Police Car Chase - Speed Camera Van & Laser Gun - Speeding Solicitor - Part 5

[SpeedingSolicitor]

Lollygaggle: Although the ACPO Code of Practice was 'withdrawn' from the ACPO Website in Dec 2008 it is still used by almost every police force that we have contact with. Removal from the website whilst it is updated does not mean it is not relevant. Most speed camera operators refer to the Code in their witness statements. We have also received confirmation from various forces that the ACPO Code is still used. We have also received confirmation that the new revised Code will be issued shortly.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

@alastairellis Thank you 'alastairellis' 

[lollygaggle]

@alastairellis Odd you label others as 'bullies' - yet it is you who calls police 'pigs', & other users village idiots, then start becoming paranoid when things don't go your way.

[lollygaggle]

@alastairellis That's odd, Marvin knows of you.

[lollygaggle]

@alastairellis We have relatives over in the emirates, you don't know Marvin de Menezes by any chance?

[lollygaggle]

@alastairellis Hi, thanks for responding, so what you are saying is that you have no expereince yourself other than biased hearsay from people who want to take money from you in the belief they can help you avoid a fine & points.

YouTube is equally as much about education, so my advice is at least attempt to assimilate factual data & not the misinformed waffle that the majority attempt to throw your way.

[lollygaggle]

@alastairellis So what you are saying is you have no definitive information regarding speedscopes.

My advice is, spend some time doing some detailed research, then come back when you are better informed.

[lollygaggle]

@alastairellis You have avoided answering - why does a horsebox influence accuracy?

If a speedscope is 'wobbled' during use it simply returns an error meassage - usually ERROR 3. Marcus has no experience of using any of the equipment & relies on biased hearsay.

[lollygaggle]

@alastairellis Why do you believe a horsebox would influence the laser?

[lollygaggle]

@alastairellis It is highly reassuring that speed enforcement takes many forms.

[Lugmag001]

Today I found out that in The Irish Republic, if you challenge or question a fine as a result of being trapped by one of the Speed Trapping Camera Vans, you are given 2 extra Penalty Points. Just goes to show that if you stand up to The State, they resort to Intimidation Tactics. Whatever happened to real, fair, honest Justice, based on Common Law/ The law of the Land?

The beginnings of Police States ? Just join the dots.

[lollygaggle]

@Lugmag001 By what method is trapping carried out?

Can you provide anything to substantiate the additional points in Ireland claim?

[Lugmag001]

@lollygaggle Hi, Ireland does have Speed Trapping Camera Vans in addition to Hand Held Laser Trapping

Units. These camera vans have been in operation for several Months now. As to the additional Points Claim.

This info I got from a source that I do not wish to reveal. I 'm simply relaying what I have been told about the additional Points being given just for daring to challenge a Speeding Fine.

[lollygaggle]

@Lugmag001 I very much doubt that additional points can be dished out just because you opt to go to court, that being one of the options that must be offered.  Someone is either winding you up or has misunderstood what has taken place.

Why do you think 'trap' is appropriate? Are the vehicles camouflaged?

[lollygaggle]

@Lugmag001 If police states are really the way forward, then how do you explain the reduction in funding, manpower & resources that have impacted the police service?

With far fewer officers out in the streets, how does the government exercise repressive control over the population that hinges on policing based offences?

Whilst I accept the concepts of Freemanism, modern life unfortunately is not geared up to be controlled by scribblings on 13th century animal skin.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

In addition, I'm pleased to say, the vast majority of officers do not even know how a laser works.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

Contrary to your belief, many police and civilian operators have never attended a training course run by the manufacturer. I've lost count of the number of officers who have received "cascade training" - meaning they are trained by another officer who was, in turn, trained by another officer, etc. I've never yet come across an officer who has been able to explain in evidence the effect of firing a laser through glass.

[lollygaggle]

@SpeedingSolicitor NO UK police or civvies have ever attended a training course run by the manufacturer, training is done by the importers.

Yes, as you term it, cascade training takes place, but this is only done following the completion of an instructor's course & accreditation. The actual manual operation of a speedscope is very simple, as is the subject of acquiring a target thru galss - it isn't type approved, so don't attempt it.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

I have recently won a case on this point that went on for some 10 months and the expert's report (on the effect of a laser fired through glass) was several pages long. It was far from simple and nobody from the police or the CPS understood it! We are now in the process of recovering costs from central funds.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

Should you raise any technical question of a police witness in court, the standard response is that they are not experts and cannot answer. The CPS then ask whether you have your own expert witness. Your view of the legal system appears to be rather simplistic and not, I'm afraid to say, based on reality. Your comment on pinging targets through glass being "very simple" makes me laugh.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

However, to argue the effect of beam spread in the particular case would require an expert to give that evidence to the court. This is a normal process, just as I would ask an expert (doctor) to produce back calculations of alcohol in someone's blood for a drink-drive case.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

I cannot understand what point you are trying to make. How does the information you have given help the average motorist? I represent people involved with speeding offences every day, and have done so for several years. Issues of beam spread are stated in manufacturers instructions and Wilkinsons Road Traffic Manual.

[lollygaggle]

The manufactuer's manual confirms that the laser shouldn't be fired through glass? Be specific, which manual & the page number?

I quote from the LTI UL1000 manual 'Keep in mind that acquiring a target through glass will reduce the unit's maximum range'. The bottom of page 25.

