Speeding ticket, calibration certificate

shaun_from_Africa

If the OPs husband was caught by a fixed speed camera of the type that takes two successive photographs of the vehicle along with visible road markings then would it matter if the speed detection device was not calibrated providing that the clock was accurate.

If the calibration was out of date or it was not reading correctly then surely the speed could still be calculated by using the number of marks passed between the two pictures and the time taken for this distance to have been traveled.

I've no idea if what I've written above is the case in reality but I'm sure that there is someone who does know.

SHAFT

Car_54 wrote: »

It can’t be marginal, it must be 10% over the limit plus two mph. Going to court without a valid defence is folly, and liable to cost the OP dearly.

No, the old ACPO guidelines state that but the offence is exceeding the limit. Any measured speed about the limit by an approved device is enough to prosecute.

SHAFT

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If the OPs husband was caught by a fixed speed camera of the type that takes two successive photographs of the vehicle along with visible road markings then would it matter if the speed detection device was not calibrated providing that the clock was accurate.

If the calibration was out of date or it was not reading correctly then surely the speed could still be calculated by using the number of marks passed between the two pictures and the time taken for this distance to have been traveled.

I've no idea if what I've written above is the case in reality but I'm sure that there is someone who does know.

Yes, there would be reasonable doubt if calibration could not be proved.

hareng

What type of camera was used?
Where was it used, was it affected by poor or bright light like all Laser types are can throw 50+% error. Even Infra Red are affected by light 10% not too uncommon.

The Safety Partnership only use in the proper conditions and can nab the last in line at 400 yards away.
Problem is who knows whether the user used the camera correctly, or conditions changed throughout the time served there zapping. Law to themselves you will have to cough up.

SHAFT

hareng wrote: »

What type of camera was used?
Where was it used, was it affected by poor or bright light like all Laser types are can throw 50+% error. Even Infra Red are affected by light 10% not too uncommon.

The Safety Partnership only use in the proper conditions and can nab the last in line at 400 yards away.
Problem is who knows whether the user used the camera correctly, or conditions changed throughout the time served there zapping. Law to themselves you will have to cough up.

Cameras run 24/7 regardless of the conditions and without a user.

TooManyPoints

Yes, there would be reasonable doubt if calibration could not be proved.

I don't want to start the usual argument but you have it wrong because "reasonable doubt" does not enter into it. The prosecution does not have to prove that the device was reliable. An approved device operated in the approved manner is assumed to be working correctly unless the contrary can be proved. They will produce evidence that it was an approved device and that it was operated correctly. The court then makes the assumption that it is reliable. That will be the end of their case and without a defence (and absent any procedural mess-up or irregularity) the court would convict. They would have no reason to have any doubts (reasonable or otherwise) surrounding the calibration certificate because it would not be necessary for it to be produced as part of the prosecution case.

The defendant then raises the unreliability of the device in his defence. The onus is on him to prove (on "the balance of probabilities", not beyond reasonable doubt) that the device cannot be relied upon to prove the speed limit or it was broken or defective and that may include lack of recent or proper calibration. The prosecution is given the opportunity to rebut the defendant's defence, probably by bringing their own expert evidence.

That is why this OP's husband must be particularly careful. All the prosecution has to prove is that it was an approved device operated in the approved manner. Any challenge to its reliability must be made out by the defendant and "casting doubt" will not cut the mustard. He cannot say "this could have happened" or "that might have happened". He has to prove that it did happen in his particular case. It may well be true, as you said earlier, that the CPS might discontinue if they learn of deficient calibration but that should not be relied upon as a strategy, especially as by that time the opportunity for a course or fixed penalty (if appropriate) is lost.

Clive_Woody

TooManyPoints wrote: »

I don't want to start the usual argument but you have it wrong because "reasonable doubt" does not enter into it. The prosecution does not have to prove that the device was reliable. An approved device operated in the approved manner is assumed to be working correctly unless the contrary can be proved. They will produce evidence that it was an approved device and that it was operated correctly. The court then makes the assumption that it is reliable. That will be the end of their case and without a defence (and absent any procedural mess-up or irregularity) the court would convict. They would have no reason to have any doubts (reasonable or otherwise) surrounding the calibration certificate because it would not be necessary for it to be produced as part of the prosecution case.

The defendant then raises the unreliability of the device in his defence. The onus is on him to prove (on "the balance of probabilities", not beyond reasonable doubt) that the device cannot be relied upon to prove the speed limit or it was broken or defective and that may include lack of recent or proper calibration. The prosecution is given the opportunity to rebut the defendant's defence, probably by bringing their own expert evidence.

That is why this OP's husband must be particularly careful. All the prosecution has to prove is that it was an approved device operated in the approved manner. Any challenge to its reliability must be made out by the defendant and "casting doubt" will not cut the mustard. He cannot say "this could have happened" or "that might have happened". He has to prove that it did happen in his particular case. It may well be true, as you said earlier, that the CPS might discontinue if they learn of deficient calibration but that should not be relied upon as a strategy, especially as by that time the opportunity for a course or fixed penalty (if appropriate) is lost.

Out of curiosity, can the defendant request access to the device in question for independent testing?

It seems quite an assumption that just because an approved device was used in an approved manner then the assumption is that everything was okay. I wonder if a court would take the same pragmatic approach to a driver caught driving with an expired MOT (in an approved motor vehicle, driven in an approved way).

Mercdriver

One word - pepipoo.

As far as what SHAFT says, the advice from pepipoo is to not rely on a policeman - current or former - for legal advice.

Legally, an approved device is considered satisfactory unless it can be proved otherwise. Failure would be very very expensive.

Car_54

SHAFT wrote: »

No, the old ACPO guidelines state that but the offence is exceeding the limit. Any measured speed about the limit by an approved device is enough to prosecute.

Exactly my point. The OP’s husband’s speed must have been at least 10% plus 2 over to have been caught - not marginal by any stretch of the imagination.

loskie

if NOT calibrated then it is NOT being operated in the approved manner.
It would not stand scrutiny.