Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Requested evidence not received
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
martinj66
Hi,
My daughter (aged 17 and been driving since Aug 2010) has been sent a summons to appear in court for the alledged offence of driving at 84 mph in a temporary speed limit of 50mph. I have also received a summons to attend due to her age. This was imposed due to ongoing roadworks.
The date of the offence was 28/12/2010. The NIP arrived on the 7th Jan 2011, dated 5th Jan. She replied under s172 and confirmed that she was driving the vehicle. The summons arrived on the 10th Feb 2011, including the police officers statement (see below) and several pages relating to the HIghways Dept and the validity of the reduced speed limit.
She was not stopped on the date of alledged offence and is adamant that she was not driving at 84mph or indeed anything much more than 50mph. The officers staement is consists of 2 pre-printed pages with various bits crossed out or circled and was signed and dated on the 29th Dec 2010 (the day after).
I/She have written to the CPS requesting their evidence to support their proposed prosecution (copying in both the Norfolk Constabulary and the Magistrates court) these letters were sent by recorded mail and received by all three on the 23rd Feb 2011.
The letter was this........

Dear Sir/s,
I confirm receipt of the Summons issued to me to attend Norwich Magistrates Court at xxxxxam on the 15th March 2011. I also confirm that I will attend and bring with me a completed ‘Statement of Financial Circumstances’.
With reference to the above prosecution, and the decision of the Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary to pursue this matter in Court, then I respectfully request the following information, as is my right for the preparation for my defence in a court of law. My requests include information that should have been recorded as per the recommendations of the Association of Police Officers (ACPO) and the Home Office.

Under the provisions of the Criminal and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA), you are obliged to supply the information listed below as ‘primary disclosure’ of evidence prior to a plea being made at a Court of Law.

1. A copy of the Certificate of Competence for the use of the Kustom Prolaser for PC xxxx xxxx as required by ACPO, and the Home Office, to use this type of equipment.
1(a). Copy certificate and/or evidence that PC xxxx xxxxx was a member of a Road Policing Unit on the date of the alleged offence as per Norfolk Constabulary Policy Statements for Specialist Operations.
2. A copy of the video and/ or ALL pictures of the alleged offence for independent analysis.
3. The type of radio transmitters / receivers used by the Norfolk Police in the course of their duties. (Type of signal)
4. A copy of the Dynamic Risk Assessment performed by PC 1xxxx xxxxx on the date of the alleged offence, based on the Forces Vehicle Patrol Duties risk assessment as required under Norfolk Constabulary Policy Statements for Specialist Operations, which must be carried out prior to the commencement of a speed detection check.
5. A copy of the Annual Calibration Certificate issued by the manufacturer or his appointed agent, for the Kustom Prolaser, Serial No PLxxxxx. As stated in ACPO Section 5 sub sections 8.1 & 8.2 which should be available for inspection by the Home Office.
6. A copy of the notes of PC xxxx xxxxxx, stating that the correct calibration of the equipment was conducted both before and after operation at the site in question. ACPO Section 9, sub section 9.1.
7. A copy of the operators notes stating how many various sites on the day for the purpose of obtaining speeding evidence.
8. A copy of the operators notes stating the number of the Police Officer and the unit number of the Police Vehicle with a Certified Calibrated Speedometer at the commencement and completion at each site.
9. The name and number of the Police Officer and the Patrol Car used for to check the calibration of the Kustom Prolaser on the alleged offence date, both before and after operation at this site. ACPO Section 9, sub section 9.1 Also, ACPO Section 12 sub section 12 i.
10. A copy of the Certified Calibration Certificate for the speedometer of the Police Vehicle used to check the equipment at this site. ACPO Section 9, subsection 9.1



The scheduled Court date at Norwich Magistrates Court is the 15th March 2011. Therefore, I require ALL the information listed above no less than 7 days prior to the court date as stated by the Crown Prosecution Service CPIA 1996, to prepare my defence, and to allow time for independent evaluation of the evidence.

I thank you for your co-operation




Yours faithfully

We have received 2 letters so far, the first on the 25th Feb confirming receipt of our letter and that it was being forwarded to the Head of Criminal Justice, and a second letter on the 3rd March from the HEad of the CJS/CPS stating he was dealing with the request. So far (today 9th March 4pm) no evidence has been supplied. I have called the Magistrates Court to request an adjournment and been asked to call the CPS and also write to the Magistrates Court which I am about to do now.

