you relying on as a defence here?

many thanks for your quick response,
i will keep trying
i have a solicitor and intend giving her a ring tomorrow
i am somewhat confused .....
if they are guidelines and they dont have to act within them....why have them?

peteats

Nothing to add other than that I agree they should be adhered to. But time and time again the 'guidelines are just guidelines' comment is conveniently spouted, when it suits their purposes, it seems.

It would be interesting to know exactly how much of the ACPO Code of Practice can be blindly disregarded - perhaps the Magistrate would care to elaborate at some point..

One web definition of 'Code of Practice' reads:

'Most Trade Associations operate Codes of Practice which are tailor-made to deal with the common problems of the trade. The disadvantage is that there are no direct methods of enforcement.'

The last sentence says it all, really..

And yes they should be adhered to.

However they are NOT adhered to and trying to convince a Magistrates court that they should be, is like trying to shovel fog into a tidy heap.

We do need a little more information though.

What exactly are you relying on as a defence here?
[/quote]

many thanks for your reply
here is a brief outline :
i was stopped for allegedly speeding in my chrysler grand voyager (people carrier),with 6 passengers onboard. The police officer was using a police pilot fitted to his marked police car.It was raining (and had been raining on and off all day)Traffic was medium.It was 1924 on a april evening.
His first marker was a " ARROWHEAD ON THE ROAD SURFACE" his second reference point was " A DAMP PATCH ON ROAD SURFACE" ( IN THE RAIN )he alledged my speed was 90.27 MPH. The time taken was 25.76 over .646 miles
He issued his fixed penalty notice ( endorsable offence ) and we parted company .
The summons duly arrived and a not guilty plea was summitted .


My defence is:
That the only arrowhead on this road ,is within the count down markers for a major roundabout . the damp patch could have been anywhere as i cannot clarify where it was at the time!The police officer then claimed i slowed from 90.27MPH to 70MPH and then pulled back into a line of traffic! This means that line of traffic must have ALL hit the roundabout at 70 MPH.
I then receive the prosecution statements and i quote from the officers statement
" i have received training in the operation of the police pilot speed detection devise fitted to patrol vehicles.The training took place in or around 1989 and was by way of a 1 week course.The trainer was police sergeant ___________,( since retired )and was a pass or fail course and no certificate were issued on completion of the course."
They can supply no varification that the section 19.2 of the acpo guidelines have been adhered to .

I have tried to take this roundabout in a car at 50 and it is not possible ...apart from early hours when there is no traffic to restrict lane swapping!!!!
so my defence is : how do i know he can even operate this equipment properly? and he has not undergone any sort of training at all since in or around 1989
i am only going by the acpo guidelines .It just seems a shame that they dont !!!!!!