Speeding and Driving without due care

TooManyPoints

There was a story on the BBC about someone using GPS evidence from his own DIY logger to beat a speeding accusation, but I can't find it now. 

DPP vs Marrable?

Manxman_in_exile

Director of Public Prosecutions v Marrable (4 February 2020) Unreported — . (counsel.direct)

Cracknell v Willis is Dead, Long Live Cracknell v Willis | Stephen Oldham Solicitors (thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk)

TooManyPoints

Cracknell vs Willis established the principle that the defendant is entitled to introduce “indirect” evidence that casts doubt on the reliability of a measuring device. The case actually involved an excess alcohol charge. Mr Cracknell wanted to introduce evidence that he had not drunk sufficient alcohol to provide such a high reading as was provided by a “Lion Intoximeter” device. But the Magistrates refused to hear it, citing that the reliability of the device was absolute and could not be challenged. The House of Lords (the final arbiter when the case was heard in 1988) ruled that he was entitled to do so and it was for the court to find, as a matter of fact, whether it cast sufficient doubt for the reading to be relied upon.

Mr Marrable used the principle established by Cracknell vs Willis (I’ve no idea who Mr Willis is, BTW) to introduce evidence from a GPS device when he was accused of speeding. The Magistrates acquitted him and the CPS appealed the acquittal by way of a “case stated” in the High Court, who found in Mr Marrable’s favour.

As interesting as all this is, none of it really applies to this case. If the OP had “indirect” evidence to challenge the reliability of the device it might be, but he doesn’t (hence my earlier suggestion that he would have to prove the device itself was unreliable by challenging either the way it was operated or its accuracy). All he has is this:

“I don't believe I was going that fast for sure but I can't know my speed for sure, could have been a bit over 50”.

Even if he has evidence from, say, a GPS device that is still, by itself, not a certainty to sway the Bench. They would have to assume that a measurement from an unapproved device is more reliable than one from an approved device and, by itself, there is no reason for them to do so. But of course every case turns on its individual merits and all the circumstances would have to be considered.

[Deleted User]

TooManyPoints said:

There was a story on the BBC about someone using GPS evidence from his own DIY logger to beat a speeding accusation, but I can't find it now. 

DPP vs Marrable?

It wasn't that one, this was over a decade ago... But that case is interesting, thanks for mentioning it. The final judgement was:

"The magistrates dismissed the case against the defendant on the basis that the GPS tracker device cast a reasonable doubt as the speed of the vehicle."

and

"It was clearly established in Cracknell v Willis [1988] RTR 1 that evidence from an approved device was not conclusive evidence."

[Deleted User]

TooManyPoints said:

As interesting as all this is, none of it really applies to this case. If the OP had “indirect” evidence to challenge the reliability of the device it might be, but he doesn’t

Yes, which is why I strongly recommend that people get themselves a basic dash camera with GPS function. Then they can review it and see if they really were speeding, and decide if they want to risk challenging the accusation.

It's a very sad state of affairs though where the police can use clearly unreliable equipment in a way that makes challenging it almost always a lose-lose situation, given that it will cost money to go to court and you can't get any of it back even if you are found innocent.

The same applies to alcohol detectors, in fact one of the reactions to the Cracknell decision was to start using blood samples. By that time you are already at the police station, in custody and your car is getting recovered. Most models are easy to interfere with too, if the particular copper takes a dislike to you, simply by putting a finger over one end of the tube you blow through.

ontheroad1970

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

As interesting as all this is, none of it really applies to this case. If the OP had “indirect” evidence to challenge the reliability of the device it might be, but he doesn’t

Yes, which is why I strongly recommend that people get themselves a basic dash camera with GPS function. Then they can review it and see if they really were speeding, and decide if they want to risk challenging the accusation.

It's a very sad state of affairs though where the police can use clearly unreliable equipment in a way that makes challenging it almost always a lose-lose situation, given that it will cost money to go to court and you can't get any of it back even if you are found innocent.

The same applies to alcohol detectors, in fact one of the reactions to the Cracknell decision was to start using blood samples. By that time you are already at the police station, in custody and your car is getting recovered. Most models are easy to interfere with too, if the particular copper takes a dislike to you, simply by putting a finger over one end of the tube you blow through.

If you have such clear evidence of unreliable devices where can we find your exposèe in the papers?  I don't have any convictions to be quoshed, but others have plenty.  Call it the custard test.  Prove it.  If they were all so unreliable, Mr Loophole would be tearing it apart.  He doesn't.  He usually gets people off with 14 day exclusion.  There would be a hell of a lot of publicity around it.  