The original unit was designed specifically to be used through the glass of the space shuttle. It is only lack of type approval that creates the loophole.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

The ACPO Code of Practice and the Manufacturer's manual confirms that the laser should not be fired through glass. We won a case last week specifically on this point. The police officer had fired the laser through the window of the police car believing this was ok to do. The CPS accepted this was wrong and dropped the case. This case was also reported in the press - see our Blog at speedingsolicitor.co.uk.

[lollygaggle]

@SpeedingSolicitor Can you substantiate why you still refer to the ACPO Guidelines as having any operational relevance? The Guidelines were withdrawn in Dec 2008 & subsequently have not been replaced.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

@lollygaggle Although the ACPO Code of Practice was 'withdrawn' from the ACPO Website in Dec 2008 it is still used by almost every police force that we have contact with. Removal from the website whilst it is updated does not mean it is not relevant. Most speed camera operators refer to the Code in their witness statements. We have also received confirmation from various forces that the ACPO Code is still used. We have also received confirmation that the new revised Code will be issued shortly.

[lollygaggle]

@SpeedingSolicitor The references you cite that some constabularies refer to TAG is quite correct. However this is solely because this would mean an absolutely frameless structure upon which to base operations. That said, the guideline's review date of 31st December 2005 (found on page 2 of the document) passed without that revision taking place & it was officially withdrawn & has zero standing as a form of defence. When questioned on it, I simply say it no longer exists.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

@lollygaggle Thank you for your response and for taking an interest in our work. You sound like you have particular knowledge and experience of laser devices, etc, and it would be good to talk with you. Please call me anytime. If you happen to be near our office please pop in for a coffee anytime.

[lollygaggle]

@SpeedingSolicitor To encapsulate, no matter what is said, intimated or suggested, the ACPO Guidelines is, at the time of typing these words (& for the past three years), not been relevant. A new version has been promised ever since. Yes, it did exist, currently it does not.

I do however understand how the complete lack of operating rules and guidance impact the construction of a viable defence. With very little binding legislation, finding loopholes becomes a real chore.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

@lollygaggle I cannot agree with you. I have cases every day where the police state very clearly that they followed the ACPO Code (you refer to them as guidelines) and therefore the ACPO Code is directly relevant to the evidence and accuracy of the operator's actions. I also have letters from the police stating the ACPO Code is relevant and is being followed today.

[lollygaggle]

@SpeedingSolicitor As I stated earlier, yes some constabularies do indeed still refer to the guidelines, some even clinge to the visibility guidelines laid out by the DfT that appeared in the defunct guidance manual for safety camera partnerships. This is because as I also pointed out, that's all there was & once it was withdrawn, it seemed like a good idea to carry on with the general principles it outlined.

However, there are no current relevant rules, or even guidance.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

@lollygaggle What you are stating is precisely what I would expect the prosecution to state. In addition, I am sure you will agree, the manufacturer's instruction manual for every device is also relevant and details what should be done to calibrate and operate the device.

[lollygaggle]

@SpeedingSolicitor I state it because it is true.

Which manufacturer's manual details how to calibrate the device? Calibration is only done in the UK by the importer, the manufacturer does not even supply a manual to be issued to constabularies, police officers/police have nothing whatsoever to do with equipment calibration, so no, I do not agree on that point.

[lollygaggle]

@SpeedingSolicitor It is interesting to note that since the new guidelines have been out for over a month, no-one is openly discussing them as they are nothing more than a precised version of the previous ones with obvious chunks discarded.

Having seen draft versions over the past year, the final published version is a thoroughly worthless document.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

@lollygaggle It should also be worth noting that, from a defence point of view, it is very helpful if an officer states that the ACPO Code does not apply. If you are familiar with the ACPO Code you will appreciate why. Looking for 'loopholes' is only one small part of a defence case and, in any event, I do not find it a chore at all.

[lollygaggle]

@SpeedingSolicitor The guidelines were only ever an attempt at creating a perceived level of fairness when netting-off came into force. We have incrementally moved away from them since 1) the hypothecation changes, 2) they were withdrawn & 3) all funding was stopped back at the end of March 2011.

From experience, it is a revelation when you tell officers that the guidelines went 3 years ago, most simply didn't know & only adhere to the practices because they know no better.

[lollygaggle]

@SpeedingSolicitor I will ask you a further question - where is it written that it is a condition of type approval that anything written in any manual must be adhered to? The code of practice was produced by police, not the Secretary of State so does not fall within S20(5).

[SpeedingSolicitor]

In any event, you can see the potential benefit for the defence where the police officer does not understand beam width, etc. I also represent a number of motorcyclists where the width of the bike is substantially less than 4 feet! This means that part of the laser beam will bypass the bike entirely.

[SpeedingSolicitor]

The manufacturers refer to beam width of 3-4 feet at a distance of 1000 feet. If the CPS wanted to argue anything other than this then it would need to get an expert witness into court. This is something they will rarely do because of cost. I have not heard before that only half the beam is active.

[lollygaggle]

Laser speedscopes are not calibrated by the manufacturers, in the UK they are returned to the importers (example Tele-Traffic), who do not make the equipment.

[lollygaggle]

Now whilst you state that at 340m, the beam divergence equates to 3-4ft wide, only half that beam width is active, the perimeter of the signals returned from the periphery of the active portion returns a signal that can be measured..

So at 340m, the active part of the beam would measure 20ins = less than 2ft.

The laser speedscope was originally designed to be used in orbit to measure docking vehicles. This was meant to be done directly through glass.

[Tomaius2000]

Why is there so much static in the audio?