QUOTE (desktop_demon @ Fri, 6 Feb 2009 - 16:10)

I would discount the flash from a speed camera being any sort of evidence as it is only type approved for receding traffic in automatic mode. If the use of the equipment does not satisfy the conditions to which the type approval is subject then it will be very difficult to introduce that as admissible evidence in a speeding charge. Or so the theory goes.... how did the occifers know that the camera was triggerred at "appoximately 67mph". I mean where did that number come from?
I'm having to guess as much as we all are to the degree that the details we have are being lifted from a Summary of Facts as opposed to the full version of the officer's witness statement. That having been said it is perfectly permissible, and indeed is integral to the compilation of a statement, that the officer reports what he sees, but, herein lies the danger. Two observations, it would seem, have been recorded in such a way as the inevitable impression formed in the mind of the reader is that the facts are connected when they may actually be entirely coincidental.
Whether the officer(s) have fallen victim to what may well be an unintentional conflation or have used the facts cynically is a matter that might only emerge in cross-examination. My inclination is to suggest that cynicism is abroad and that this has been used to "gild the lily" the more so if it transpires that it is being reported by experienced traffic officers. I very much doubt that the officers will attempt to introduce any evidence from the Gatso itself as, if my belief proves correct, the "stitching together" of the two observations will have far more value in terms of damaging the OP. This may well prove useful, if it can be linked with other examples of similar practice in the statements, in damaging the officers' credibility though this is always a rocky road to go down.
Again this is guesswork but one can imagine the wording in the statement itself going something like:
"...the subject vehicle continued ahead and I maintained a constant distance from it when I saw it being driven past the fixed Gatso camera at [location]. As it did so I saw the Gatso's flash activate and noted at that point that the speed recorded on the police vehicle speedometer was 67mph".
One is tempted to point out that if the police vehicle was being driven at 70mph to catch a vehicle allegedly being driven at 67mph then it would not have closed the gap very quickly. If the gap at the beginning was, say, 200yards then it would have taken the police vehicle very nearly 2.5 minutes to close that to nothing. That probably speaks for itself.