My question is this...

Q - If the CPS/Court does not agree to an adjournment what should we do if we attend on the 15th March (evidence of course may arrive between now and then!).

PS She has not entered any plea so far. We have requested that the officer attend court to present his evidence.

Your help is much appreciated
Gan
This is probably a plea hearing.

Your daughter isn't entitled to any evidence until she's pleaded Not Guilty.
peterguk
What he says ^^.

Once a not guilty plea is entered in court, copy of the evidence the prosecution will rely on will be sent to you.

You can't say "let's see what you've got on me, then i'll decide guilty or not guilty". You'll be unlikely to get most of what you've requested in any case, since "fishing trips" are not permitted, however questions on evidence can be anawered once your daughter has entered her plea.

Bear in mind, the device used will be assumed to be operated and working correctly, unless you prove otherwise. Furthermore, if asked what speed she thinks she was doing, and she answers a speed in excess of 50mph, then she's guilty.
AntonyMMM
QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
1. A copy of the Certificate of Competence for the use of the Kustom Prolaser for PC xxxx xxxx as required by ACPO, and the Home Office, to use this type of equipment.
1(a). Copy certificate and/or evidence that PC xxxx xxxxx was a member of a Road Policing Unit on the date of the alleged offence as per Norfolk Constabulary Policy Statements for Specialist Operations.
2. A copy of the video and/ or ALL pictures of the alleged offence for independent analysis.
3. The type of radio transmitters / receivers used by the Norfolk Police in the course of their duties. (Type of signal)
4. A copy of the Dynamic Risk Assessment performed by PC 1xxxx xxxxx on the date of the alleged offence, based on the Forces Vehicle Patrol Duties risk assessment as required under Norfolk Constabulary Policy Statements for Specialist Operations, which must be carried out prior to the commencement of a speed detection check.
5. A copy of the Annual Calibration Certificate issued by the manufacturer or his appointed agent, for the Kustom Prolaser, Serial No PLxxxxx. As stated in ACPO Section 5 sub sections 8.1 & 8.2 which should be available for inspection by the Home Office.
6. A copy of the notes of PC xxxx xxxxxx, stating that the correct calibration of the equipment was conducted both before and after operation at the site in question. ACPO Section 9, sub section 9.1.
7. A copy of the operators notes stating how many various sites on the day for the purpose of obtaining speeding evidence.
8. A copy of the operators notes stating the number of the Police Officer and the unit number of the Police Vehicle with a Certified Calibrated Speedometer at the commencement and completion at each site.
9. The name and number of the Police Officer and the Patrol Car used for to check the calibration of the Kustom Prolaser on the alleged offence date, both before and after operation at this site. ACPO Section 9, sub section 9.1 Also, ACPO Section 12 sub section 12 i.
10. A copy of the Certified Calibration Certificate for the speedometer of the Police Vehicle used to check the equipment at this site. ACPO Section 9, subsection 9.1


Trying to embark on a fishing expedition like that is not going to get you very far , apart from giving the CPS a good laugh....

attend court, enter the Not Guily plea (if that's what she believes) and see what evidence is then disclosed to you.
baggins1234
QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
Under the provisions of the Criminal and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA), you are obliged to supply the information listed below as ‘primary disclosure’ of evidence prior to a plea being made at a Court of Law.

1. A copy of the Certificate of Competence for the use of the Kustom Prolaser for PC xxxx xxxx as required by ACPO, and the Home Office, to use this type of equipment.
1(a). Copy certificate and/or evidence that PC xxxx xxxxx was a member of a Road Policing Unit on the date of the alleged offence as per Norfolk Constabulary Policy Statements for Specialist Operations.
2. A copy of the video and/ or ALL pictures of the alleged offence for independent analysis.
3. The type of radio transmitters / receivers used by the Norfolk Police in the course of their duties. (Type of signal)
4. A copy of the Dynamic Risk Assessment performed by PC 1xxxx xxxxx on the date of the alleged offence, based on the Forces Vehicle Patrol Duties risk assessment as required under Norfolk Constabulary Policy Statements for Specialist Operations, which must be carried out prior to the commencement of a speed detection check.
5. A copy of the Annual Calibration Certificate issued by the manufacturer or his appointed agent, for the Kustom Prolaser, Serial No PLxxxxx. As stated in ACPO Section 5 sub sections 8.1 & 8.2 which should be available for inspection by the Home Office.
6. A copy of the notes of PC xxxx xxxxxx, stating that the correct calibration of the equipment was conducted both before and after operation at the site in question. ACPO Section 9, sub section 9.1.
7. A copy of the operators notes stating how many various sites on the day for the purpose of obtaining speeding evidence.
8. A copy of the operators notes stating the number of the Police Officer and the unit number of the Police Vehicle with a Certified Calibrated Speedometer at the commencement and completion at each site.
9. The name and number of the Police Officer and the Patrol Car used for to check the calibration of the Kustom Prolaser on the alleged offence date, both before and after operation at this site. ACPO Section 9, sub section 9.1 Also, ACPO Section 12 sub section 12 i.
10. A copy of the Certified Calibration Certificate for the speedometer of the Police Vehicle used to check the equipment at this site. ACPO Section 9, subsection 9.1


