Didn't see this mentioned last month when it was in the news, but heard last night throught the Air Cadet grapevine about NCP falsifying photographic evidence in Bury in order to make an illegal £60 fine stick. Police are now looking into making criminal charges. Think the moral is to always demand to see photo evidence, no matter whether for speeding or other offences.
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-974970,00.html
A MOTORIST has won his appeal against a £60 parking fine after an independent adjudicator concluded that NCP, the car parking company, had faked a photograph to prove its case.
Kevin McGuire, 51, an aerodrome director, was celebrating victory yesterday in the case that calls into question the validity of digital photographic evidence.
The judgment, made at an appeal hearing in Bury, Greater Manchester, could have wider implications for motorists caught on camera and open the way to many more appeals.
Mr McGuire, from Heywood, in Bury, was determined to fight the ticket for parking on a Sunday in what he believed was a public place.
He had parked in Bury market place at 7.15am on Sunday, August 31. He was due to take a group of Air Cadets by coach on a visit to a barracks in Blackpool.
He insists that there were no signs anywhere to say that parking was forbidden. He also parked in a bay where parking was free on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
When he returned later that day he found the ticket on his windscreen.
?I immediately wrote to NCP to challenge it,? said Mr McGuire. ?They wrote back and said it was a suspended bay and said that they had put up signs the night before, so it was my fault.
?But there were definitely no signs when we arrived on the Sunday morning.?
NCP, which is contracted by Bury council, produced two photographs for the appeal hearing before Sarah Breach, the parking adjudicator.
One was black and white and the other was in colour. They purported to show the sign on the day before and then the day on which Mr McGuire parked his car.
Ms Breach concluded that the two photographs were the same but the date on one had been changed in order to destroy the motorist?s case.
Ms Breach said: ?A careful comparison of these photographs reveals they are the same. The cloud formation in both, together with the angle of the photograph, leaves me in no doubt.
?The only conclusion I can draw are that someone has altered the date on the black and white appeal photograph from 31.8.03 to 30.08.03.?
She said she was satisfied that NCP submitted the two photographs to make it look as if they were taken at different times, and took the unusual step of ordering the council to pay the costs.
The adjudicator concluded: ?I consider the council?s conduct in resisting this appeal to be wholly unreasonable.? The ruling calls into question the reliability of similar digital evidence. Meanwhile, Bury council faces hundreds of claims from other drivers.
Mr McGuire expressed his astonishment at the alleged subterfuge and said that those who tampered with the evidence should be prosecuted.
He said: ?How many other photographs may have been altered in this sort of case? Heads should roll.
?It is disgusting that evidence has been doctored. It won?t be the first time, so I think all cases where they have won on the basis of digital photography should be revoked.
?These are the very people who David Blunkett wants to dole out these new on-the-spot fines, but this shows they are not trustworthy.?
NCP operates 600 car parks across the UK, including ten at the country?s busiest airports.
Nicola Frost, the company?s communications manager, said: ?This matter is being investigated internally. I cannot make any kind of statement.? Bury council is also carrying out its own investigation.
A council spokesman said: ?The parking adjudicator allowed Mr McGuire?s appeal but in doing so has questioned the evidence submitted by the council. The council and NCP have initiated an internal investigation to establish the facts surrounding this case and, where appropriate, action will be taken.
?Both organisations are jointly committed to maintaining the highest levels of integrity in the enforcement of parking regulations,? he added.
|
|
Is this perjury?
|
Probably not as the photo was not offered to a court as sworn evidence.
It could be fraud, as the false photo was used in an attempt to extract money.
|
|
|
|
|
Why has the apostrophe come out as a question mark?
|
|
Maybe it started as a quote but was doctored?
|
|
|
|