As I said, you are giving poor advice as you suggest it would be easy to just turn up with an SD card, that has footage of speeds that are relayed with a lag versus a type approved device.  I assume you will refund people their thousands of pounds of costs if they fail.  

TooManyPoints

The speed guns all lag too, the reading is not instantaneous but rather an average over time.

Gatso and HADEC  speed cameras take their measurement using radar technology and typically measure speed in a period of 0.5 of a second. A vehicle would have to be accelerating or braking extremely violently for there to be a significant difference in its speed in that time. Average speed cameras work in pairs and simply measure the time elapsed between the vehicle passing two points, a known - often considerable -  distance apart. Speed variations between those two points are immaterial.

ontheroad1970

[Deleted User] said:

Deleted_User said:

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

As interesting as all this is, none of it really applies to this case. If the OP had “indirect” evidence to challenge the reliability of the device it might be, but he doesn’t

Yes, which is why I strongly recommend that people get themselves a basic dash camera with GPS function. Then they can review it and see if they really were speeding, and decide if they want to risk challenging the accusation.

It's a very sad state of affairs though where the police can use clearly unreliable equipment in a way that makes challenging it almost always a lose-lose situation, given that it will cost money to go to court and you can't get any of it back even if you are found innocent.

The same applies to alcohol detectors, in fact one of the reactions to the Cracknell decision was to start using blood samples. By that time you are already at the police station, in custody and your car is getting recovered. Most models are easy to interfere with too, if the particular copper takes a dislike to you, simply by putting a finger over one end of the tube you blow through.

This is paranoia bordering into fantasy conspiracy theory world.

A basic dash cam with GPS isn't accurate enough to prove anything of the sort, GPS is not accurate enough and lags behind by a couple of seconds. What calibration would the average driver be able to provide to show their £100 GPS was more reliable than a proper speed gun that is routinely serviced to an industry wide standard? The DPP vs Marrable case was centred on a GPS tracking device not a basic dashcam with GPS feature. 

There is no evidence it's "clearly unreliable equipment" nor that any policeman is interfering with equipment, particularly given the prevalence of body cameras and the fact the suspected drink driver would see the finger being used. Kerb side breathalysers are not used in prosecution anyway, only to allow the police to take the person to the station to provide 2 samples of breath (or a blood sample if they so choose) on an approved machine.

We literally just showed you examples of people using GPS evidence to beat these speed guns. Did you actually read the previous posts before embarrassing yourself?

This "lag" you talk about us nonsense. The speed guns all lag too, the reading is not instantaneous but rather an average over time. In any case unless you are violently accelerating or breaking you will have a long continuous period of readings showing a constant or only slowly varying speed, more than enough to satisfy the legal requirement of introducing doubt.

I'm afraid the bit in bold is nonsense.  In both a grammar sense and factual for reasons that TooManyPoints has very ably demonstrated.  I'm assuming you will reimburse costs for those that follow your advice.  It's all very well for you to say 'stick it up to them' when it's not your own money.  Remember the guy in Bristol that spent nearly £80k?  He lost.

[Deleted User]

TooManyPoints said:

The speed guns all lag too, the reading is not instantaneous but rather an average over time.

Gatso and HADEC  speed cameras take their measurement using radar technology and typically measure speed in a period of 0.5 of a second. A vehicle would have to be accelerating or braking extremely violently for there to be a significant difference in its speed in that time. Average speed cameras work in pairs and simply measure the time elapsed between the vehicle passing two points, a known - often considerable -  distance apart. Speed variations between those two points are immaterial.

We were talking about hand held speed cameras. The fixed ones are more reliable but not infallible.

ontheroad1970

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

The speed guns all lag too, the reading is not instantaneous but rather an average over time.

Gatso and HADEC  speed cameras take their measurement using radar technology and typically measure speed in a period of 0.5 of a second. A vehicle would have to be accelerating or braking extremely violently for there to be a significant difference in its speed in that time. Average speed cameras work in pairs and simply measure the time elapsed between the vehicle passing two points, a known - often considerable -  distance apart. Speed variations between those two points are immaterial.

We were talking about hand held speed cameras. The fixed ones are more reliable but not infallible.

Still an approved device in the hands of an experienced operator, and a real challenge to oppose with evidence based on a consumer device with a real risk of expensive failure.  Pub lawyers are as effective as pub scientists - not effective at all.