Telematics successfully used to overturn speeding prosecution

[st13phil]

This is an interesting case reported by Fleet News.

A driver was accused of driving his vehicle at 40 mph in a 30mph limit having had his vehicle's speed captured by an LTI 20:20 Ultralyte 1000 Speed Measuring Device operated by a mobile patrol. These devices are Home Office Approved and are thus infallible (yeah, right ), and more importantly evidence from them is generally considered impossible to challenge.

However, the driver was trialling a driver safety telematics device at the time, and the data produced by that device indicated that the vehicle speed was way below the 30mph speed limit so he chose to challenge the allegation in Sunderland Magistrates Court.

So what happened? Did the evidence get properly tested? Of course not. When presented with the evidence the prosecution chose to withdraw - after all, we can't have the "infallible" evidence of one of the favourite devices used for speed enforcement brought into doubt, can we? That would bring the gravy train to an embarrassing and expensive halt, and we can't have that.

 

[Dryce]

So what happened? Did the evidence get properly tested? Of course not. When presented with the evidence the prosecution chose to withdraw

I wouldn't read too much into this as the telematics device wasn't subject to any scrutiny either.

Most likely the CPS didn't have the resource to fight this and couldn't afford to lose it by accident.

 

[Giantvanman]

More likely it was withdrawn because of cost, in one way or another.

Those qualified to verify its accuracy or prove it was working correctly at the time charge enormous amounts of money for their services. In fact, the CPS stopped using the people who make LTI for verification back in the nineties because they also charged huge sums of money…they (the manufacturer) effectively shot themselves in the foot because they could have been on a good thing had they been reasonable when it came to their charges.

What is not known is who was operating it. This equipment has a set calibration sequence (to evidentially prove the laser accuracy at the beginning of every time it is used) and I believe it is still a requirement to drive a vehicle with a calibrated speedo though the beam on a monthly basis to check its accuracy (for measuring speed)…not many people have a verifiable calibrated speedo.

Add in factors such as the machine MUST be serviced and verified by the manufacturer annually and a new certificate issued, I suspect that one of the steps in the process was missed which is not surprising nowadays.

Of course, it could be due to something as mundane as the CPS decided it wan't worth the cost of a trial.

 

[Stratman]

I suspect the CPS withdrew because of the implications of their approved tested and calibrated speed measuring equipment (yes, I know it's not actually theirs) being overruled in court by a newer device and the cost implications for every police force using the Ultralyte.

 

[markjay]

As GVM said, all speed measuring equipment needs to be calibrated, and then operated according to set procedures.

You are entitled to request to see a copy of the log showing when and how the calibration was done, and you are also entitled to quiz the officer in court regarding how he or she operated the equipment.

But I would not recommend this unless you know for fact that you were not speeding - i.e. don't try it on the off chance that you'll find something amiss and get yourself acquitted this way.

If the court does not find any fault with the equipment or the procedures, you are likely to end-up with a heavier fine and/or ban than you otherwise would, simply for wasting the court's time.

 

[st13phil]

I wouldn't read too much into this as the telematics device wasn't subject to any scrutiny either.

I agree, but it's very unusual for a case involving a challenge to a Home Office Approved detection device not to be taken "all the way" by the CPS unless there was an obvious error in the calibration or operation of the device, and even then they've been known to go to extraordinary lengths to establish the principle that challenging the accuracy of the device is futile.

Google for, and read up on "Road Safety Support" to see the sort of effort the Crown usually puts in.

 

[TheFoX]

It's the same with the Breath Test. The machine needs to be calibrated once a year, and tested monthly for it to be admissible.

If you were genuinely speeding, or over the limit, the only reason you'd challenge the penalty is because you are trying to get away with it, whereas if you were under the limit, or not speeding, you'd be effectively trying to clear your name.

As with all electronic equipment, they are prone to errors and failures. While their technology can work out how quickly something is moving, this doesn't mean that they are infallible. It only takes a glitch to skew data.

This is one of the arguments for domestic vehicles to have some sort of logging system similar to the Digicard used in LGV and PSV. If you need to challenge a false positive, you can produce the log data to contest their data.

 

[BTB 500]

This is one of the arguments for domestic vehicles to have some sort of logging system similar to the Digicard used in LGV and PSV. If you need to challenge a false positive, you can produce the log data to contest their data.

Surely only if your system has similar regular and documented testing/calibration/servicing?

 

[markjay]

Surely only if your system has similar regular and documented testing/calibration/servicing?