1 and 1a are valid points and perfectly valid requests.
2. Prolaser 3 is not normallly linked to a video but its not to say it wasnt on the day in question. Some forces do, some dont
3. Valid request
4. By all means ask but this wont bar any prosecution if its not forthcoming. The PC will say its safe for him to be there or he wouldnt be there!
5. Valid request
6. Its not callibrated each day or each usage. Its "checked" in two ways which are scope alignment test and distance confidence check
7. By all means ask, whether they tell you is another matter
8. Irrelevant. There is NO NEED for the car to have a callibrated speedometer (although nearly all traffic cars do have them) Any checks done on the prolaser (see my answer to 6) are independant of the traffic car
9. I am assuming you have been reading the 2004 ACPO guidelines? If this is the case then you may wish to re read Section 9 of the 2004 ACPO guidelines again as this refers to radar.. Prolaser...well as the name suggests, is a laser. S13 of the 2004 Guidelines will assist you. ACPO guidelines are currently withdrawn pending re writing. In any case there is no need for a traffic car to be driven through to test the prolaser.
10. See 9 above

In a nutshell you have a few valid basic queries which will in all probability come back as a done deal i.e. the device was being used properly and correctly.
Your other requests unfortunately relate to the wrong equipment which they will undoubtedly tell you in any reply?

Is there any reason you have been "also received a summons to attend due to her age? Your daughter is a full licence holder and I cant see why you have been asked to go too?

Follow Antony's advice....plead not guilty and see what happens but I fear you may be disappointed. But good luck anyway
martinj66
Thanks Guys,

We will atend next Tuesday and enter a plea of not guilty. The reason for asking for so much was to see what had occured. We have doubts (serious ones) that it was impossible for the officer to take a speed reading after forming on opinion of excess speed at the site. There is a bend in the road which also goes a ver a crest, having stood in the position the officer was (from daughter's memory) he can only see the number plates of approaching vehicles for around 700 feet, so if he measured the speed at 84 mph at 270.6 units (presumably feet) he therefore must have.....

1) Created his opinion of excessive speed
2) raised the device, found and locked onto the number plate
3) Taken the required 2 readings (minimum)

All in 3.48 seconds (84 mph = 123.2 fett per second : 700-270.6=429.4/123.2=3.48seconds) I spoke to a friendly PC who says this is highly unlikely as it takes a few seconds to lock on with the Pro Laser device, by which time the target vehicle would have passed the officer! We are propsing a defence based on 'entrapment' or 'indiscriminate targeting' as this seems the only way to obtain the reading he states.

Point of note - The law is so wrong, how can it be that you can be convicted of speeding on so called evidence that consists of 'an officers opinion supported by corroborating evidence from a device, surely is still his opinion to what the device stated the speed to be, is this not still just his opinion. The device is hadly likely to turn up in court and speak for itself is it. If there is no recording/photo/print out etc WHERE IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE???. I am not a lawyer but it just seems wrong. You would think in these cases it would just be your word against your local constabulary's and why should any Magistrate believe the police officer's word over anyones elses. Makes my blood boil!!!!

Thanks again.
peterguk
QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 17:05) *
We are propsing a defence based on 'entrapment' or 'indiscriminate targeting'


Entrapment does not exist in UK law.

To prove indiscriminate targeting, you'd need to gain a copy of the full session video, which, if it exists, you are highly unlikely to ever see.

