fight speeding ticket?

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: Speeding ticket, calibration certificate.

immya

hi,new to this site but am in a similar situation
allegedly driving 57 in a 30 zone by a REDSPEED camera in a pals car, she passed my driver details from nip and confirmed possession of car at locus of incident...fast forward theyre prosecuting so i thought might as fight the law.plead not guilty and recieved full disclosure. My point of argument relies on on arguing the calibration certificate is not to the minimum requirements outlined by the "A Guide to Calibration Requirements for Traffic Enforcement Equipment " (GCRTEE) from here on found on the . gov website and "The Speedmeter Handbook (Fourth Edition)" (TSH from now on)
so from TSH 
1.1 Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as originally enacted, provides that evidence from a radar speed detection device is admissible in a prosecution for exceeding the speed limit only if the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State
4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR TYPE APPROVAL
4.7 The speedmeters shall be calibrated annually, and a certificate should be issued to this effect and held by the police. A visible sticker showing the date of calibration should be fixed to the meter.
   so basically the speedmeter handbook 1.1 said that evidence from radar speed detection( will have to find out if this extends to other speed camera types) device is admissible in a prosecution for exceeding the speed limit only if the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State
Section 4 outlines general requirements for type approval,4.7stating that it should be calibrated annualy and a CERTIFICATE TOTHIS EFFECT(got me excited) and the sticker showing date of cal sould be on the camera.

SO now we look at A Guide to Calibration Requirements for Traffic Enforcement Equipment " (GCRTEE) A doc which outlines the MINIMUM requirements for testing and producing calibration certificates to ensure speedmeters are operating accurately and within type approval so evidence they produce can be seen as admissible and accurate to prosecution
so in the
management summary 'These require type-approved devices to be calibrated annually, and this document lays down the minimum requirements for these calibration procedures. As well as the types of tests required for each device, this handbook also elaborates on the requirements for documentation and certification of the calibration process'
1 introduction While it is not felt necessary to prescribe in full detail what procedures should be used and documentation produced, further guidance follows in order to set minimum standards which should be followed. Generic requirements for all devices are given in the next section. Subsequently, additional requirements for automatic equipment are given, to provide confirmation of the integrity of evidence in the recorded information and secondary check.
       THIS SUGGESTS THAT IF THE MINIMUM STANDARDS  FOR CALIBRATION AND CERTIFICATION ARE NOT MET THEN IT WOULD CAST DOUBT OVER THE INTEGRITY OF  RECORDED INFORMATION AND SECONDARY CHECK, IT WOULD ALSO mean according to  (4.7TSH)that  if calibration/certification is not following the prescribed manner then 4,7TSH is not legally followed which would mean S4 TSH (GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR TYPE APPROVAL) have not been met so device could be seen as not type approved
this is the calibration certificate for the speed camera edited to remove sensitive data
now lets look at A Guide to Calibration Requirements for Traffic Enforcement Equipment " (GCRTEE)
2.4 A calibration certificate shall be supplied to the police force using the device, with a copy held on record by the person who has calibrated the device. In addition to device specific requirements listed later in this document, the calibration certificate shall include: i)  the name of the individual who undertook the calibration, and his or her company; ii) the device manufacturer, type/model and serial number; iii) the date on which the calibration was conducted; iv) a certificate number and the date issued; v) a statement to the effect that any parts or components replaced are identical to those used in the device as type-approved; and vi) the signature of the person who undertook the calibration. , and his or her company; ii) the device manufacturer, type/model and serial number; iii) the date on which the calibration was conducted; iv) a certificate number and the date issued; v) a statement to the effect that any parts or components replaced are identical to those used in the device as type-approved; and vi) the signature of the person who undertook the calibration. 
 i) the name of the individual who undertook the calibration is not present
3 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT
3.2.2 In addition a statement verifying that the timing of the secondary check is within the manufacturer’s tolerance shall appear on the calibration certificate. 
this statement is also not present on the calibration ceertificate

i would argue that because the calibration certificate was missing vital i additional requirements for automatic equipment , and with its absence the prosecution cannot ensure integrity of evidence in the recorded information and secondary check ,IT WOULD ALSO mean according to  (4.7TSH)that  if calibration/certification is not following the prescribed manner then 4,7TSH is not legally followed which would mean S4 TSH (GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR TYPE APPROVAL) have not been met so device could be seen as not type approved

sorry for repeating myself this has been typed full of motivational powder and some calming opera.please feel free to scrutinise my argument for irregularities and things which dont make sense
thanks

AdrianC

immya said:

allegedly driving 57 in a 30 zone

Look on the bright side... You're going to court anyway, so there's no risk of losing an FPN or tea and biccies...

My point of argument relies on on arguing the calibration certificate is not to the minimum requirements outlined by the "A Guide to Calibration Requirements for Traffic Enforcement Equipment " (GCRTEE) from here on found on the . gov website and "The Speedmeter Handbook (Fourth Edition)" (TSH from now on)

Oooookay. Umm, you know that a speedometer is something else, right? It's referring to the calibrated speedos in the dash of police cars.

if calibration/certification is not following the prescribed manner then 4,7TSH is not legally followed which would mean S4 TSH (GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR TYPE APPROVAL) have not been met so device could be seen as not type approved

Well, since it's most definitely in-date, you really are stretching yourself on this one.

Just to clarify - you're saying that the certificate is meaningless, because of some minor format or content difference (frankly, I got lost in your wall of pseudo-legal guff), so the camera cannot be relied on as evidence? And, by extension, since the same certificates are going to apply to all redspeed cameras, that applies to all of them?

Here's a clue: Just have a think about how many of these cameras are in use, and for how long. Think about how many prosecutions have successfully arisen from them. And yet you're the first person to notice this absolutely cast-iron loophole...?

this has been typed full of motivational powder

So it would seem. Don't forget to mention that when you next speak to the people dealing with this...

soolin

I have moved this from an old thread.

The speeding ticket gurus are on on here
http://forums.pepipoo.com/

However, as has already been said you are using some baffling pseudo made up legalese and I suspect are unlikely to do more than provide a little entertainment for a slow afternoon. 

You do have a right to plead how you choose when you go to court, but I would certainly take advice from the forum above before you do anything foolish. One tip, don't try and register there with a hotmail account, their system doesn't like it.

TonyMMM

Even if the certificate was out of date it wouldn't automatically prevent a successful prosecution - you would still have to show evidence as to why the measurement of your  speed was incorrect. For a further explanation post on Pepipoo.com.
The costs of losing a contested trial are likely to be well over £600, in addition to any penalty imposed, so think very carefully before pleading Not Guilty if a missing name on a bit of paper is the best you have - you will lose.

uknick

As they don't actually say they're innocent; someone blatantly guilty of speeding and wishing to waste court time and money on a ridiculous defence.  Maybe they should have their day in court, and suffer the full ramifications of wasting court time.

Browntoa

Good luck in your waste of time crusade which will still end up with points and a larger fine.

Herzlos

How badly calibrated are you thinking it'd need to be in order to be nearly 100% out? If it was over-reading like that it'd be pinging literally every vehicle passing it above 17mph.  If you were clocked at 34 in a 30 you could argue it, but 57 (which was probably closer to an indicated 65)? The judge is just going to laugh at you.

Even from that, it sounds like it'll record timestamped images so you can work out your speed with pen and paper.

immya

im basically saying that speed camera evidence is only admissible in court if it operates as its type approval outlines, one of those requirements is for it to be calibrated and certified according to some document, this calibration certificate isnt in line with that document so that requirement for it to be type approved is not met. and if its not type approved any evidence produced from it is non admissible,regardless of how accurate the speed camera actually is.

born_again

Is this not one of the cases, that require one of the £10K a hour, type of defence lawyers that the plebs use to get out of breaking the law...
So you end up spending far more than it would have cost to just pay the fine...

Now that is true MSE style.

born_again

Now that is true MSE style.

Duplicate post....