The CPS need to prove the defendant's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt; the defendant on the other hand only needs to demonstrate 'reasonable doubt'.

One could well argue that producing evidence from a telematric system which was installed by a proficient independent third party is enough to consititue 'reasonable doubt' even if the system was not calibrated and tested to the same standard as police speed measuring devices.

 

[TheFoX]

Surely only if your system has similar regular and documented testing/calibration/servicing?

It would also depend on the error margin. Even a 10% error margin would only put you 3mph out at 30mph. For a device to be out 10mph at 30mph, it would have to be out by 40%, which is fairly large deviation.

Admittedly, those devices used for measuring blood alcohol levels or speed over a defined distance have to be highly precise (simply because someone could be penalised by those results), it doesn't necessary mean the same for a device that could prove your innocence. In fact, to dismiss such evidence on the simple basis that no previous calibration had been performed would be ridiculous. We all have the basic right to prove our innocence in any matter.

I would imagine that anyone who has a Dashcam installed that also records the vehicle direction and speed could submit that as evidence that they didn't violate a traffic regulation, regardless of whether it has been calibrated. In this case, it would be down to the CPS to prove the device was highly unreliable, not down to the defendant to prove it was reliable.

 

[baxlin]

I had a similar experience with a speed camera, logged me speeding in a 30 limit in the early hours of a July Sunday morning.

To cut a long story shorter, I challenged it on the basis that the time they quoted was wrong, and proved it because at the time they said, it was broad daylight, whereas the photo evidence showed it to be pitch dark. Therefore their camera was set to the wrong time, casting doubt over its overall accuracy.

Prior to me sending evidence from the Royal Observatory of daylight hours on that day, all my arguments had been dismissed with "the equipment has been recently calibrated and is therefore correct".

I wonder why I received no acknowledgement of the RO evidence, nor any further correspondence. Could it be that they didn't want to risk me going public, and have everyone challenging prosecutions?

 

[Stocho]

To cut a long story shorter, I challenged it on the basis that the time they quoted was wrong, and proved it because at the time they said, it was broad daylight, whereas the photo evidence showed it to be pitch dark. Therefore their camera was set to the wrong time, casting doubt over its overall accuracy.

What you wrote is common sense, but magistrates being unpaid are actually vigilantes. So if it ended up in court they would easily buy the following:
1. "The picture does not clearly show whether it was day or night. Dark picture could well be the result of under-exposure even in the broadest of daylight. The purpose of the camera is to collect evidence and not pretty pictures. If it enabled to identify the car and count the marker lines on the road - then it was fit for purpose"
2. "Sunset and sunrise times do not provide indication of the level of light. If the sky is overcast at noon it can look very dark indeed."
3. "An expert might indeed be able to ascertain time of the day based on pictures but the defendant did not put forward an expert witness in his defence".

When it comes to magistrates they believe in the police much more faithfully then most priests in Jesus Christ and have been backing the police even when their evidence contradicts the relatively obvious laws of physics or even geometry for example:
1. Scumbags claimed that they followed a car at a distance of about 250 meters and never lost sight of it. Curvature in the road supported by satellite imagery as taken from Google Earth clearly shows that if they followed at that distance they would loose sight of the car... Magistrates could not care less.
2. Scumbags claimed that it was easy for them to "lock in" on the car because of distinctive shape of rear lights, in particular they were round while other cars in vicinity mostly other shapes. There is not much difference actually between a 7cm circle and 7cm square, even to an eagle a 7cm square would appear as circular blob... Magistrates happy.
3. Magistrate chooses to ask the scum a question: "When did you join the force?". "-Three months ago". In his summary defence thanks the magistrates for asking a question that clearly showed the Scumbag was inexperienced. The magistrates quickly corrects.... "The witness was asked when did he join THE force. No inference can be drawn from his reply from his experience as he might have gained it while working for some different police force." Such kind of behaviour would be most unlikely even in Stalin's courts as plenty of evidence exists that even during those times many judges were trying to protect the defendants, sometimes even putting words in their mouths that would help them (with the exception of the more political trials where it would be too dangerous for judges to do that).

 

[baxlin]

The evidence I provided was a letter from the Royal Observatory (I was referred to them by the Met Office, who I initially contacted) and as the camera was about 2 miles from Luton airport, with full weather records, the RO were able to be specific about not only sunrise, but also when it became light, which that morning was about 45 minutes before sunrise, and weather conditions

The photo was conclusive, headlights on full, etc, and the camera was exactly an hour out, they couldn't even argue it was BST/GMT adjustment, as it was an hour the wrong way......