I fear your chances of success are very, very small.
baggins1234
QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 17:05) *
Thanks Guys,

We will atend next Tuesday and enter a plea of not guilty. The reason for asking for so much was to see what had occured. We have doubts (serious ones) that it was impossible for the officer to take a speed reading after forming on opinion of excess speed at the site. There is a bend in the road which also goes a ver a crest, having stood in the position the officer was (from daughter's memory) he can only see the number plates of approaching vehicles for around 700 feet, so if he measured the speed at 84 mph at 270.6 units (presumably feet) he therefore must have.....

1) Created his opinion of excessive speed
2) raised the device, found and locked onto the number plate
3) Taken the required 2 readings (minimum)

All in 3.48 seconds (84 mph = 123.2 fett per second : 700-270.6=429.4/123.2=3.48seconds) I spoke to a friendly PC who says this is highly unlikely as it takes a few seconds to lock on with the Pro Laser device, by which time the target vehicle would have passed the officer! We are propsing a defence based on 'entrapment' or 'indiscriminate targeting' as this seems the only way to obtain the reading he states.

Point of note - The law is so wrong, how can it be that you can be convicted of speeding on so called evidence that consists of 'an officers opinion supported by corroborating evidence from a device, surely is still his opinion to what the device stated the speed to be, is this not still just his opinion. The device is hadly likely to turn up in court and speak for itself is it. If there is no recording/photo/print out etc WHERE IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE???. I am not a lawyer but it just seems wrong. You would think in these cases it would just be your word against your local constabulary's and why should any Magistrate believe the police officer's word over anyones elses. Makes my blood boil!!!!

Thanks again.


Sorry to say this but I dont know where you are getting your information from but I fear it is flawed.

1. You dont need two readings
2. PL3 locks on in less than a second
3. How do you see this as entrapment?
4. How you see the evidential argument is up to you but like it or not one officers opinion corroborated by the PL3 will see a conviction reuslt in all probability.

You may be better advised to wait and see what evidence is presented and if that complies with all your queries you have raised, to concentrate on damage limitation as the allgeded speed is so high
Logician
QUOTE
Is there any reason you have been "also received a summons to attend due to her age? Your daughter is a full licence holder and I cant see why you have been asked to go too?

Presumably a Youth Court procedure, as she is under 18.

Martinj66, I am not saying this is the case, but just pointing out that sometimes we find in such cases that the driver is pleading innocence because they are too embarassed to admit their real speed. I suggest you tell her you will not be cross if this is the case, but really it would be better for her to admit it before the whole thing goes too far.

I trust you appreciate that the ACPO guidelines are only guidelines, and do not have to be followed. A breach on its own will not help, you have to show in addition that it is likely to have given a false reading or made the measured speed unreliable.

There is another point to think about, 84 in a 50 is likely to lead to a disqualification. Argue that speed down to below 76 but above 50 and she will get 3 to 6 points. 6 or more points in her first two years after passing her test will result in her licence being revoked by the DVLA under the New Drivers Act and she will have to get a new provisional licence and re-take her test. A disqualification on the hand will, in defiance of all logic, not trigger the New Drivers Act at all, although it will not help her insurance premiums.
desktop_demon
QUOTE
Your daughter isn't entitled to any evidence until she's pleaded Not Guilty.


but see this sticky above: advance disclosure rules

Under current regulations, the defendant should have at least a summary of the evidence (if not the evidence itself) on or before the day of the first hearing. There is no need to enter any plea to get the basic requirement. Time for the CPS to wake up to this requirement. And for the members here to advise accordingly.

EDIT:
QUOTE
but really it would be better for her to admit it before the whole thing goes too far.


Of course, the advice given above would be correct only if the accused actually committed the alleged offence. That is not yet evident.
V70pilot
Just a couple of points re your post at 17:05

1) The Officer does not need to be able see the numberplate to form an opinion that a vehicle is speeding. The numberplate simply provides the best 'target area' for the laser device. The vast majority of cars have the numberplate fitted centrally at about bumper height so simply aiming the laser at the front of the car will usually suffice.

2) There is no legal requirement for that opinion to be formed before checking the speed...The opinion can be formed at any time before or during the check. There is also no reason why the Officer cannot be watching traffic through the targetting appature of a ready raised device.

