Not just hogging the middle lane

Vicmeldrew

And if ACPO guidelines are not followed, it should result in no evidence to offer.

It doesn't happen that way though...funny thing that!

Guest101

Vicmeldrew wrote: »

So, say you were scratching your ear whilst driving and a Pc mistakenly thinks he saw you using a mobile phone.


Try defending that in Mags. What will happen is that Pc's word will be accepted as proof even though he/she was mistaken. After all, why would said Pc perjure themselves? Nothing to gain!


You on the other hand have a reason to say you weren't.


Nothing to fear?


I am not by any means saying there is a conspiracy, I am just stating that it is your word against the prosecution, on that balance people find themselves suddenly on the receiving end of injustice. That's just the way it is.

Your mobile phone provider woul dbe able to provide clear evidence that your telephone was not receiving or mking a call at the time of the offence...

Exactly my point, thanks for making it so easy

Jack_Regan

Guest101 wrote: »

And they wont, since i dont break the law.

But its good to know the law since not all police officer are honourable..

What you know and think you understand about the law are in fact not correct .

I'd love to see you defend yourself.

Aretnap

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_individuals/motoring_offences/news_and_updates/speeding_evidence.aspx



In R (on the Application of Bray) v Bristol Crown Court [2009] it was held that the fact that a laser speed detection device had not been calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions does not mean that the device is no longer of an approved type. Accordingly, it was held that the speed reading produced by such a device was capable of constituting support of the officer's prior opinion as to speed. The Administrative Court also emphasised that the evidence from the device as to speed is only secondary evidence and it is the opinion of the operator of the device regarding the speed that is the primary evidence.

Connell v DPP is also relevant.

Guest101

Jack_Regan wrote: »

Wrong.

The law makes it an offence to exceed the speed limit.

The manufacturers make a device to gain evidence which the home secretary approves.

ACPO issue some guidelines on best practice.

Two police officers on foot a the side of the road could be enough to convict for speeding.

You are lacking an understanding on these matters.

Dont insult my intelligence, I am confident I know alot more about the law and the processes than you. Just because something could happen, doesnt mean it will or it does.

The manufacturers make the device, the Home Office approves it and defines guidelines for its use, which may vary from the manufacturer

Guest101

Jack_Regan wrote: »

What's your link to, the acpo guidelines to speed enforcement?

I have a hard copy, do you or are you just googling this?

Hard copis go out of date...

Jack_Regan

Guest101 wrote: »

Your mobile phone provider woul dbe able to provide clear evidence that your telephone was not receiving or mking a call at the time of the offence...

Exactly my point, thanks for making it so easy

Providing you can get part their data detection crap.

When did you last apply and use phone data in court?

Jack_Regan

Guest101 wrote: »

Hard copis go out of date...

It will do when they release the new one.;)

Jack_Regan

Aretnap wrote: »

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_individuals/motoring_offences/news_and_updates/speeding_evidence.aspx



In R (on the Application of Bray) v Bristol Crown Court [2009] it was held that the fact that a laser speed detection device had not been calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions does not mean that the device is no longer of an approved type. Accordingly, it was held that the speed reading produced by such a device was capable of constituting support of the officer's prior opinion as to speed. The Administrative Court also emphasised that the evidence from the device as to speed is only secondary evidence and it is the opinion of the operator of the device regarding the speed that is the primary evidence.

Connell v DPP is also relevant.

Thanks for that, but then guest101 already knew that and is just playing with us.

Guest101

Jack_Regan wrote: »

What you know and think you understand about the law are in fact not correct .

I'd love to see you defend yourself.

If it came down to that, I would research the alleged offences thoroughly and find and formulate my defence to a high standard, using the option of a solicitor if required.

You dont know me, so dont make assumptions.