 

[Giantvanman]

What you wrote is common sense, but magistrates being unpaid are actually vigilantes.


1. Scumbags[/B] claimed that they followed a car at a distance of about 250 meters and never lost sight of it. Curvature in the road supported by satellite imagery as taken from Google Earth clearly shows that if they followed at that distance they would loose sight of the car... Magistrates could not care less.
2. Scumbags claimed that it was easy for them to "lock in" on the car because of distinctive shape of rear lights, in particular they were round while other cars in vicinity mostly other shapes. There is not much difference actually between a 7cm circle and 7cm square, even to an eagle a 7cm square would appear as circular blob... Magistrates happy.
3. Magistrate chooses to ask the scum a question: "When did you join the force?". "-Three months ago". In his summary defence thanks the magistrates for asking a question that clearly showed the Scumbag was inexperienced. The magistrates quickly corrects.... "The witness was asked when did he join THE force. No inference can be drawn from his reply from his experience as he might have gained it while working for some different police force." Such kind of behaviour would be most unlikely even in Stalin's courts as plenty of evidence exists that even during those times many judges were trying to protect the defendants, sometimes even putting words in their mouths that would help them (with the exception of the more political trials where it would be too dangerous for judges to do that).

You write as though this was a personal experience for which you hold a great deal of anger but you haven't denied speeding I notice… I wonder if they still be "scumbags" if they aided you in time of need. Some people carry grudges very well, however irrational as that may be, and it often clouds their ability to reason or even present a reasoned argument.

 

[baxlin]

You write as though this was a personal experience for which you hold a great deal of anger but you haven't denied speeding I notice… I wonder if they still be "scumbags" if they aided you in time of need. Some people carry grudges very well, however irrational as that may be, and it often clouds their ability to reason or even present a reasoned argument.

I agree, I'll occasionally refer to the local constabulary as"Plod", but that's the most derogatory description I'll use.

FWIW, I don't deny speeding, but the summons required Mrs Baxlin, who was the registered keeper of the car, to advise the Police who was driving the car at that time and place. The honest and correct answer was nobody, as the car was, at the time shown, safely in the carport at home, and we were tucked up in bed.

So we felt perfectly justified in arguing the case. The question of speed didn't enter into it at that stage, if at all.

Malcolm

 

[TheFoX]

I think the Police need a bloody good shake up. Too many instances in my own life lead me to believe that they do what they want, and not what we want.

1) Some years back, when Travellers turned up in our cul-de-sac and verbally attacked one of the residents. Six neighbours dialled 999, and even though the controller told us that the registration of their Orion belonged to a Transit van, no one called round. In fact, the first we heard from the Police was a few weeks later when Hampshire Constabulary sent everyone a letter asking them how we felt they had dealt with the case.

2) A friend, Mick, was awoken by a drunk who was hurling abuse at the Cop Shop opposite his home. For over half an hour, the drunk raged, yet not one copper came out to shoo him away or arrest him. Mick counted six officers he could see through various windows. Mick even dialled 999 to summon help, and was told all officers were busy. Eventually, when the drunk hurled a bottle of Scotch through a window, did someone come out and arrest him.

3) Our road was blocked by a badly parked vehicle. On ringing the control centre, we were told that it couldn't possibly be blocking the road because it belonged to a WPC, and we must be mistaken.

4) While being interviewed under caution for our recent accident, and while my mother was lying in a hospital bed on the cusp of life or death, the officer duly informed me that he didn't think banning the idiot who almost caused our deaths was the right path. Instead, he felt that she would benefit from an Alertness course. He was more interested in her wealth fare than he was ours, even though we were the victim.

4a) The Police officer tried to take a statement from me at the scene of the accident, even though the paramedic told him to wait because my mother needed urgent treatment at the A&E. He insisted that they wait, but she refused, forcing him out of the ambulance and ordering the driver to take off.

5) It seems to me that the Police are more than happy to deal with events involving normal rational people than events involving scum
bags who are known to be handy with their fists. I know the Police have to protect themselves, but surely our safety should be their primary concern.

In my opinion, the Police are self serving. They are also like a dog with a bone when they get someone in their sights, even if it proves conclusively that their suspect is innocent. I was DNA tested for a murder that happened over 20 years ago, because the poor sod that they sent down for 16 years turned out to be innocent. In fact, the evidence was there at the time to prove his innocence, yet was buried to get a conviction.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Linda_Cook)