3) There is no legal requirement to take two readings....The device emits a series of infa red pulses of light and times the reflected infa red light received back at the device. It does this numerous times per second and will only give a reading once a number of successive results give the same reading. It can take as little as 1/3 second to 'lock on' with a reading of speed
martinj66
Thanks Logician and all,

My daughter is adamant she was not travelling at 84mph or anything close to it. She is prepared for the worse outcome however not going to give in easily, will fight for the family regardless.

Could someone clarify what is meant by......

"A disqualification on the hand will, in defiance of all logic, not trigger the New Drivers Act at all, although it will not help her insurance premiums"

The summons does not say Youth Court just Norwich Magistrates Court.
V70pilot
Desktop Demon tells you that you are entitled to a summary of the evidence, but since you already have copies of the Officers statements, I would suggest that is more than just a summary
Logician
QUOTE (desktop_demon @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 17:23) *
QUOTE
but really it would be better for her to admit it before the whole thing goes too far.


Of course, the advice given above would be correct only if the accused actually committed the alleged offence. That is not yet evident.

Of course, which is why I wrote "if this is the case"

QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 17:33) *
Thanks Logician and all,

My daughter is adamant she was not travelling at 84mph or anything close to it. She is prepared for the worse outcome however not going to give in easily, will fight for the family regardless.

Could someone clarify what is meant by......

"A disqualification on the hand will, in defiance of all logic, not trigger the New Drivers Act at all, although it will not help her insurance premiums"

The summons does not say Youth Court just Norwich Magistrates Court.


OK

Her licence will not be revoked if she is disqualified from driving for a period, but it will be if she gets 6 or more points in the first two years after her test. Because of this we sometimes see people here intending to ask the court to disqualify them to avoid revocation, however courts are advised not to do that.

If she is under 18, AFAIK she will have to be dealt with by Youth Court magistrates. Procedures are slightly different.
desktop_demon
QUOTE
2) There is no legal requirement for that opinion to be formed before checking the speed...The opinion can be formed at any time before or during the check. There is also no reason why the Officer cannot be watching traffic through the targetting appature of a ready raised device.


While the gist of the above statement is true (or generally held to be so) the case must be judged on the facts. The High Court has delivered comment (obiter) on the use of a Laser device and specifically commented on viewing cars via the targeting scope of a ready raised device. In the appeal of Colin Montgomerie, such action by the operator of the laser device was one reason given by the court for the conviction being quashed.

Details n demons, eh!?
martinj66
Thank you for your reply re disqualification

In respect to the Youth Court issue, I have had a look around and can only find the following (not sure where to look really!) Obviously I am not being accused of joint speeding with my daughter so should she be seen in a youth court, there is no mention of this on the summons.
If so what is the difference in the outcome/sentancing if any? (she is 18 in the middle of May by the way)

3. SUMMARY ONLY OFFENCES
These are offences which can only be tried in the Magistrates Court e.g. drunk and disorderly, most driving offences, minor public order offences and harassment.
The Youth Court
• Youth Court is a different jurisdiction.
• Offences will remain in the Youth Court if the defendant is under 18 unless they are Grave Crimes – punishable by 14 years or more in the case of an adult. The Youth Court can decline jurisdiction for a Grave Crime.
• N.B. if a youth is charged jointly with an adult the case commences in the Magistrates Court in the usual way. The adult will determine jurisdiction throughout the trial process until sentencing when the case MAY be remitted to the Youth Court.

Thanks Again

Martinj66
Logician
The youth Court is a specialised form of magaistrates' court and sits in the same building. It has a less formal procedure, for instance she would be addressed by her first name. I think you are being asked to attend as having parental responsibility for your daughter, clearly you are not being jointly charged. However, I am certainly no expert on youth courts.
mashman36
The Desk top Demon talks sense ;
But you have to go not guilty to get anything at all then you will be accused of going on a fishing expo which is complete bovin fertilser;you have a right to know the whats and whys ;but talking first hand the cps will do very little to give any of this .You are looking at the tantamount effect of the abuse of due process ;just chuck that in at the pretrial hereing when the cps accuse you of the fishing expo !A shot over the bow of the cps ship makes then sit up and shows you aint taking this lying down.
Too quick to convict ;guilty till proven otherwise.
picko
Also check on the rule relating to your ability to speak for her as I am guessing you will probably want to or at least assist. To others: What's the protocol for the OP to be a "McKenzie friend"
peterguk
QUOTE (picko @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 22:50) *
What's the protocol for the OP to be a "McKenzie friend"


Announce your intention to the usher on arrival. Ask clerk (polite formality) on entering court. Although not meant to, some clerks/mags will allow you to address the court to save an hour of 3rd hand whispering.
Pancras
QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
1. A copy of the Certificate of Competence for the use of the Kustom Prolaser for PC xxxx xxxx as required by ACPO, and the Home Office, to use this type of equipment.

