The story so far:

I was filmed by a scamera van doing an alleged 42 in a 30 on a Lastec20-20, and decided to go to court rather than pay the fixed penalty. I had a PTR in Maidenhead in June, where I outlined my defence. One of my points was that I needed to see the video from which the still was taken, to establish what effect other vehicles may have had.

In July, the CPS sent me a form asking if I wished their witness (the camera technician) to be present at the Trial. I sent it back saying yes, together with a letter requesting Disclosure of the video under the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996. No reply received.

2 weeks before the trial date, I sent the CPS a reminder letter, saying they had 7 days to get me the video. Still no reply.

5 days before the trial date, I telephoned the CPS office, and was told by a young lady "I've spoken to a lawyer, and there was no video, as the camera was a Gatso". Duh!!! So I emailed the Court office requesting an adjournment, enclosing copies of my letters to the CPS, and the reply came back that these issues have to be taken up in court.

So yesterday (28 September) I turn up at Reading, first case called, and it is immediately apparent that the camera technician is not present. CPS lady, a snotty-nosed tart in a pinstriped suit, starts reading the evidence of the offence and my signed S172. When asked for my plea, I say "Not Guilty, as there is no case to answer". I then explain to the Maj that I had filled in the form requesting the presence of the witness, and had requested Disclosure of the video. Clerk of Court takes copies of my correspondence and passes it to the bench. The CPS girl is then asked "what are the chances of getting the video and the witness to Court today?". She requests a 20 minute adjournment to telephone her office.

20 minutes later we all file back in, and the CPS girl says she is waiting for a call back from her office. The Maj Chairlady then says that the CPS had 3 months notice to prepare their case, and she wasn't going to adjourn any further - please proceed with what you have got. Crestfallen CPS prosecutor then declares that she can offer no evidence, case is dismissed, I ask about costs and am directed by the bench to send a claim to the court office using standard rates for mileage etc.

Thanks to all contributors to this forum for providing me with the knowledge of the legal points to fight this battle. Armed with the information gained, I was able to enjoy my day in Court spit-roasting the Prosecutor until the charred remains of her case fell into the fire - marvellous!!

It's a tonic to the ears.

WELL DONE

good result friend

interestingly,i had a similiar experience but a different result. i had asked for the witness to attend also, so i could question him. but the cps never asked him to come cos they had tried to decieve me into pleading guilty to 1 charge if they dropped another.

when i wouldnt plead guilty, they told the mags that the witness coukdnt attend, despite having 2 months notice of the date. i asked for the case to be heard or thrown out, but the mags, in their infinite wisdom, decided to adjourn the trial so that the cps could produce their witness.

when i asked them to give me a reason for their decision to adjourn, whilst reminding them that the cps had had 2 months to notify their star witness of the date, they couldnt come up with one.

talk about not getting a fair trial !

i think the cps man was pissed off with me, and he and the clerk made the mags mind up for them that they wanted me `done` !

anyway, just shows the differing results you can get from similiar circumstances. :?

the stupid mags aint got a clue !

Excellent

Great Result

The tide is turning

Sadly, I think they are going to get fed up with this and can you all see why I am so against people destroying speed cameras – doing so is most inconsiderate.

You mean it would spoil the fun

DW,

You may say that but I couldn’t possibly comment.

Fanatstic news bargepole, well done :!:

Don't they just "love it up 'em"

[quote="BritishBlue"][quote=bargepole]
Don't they just "love it up 'em" [/quote]

especially bargepoles.. congrats.

On a serious note, the flaw in the 20 20 , can it be fixed, or is it inherent.. ?

rgds

bill

Hi Bill,

There are two (at least) flaws in the 20:20.

1. How it is used by badly trained, civilian operators using it in a way which is outside of the terms in its type approval and case law on the use of actively opperated speed measuring devices.

2. An inherant inaccuracy caused by the fact that it is really a distance measuring device and depends on a series of measurements over measured time. If the operator could hold the thing still on exactly the same reflective surface of the vehicle for half a second or so the errors would be much reduced. But they can't especially at the distances they are using them and the reflected light is bounced back from different reflective surfaces. Since the device is measuring distance and calculates the distance travelled over a very short period of time any movement between surfaces at different distances leads to significant errors. The devices software is supposed to used a least squares statistical calculation to remove these errors but the actual calculation used is not published anywhere and I suspect that the confidence levels are set wider on this than they would like to have to admit.

In the famous case in the States where someone in the defence team picked up a LTI 202:20 and pointed it at a wall. They were able to generate a 4 MPH reading by moving the thing a few inches. Now imagine moving it between a number plate and the windscreen while you have the thing moving about on a tripod.

Best wishes

Bob

Interestingly, I've kinda got a working prototype of somthing that can completely kill an LTI 20-20.

Now I MUST STRESS it was built for a completely different use (actually, it's an audio processing device) BUT, after I heard about the LTI 20-20 detection methods I had a quick play with some IR gear.

Not tested yet (or built at the moment 'cause it had to be used for it's original purpose) but it should be abble to cause an error on the device (and NOT a JAM).

Can of worms and a hefty fine anyone?

Mika already has something that completely kills 20 20's;

Its called the judicial process! (eventually)

Plus you stand a chance of getting paid, sorry compensated, for your trouble.

Peteturbo

I'd not actually bother using it ever - I just don't go with things like that.

But If I said I could probably make em for about £20 a throw..... I find it interesting that the LTI 20-20 it technalogicly so easy to beat.

I think you should make me some so I can get them tested for effectiveness - purely for intellectual purposes of course...

Sean

Sorry, only just seen this.

This bit bothers me somewhat:

Is that allowed? Surely if the video and witness are not there at the prescribed time of the hearing then they have blown their chance. Was the maj legally correct to offer them the chance to produce the witness/video? Seems strange to me. If YOU had not been there at the right time you would have been convicted, end of.

It goes to show that little is sacred when it comes to trying to secure a conviction. How could a defendant construct a case based on this level incompetence?

This is a fine example of why some people in the trade call the Magistrates court 'Mickey Mouse'.

This must be total incompetence as there are no videos from a Gatso.

You were asking for something that didn't exist.  That goes for the vid and the technisian as these are unattended devices.

You seem to have been very lucky to have met a couple of idiots or parhaps I have missed something!

I think you missed the bit where it said that the offence was detected by a 20/20 and operator.

Gareth

An LTi 20/20 isn't a Gatso  :roll: