fight speeding ticket?

AdrianC

immya said:

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.

OK, you're right.

I don't know why Nick Freeman's never tried that one, since it's such a straightforward open goal.

Do let us know how it goes, won't you?

Exemplar

57 in a 30, hey I can fight this and win! erm... no you can't.

Stenwold

immya said:

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.

Or, just maybe...don't speed?!

ToxicWomble

Please post the time,date and location of your court appearance- I could do with a good laugh 

mcpitman

immya said:

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

You cannot argue that you were doing nearly double the speed limit and attempt to get away with it on a technicality.

That way madness lies......

TooManyPoints

I understand your argument correctly (I think) and it is slightly different to the argument in the thread you originally latched on to. You are saying that S20 of the RTOA says that evidence from a device is only admissible if (a) It is an approved device and (b) any conditions attached to the type-approval are complied with. If you are correct, the question of accuracy of the device, which would normally be for you to rebut, is not the issue. The failure would make the evidence provided by such a device inadmissible in its entirety.

You are certainly correct in what the RTOA says. Para 4 of that section says this:

A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless—

(a)the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and

(b)any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.

I don't think there's much doubt that the device is type-approved, which moves us on the sub-para (b) - conditions attached to the type approval. Your argument rests with deficiencies in the calibration certificate, specifically that it did not contain the name of the person performing the calibration and that it did not contain a statement concerning the timing of the secondary check. Tell me if I've missed anything out. I have not checked any of the information you have provided about calibration requirements. In particular I have not checked whether these requirements are mandatory or advisory. In order to save time I have taken your argument at its best, that is, that the requirements you state are correct and are mandatory. 

So here's what I think will happen. Once you have pleaded Not Guilty you will be required to state the basis of your plea and a "Case Management" hearing will be held to formalise matters for your trial. The prosecution will want to know the details of the basis of your plea. You are not compelled to disclose them but if you "ambush" the prosecution by bringing them to the trial without notice, at best the court will order an adjournment to give the prosecution time to consider your arguments or at worst disallow your line of defence entirely for failing to disclose it earlier when you had the opportunity. So it is in your interests to make your argument known as soon as possible. The prosecution will then (between the Case Management and the trial) consider how to proceed. They could fold and discontinue matters. Or they could prepare a rebuttal of your argument, suggesting to the court that the requirements you say have not been met are so trivial that they cannot be held to render the calibration process invalid. My money is on the latter. It will then be for a court to decide the issue, which is straightforward: you believe these shortcomings render the calibration invalid and hence no evidence provided my the machine is admissible; the prosecution believes the shortcomings are so trivial as to make no difference to the validity of the calibration.

The outcome? Who knows? My guess would be that the Magistrates will find against you. I imagine that they will find that a missing name is of no consequence whatsoever and that the missing statement is trivial. You will have the opportunity to convince them why it is not, but simply saying "it should be present and it isn't" will not cut the mustard. You will have to show what deficiencies in the device could be missed in the absence of such a statement and why it should make the calibration invalid. You will almost certainly need expert help to successfully make that point.

If you lose you will receive a fine of 150% of your weekly income and a surcharge of 10% of the fine. But the biggest issue of all (apart from perhaps the points or disqualification that will be imposed) is costs. A guilty plea will see a request for £85. Being convicted following a trial will see a minimum of £620. However, that is the starting point. If you introduce technical defences (which you must do to succeed) the prosecution is entitled to enlist the help of expert witnesses to rebut your arguments. If so those costs will be passed on to you and you will really need to get your wallet out.

My overall view is that your argument is "without merit". You've seemingly trawled through some guidance documents which give requirements for a successful calibration process and found a few shortcomings. But to have the evidence of the device disallowed I believe you will have to do more than that. Of course if the evidence is allowed you're stuffed. You could take the matter to appeal. That will be heard before a Crown Court judge and two other "lay" Magistrates. The judge rules on matters of law but all three have an equal say on matters of fact. Your issue is largely a matter of fact (i.e. is the calibration certificate valid or invalid based on the deficiencies you have brought to the court). 

As above I suggest you give the matter an airing on Pepipoo. I have a suspicion you may receive similar advice. But whatever you do be careful because the avenue you are thinking of going down at the moment could result in a very expensive day out. 

TonyMMM

immya said:

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.

You might think that, but you are wrong and there is plenty of case law that can explain why.

Go to Pepipoo.com if you want a detailed response, but you are not going to win using that argument.

immya

Stenwold said:

immya said:

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.

Or, just maybe...don't speed?!

well if  said i was itd be an admission of gultt,so ill say i was within the limit
for now

immya

got a couple extra cards up my sleeve. got this doc fromFOI it shows the spacing of the dotted lines which act as a secondary check mark, the document states the likes extend from 5m before to 15m after the white stop line, with line spacing one meter apart.
in the case of the camera that got me the lines only extend 4.6 meter before

immya

on top of that the corroborating officers statement said on one part he had 18 years years in thr force and on another part he had 19 years service in the police force,gonna try grill him about which it is then suggest that if hes making simple mistakes like that then his statement cant be held as a reliable account]