Fair request.

QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
1(a). Copy certificate and/or evidence that PC xxxx xxxxx was a member of a Road Policing Unit on the date of the alleged offence as per Norfolk Constabulary Policy Statements for Specialist Operations.

Flawed request. While the officer in question almost certainly was on the RPU, this is of no consequence IF the officer has the certificate of competence as required in (1), that is all the court will require.

QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
2. A copy of the video and/ or ALL pictures of the alleged offence for independent analysis.

Fair request, however bear in mind that there may be no photographs and a lack of them will not cause the prosecution to fail on it's own.

QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
3. The type of radio transmitters / receivers used by the Norfolk Police in the course of their duties. (Type of signal)

A daft question, because every police force in Great Britain uses the same system - "Airwave" - a terrestrial trunked radio system. A better question would have been that the officer had his airwave radio set to "TX Inhibit" mode at the time of the enforcement.

QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
4. A copy of the Dynamic Risk Assessment performed by PC 1xxxx xxxxx on the date of the alleged offence, based on the Forces Vehicle Patrol Duties risk assessment as required under Norfolk Constabulary Policy Statements for Specialist Operations, which must be carried out prior to the commencement of a speed detection check.

Of no relevance to the outcome of your daughters case. The police need not prove to the court that they have done anything other than to establish that your daughter was speeding.

QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
5. A copy of the Annual Calibration Certificate issued by the manufacturer or his appointed agent, for the Kustom Prolaser, Serial No PLxxxxx. As stated in ACPO Section 5 sub sections 8.1 & 8.2 which should be available for inspection by the Home Office.

Fair question

QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
6. A copy of the notes of PC xxxx xxxxxx, stating that the correct calibration of the equipment was conducted both before and after operation at the site in question. ACPO Section 9, sub section 9.1.

Fair question

QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
7. A copy of the operators notes stating how many various sites on the day for the purpose of obtaining speeding evidence.

I don't understand this question. Are you asking where else had the operator conducted speed checks? If so I am not sure what relevance the question is, because all that needs to be proved is your daughter's speed.

QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
8. A copy of the operators notes stating the number of the Police Officer and the unit number of the Police Vehicle with a Certified Calibrated Speedometer at the commencement and completion at each site.

Again of no relevance. Your daughter was alleged to have been speeding with a laser gun, therefore the calibration of the speedometer on the vehicle and the vehicle's "unit number" is of no consequence.

QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
9. The name and number of the Police Officer and the Patrol Car used for to check the calibration of the Kustom Prolaser on the alleged offence date, both before and after operation at this site. ACPO Section 9, sub section 9.1 Also, ACPO Section 12 sub section 12 i.

No cross check with a patrol car is required. The ACPO guidelines are expired/withdrawn, and therefore this is of no relevance
QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 16:11) *
10. A copy of the Certified Calibration Certificate for the speedometer of the Police Vehicle used to check the equipment at this site. ACPO Section 9, subsection 9.1

See above.

martinj66
Thanks for your constructive comments so far,

Spoke to the Courts and CPS today who have confirmed that the case will be heard by the Youth Court as you all suggested.

Proposing to attend and enter a NOT guity plea, gain whatever evidence we can and then review the position.

If I may return to the issue of indiscriminate targeting, is this line worth exploring by questioning the officer in court about his actual actions on the day in regards to how he conducted the speed test. His statement says he "estimated the speed of the offender's vehicle to be excess of 50 MPH" he then conducted a speed check using the KP3 etc etc. If he 'estimated the speed' prior to using the device he did it BL**DY quickly as the vehicle would have passed him with a few seconds after coming into his sight.

Just trying to plan ahead, any guidance would be welcome

Thanks
CuriousOrange
If someone throws you a ball, you do a lot of mental mechanics pretty bloody quickly to catch it.

Watching an empty road for a while, if a car finally appears then it can be quite tricky to judge whether it's exceeding 50 mph or not.

Watching a road with car after car doing 50 mph, then even if there's a bit of a lull beforehand a car doing even a few mph over will be recognised as going faster within a fraction of a second. It's the way we're wired.

If the car was travelling in excess of 80 mph, as alleged, it would be recognised as exceeding the limit even more readily.
Logician
I suspect the reaction to that in a magistrats' court would be along the lines of "So what? Her speed was still measured at 84mph" and if you question the officer he will agree that his experience enables him to carry out these checks very quickly.
Pancras
QUOTE (martinj66 @ Thu, 10 Mar 2011 - 10:16) *
If I may return to the issue of indiscriminate targeting, is this line worth exploring by questioning the officer in court about his actual actions on the day in regards to how he conducted the speed test. His statement says he "estimated the speed of the offender's vehicle to be excess of 50 MPH" he then conducted a speed check using the KP3 etc etc. If he 'estimated the speed' prior to using the device he did it BL**DY quickly as the vehicle would have passed him with a few seconds after coming into his sight.

As has been said before, the officer can actually be viewing the traffic through the viewfinder of the device to form his opinion. Having done so he pulls the trigger, and the result is given within 3/10ths of a second. You can ask him about it, sure. But expect a response along those lines. He will tell the court his driving qualifications, and experience which add credibility to his ability to estimate if a car was speeding or not. Obviously he is alleging that your daughter was doing 84, which is 34 miles per hour above the posted limit, so it is not a marginal case as if the vehicle was doing 55 say.
Aretnap
QUOTE (martinj66 @ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 - 17:33) *
"A disqualification on the hand will, in defiance of all logic, not trigger the New Drivers Act at all, although it will not help her insurance premiums"


Six points triggers revocation of a new driver's license and their reversion to learner status but for some reason (presumably an oversight in drafting the legislation) a ban doesn't. So it is arguably, if bizzarely, better for a young driver to be caught doing 84 in a 50 (likely result: a few weeks ban, then back on the road as before) than, say, 74 (likely result: 6 points, license revoked, off the road indefinitely, new driving test, and possibly more lessons needed).

However, it doesn't automatically follow that if your daughter is convicted she will get a ban. 84 in a 50 would normally result in one, but the magistrates have the option of imposing 6 points instead, and may choose to do so if they think she would benefit from a bit of re-education. The magistrates' guidelines don't specifically address this issue, but what they say about some similar situations leans towards suggesting that they should consider it.

p186

QUOTE
An offender liable for an endorsement which will cause the licence to be revoked under the new drivers’ provisions may ask the court to disqualify rather than impose points. This will avoid the requirement to take a further test. Generally, this would be inappropriate since it would circumvent the clear intention of Parliament.


And p185 (though relating to totting bans rather than new driver revocation, so not quite the same situation)

QUOTE
In some cases in which the court is considering discretionary disqualification, the offender may already have sufficient penalty points on his or her licence that he or she would be liable to a ‘totting up’ disqualification if further points were imposed. In these circumstances, the court should impose penalty points rather than discretionary disqualification so that the minimum totting up disqualification period applies (see paragraph 7 above).
martinj66
Thanks Aretnap,

If after receiving the evidence, and reading the advice given here of trying to establish the true facts and questioning the officer's actions (believing that we do that she was not travelling at such a high speed). If she decides to enter a guilty plea before the trial is it worth asking the mags to consider a ban and fine as opposed to points OR any other course?
CuriousOrange
Points or ban are the only things magistrates can give for speeding (ignoring things like special reasons not to endorse, which don't come into play here), so there is no other course.

They're specifically advised against giving a ban instead of points to help new drivers avoid revocation.

In your daughter's case though 86 mph in a 50 mph is ban territory anyway. So she wants a ban (if that's preferable to revocation for her) but she doesn't to directly ask the magistrates for one to avoid revocation.


Best way of doing that I don't know.

Logician
If they want to give her 6 points to trigger revocation, I do not see that anything she says is likely to dissuade them, on the other hand that may not even occur to them, so I would think it best to say nothing at all.

If she enters a guilty plea it must be unequivocal, ie she cannot say I do not believe I was doing that speed but I will plead guilty to get this over with, that will not be accepted. She can of course say she finds it hard to believe she was doing the speed but cannot argue with the evidence of the camera and therefore accepts that she was.
The Rookie
A statement of 'mitigation' accepting guilt, learning from her mistakes, accepting a ban as inevitable and the right punishment for her crime seems to be the way forward on that to my mind.

Simon
Logician
Yes, that must be it.
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.