A driver who successfully challenged the accuracy of a police speed gun has told of his relief at overturning his conviction. Brian Wiltshire, 48, was yards from his home near Caton, Lancaster, when he was clocked at the roadside travelling 39mph by an officer using a hand-held device.
He was adamant that he was travelling at between only 25mph and 29mph in the 30mph zone and contested the reading. The conviction was overturned after technical experts explained laser guns could return faulty readings if the equipment was not set up properly.
The decision by a judge at Preston Crown Court could pave the way for similar challenges from speeding motorists. Mr Wiltshire was driving home in his M-reg Escort nearly a year ago when he was pulled to the side of the road by officers using a LTI 20/20 laser device.
Facing a £60 fine and three points on his licence, the designer clothes shop owner pleaded not guilty to the offence before magistrates, but was convicted last June.
He refused to accept the ruling and took the case to Preston Crown Court last week.
A judge allowed his appeal after hearing expert evidence that laser devices can give faulty readings if they are not aligned properly.
His lawyers argued he had no case to answer because the officer operating the device had not done the correct checks beforehand.
However, Judge Andrew Woolman indicated the ruling did not set a precedent and will give a full ruling on his decision on a date yet to be fixed.
Mr Wiltshire said he felt vindicated following the appeal ruling. He said: "I was stopped in a built-up area at a time when the schools were finishing for the day and I was certain that I was going under 30mph. I tried to speak to the officers involved and tell them the equipment must be wrong but they weren't having any of it.
"Although the judge has not explained his ruling I believe it shows that such laser devices can be wildly inaccurate."
A spokesman for Lancashire Police said: "We remain confident with the use of the equipment and its reliability. In this instance the case was lost because an officer failed to carry out an administrative function."
|
>>A spokesman for Lancashire Police said: "We remain confident with the use of the equipment and its reliability. In this instance the case was lost because an officer failed to carry out an administrative function."
I wonder if any of the other motorists who were caught by the same hand held laser device will appeal their convictions?
Question for the legal boys. If someone accepted the fixed penalty and points, but now find there was an error with the measuring equipment, can they appeal after accepting their guilt?
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
Do you think the Lancashire Chief Constable will write to all others booked
that day enclosing a cheque for the fine and an apology?
|
Can we find out what the 'administrative procedure' is, so we can challenge it if the need arises?
|
sorry, 'administritive function'.
|
The judgment seems clear.
The officer didn't follow the correct procedure on that occasion. It is strongly arguable that other drivers caught on the same session have grounds fr appeal, but no more than that, I think.
--
Stevie
Lakland 44-02 Sunburst
Yamaha YTS-23
|
|
I think it's something to do with the equipment having to be calibrated before all use and after all use in which someone was caught, and there must be two officers involved in the calibration test. I'm not sure, but i think it involves testing the thing on a police car on a specific bit of road at a specific speed, which also logically requires the police car in question to have had a speedo calibration check immediately prior to the equipment test...
|
|
So why aren't the Police involved prosecuted for perjury?
|
So why aren't the Police involved prosecuted for perjury?
Because they didn't lie under oath.
|
If someone accepted the fixed penalty and points, but now find there was an error with the measuring equipment, can they appeal after accepting their guilt?
If you accept the points and fine, the COP, you are admitting the alleged offence SFAIK. If the stated are facts are wrong there may be no come back. There certainly isn't on a parking ticket, once it is paid - matter is closed, again SFAIK.
|
>If someone accepted the fixed penalty and points, but now find there was an error with the measuring
>equipment, can they appeal after accepting their guilt?
>If you accept the points and fine, the COP, you are admitting the alleged offence SFAIK. If the stated are facts
>are wrong there may be no come back. There certainly isn't on a parking ticket, once it is paid - matter is closed,
>again SFAIK.
AFAIK,
If something comes to light at a later date which shows a conviction to be unlawful a refund is given and any penalty given is cancelled.
This has happened before where Gatsos at temporary road works have been found to be faulty, where speed limit signs having been moved on the highway & were not authorised by the proper council procedure.
All those people having been blackmailed into admitting fault were given refunds.
In this case though it is just the people on that day at that time who would be due a refund. For all other cases there would surely have to be some volunteering by the police of all the cases where the proper checks were not carried out,,,somehow I find that to be unlikely to happen. I say "volunteer" because surely there is a timelimit to appeal a case??? If I was convicted in 2004 of speeding it would surely be too late for me to request the calibration records from my case and submit an appeal.
I would like to more about the case, did he ask for the relevant calibration check records and were they then not provided because they were not carried out? Why was this not brought up in the magistrates court? How does one go about asking for calibration records anyway? Would this information not be held onto tightly by police with them saying "you can have that as part of the normal disclosure in the pre trial process" i.e. "see you in court" like they used to say about the photographs?
|
|
So why aren't the Police involved prosecuted for perjury?
Because they didn't lie under oath.
But what about being charged for wasting police time????
|
|
The Crown prosecuting the police for wasting their own time?
|
|
How about "dereliction of duty" ?
|
|
|
|
www.lep.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2010319&S...3
--
Go on, get out of the car...
www.mikes-walks.co.uk
|
|
I won a case with one of these devices. I reported here that I spent a happy morning playing with one of these lasers loaned to us by the makers. There is plenty of stuff on t'internet about these items and the processes that Officers have to comply with. I am currently contesting a similar case which revolves around an "administrative" failure by a Police Officer surrounding another bit of Police kit he was using at the time.
|
|
|
|
Is Idris Francis still awaiting a decision from the ECHR?
Kevin...
|
>Is Idris Francis still awaiting a decision from the ECHR?
I'd like to know what *exactly* his case being put forward involves, but I don't think his case has been heard yet.
|
|
|
Is Idris Francis still awaiting a decision from the ECHR?
He should do as he is asked and stop playing games. It's wasting our money.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
The driver in the OP has just been banned for 6 weeks after being caught doing 130 on the M6, so spending so much time & effort getting out of 3 points & £60 was a bit pointless.
|
|
|
|
The dipstick went out and deliberately sped past a camera so that he could have this case to appeal. What people without a life will do for their 15 nminutes of fame !
If I recall correctly the lawyer invovled was already pursuing somebody else's case in a similar way and Idris desperately wanted to be included. He has a tenuous grip of the issues involved. Or at least he used to have, he may have paid more attention in recent times.
He got booted out of here by Martyn originally partly for being a pain and partly for burying Martyn in propoganda via e-mail. Although apologies if I remember that incorrectly, but I don't think I do.
|
>The dipstick went out and deliberately sped past a camera so that he could have this case to appeal.
>What people without a life will do for their 15 nminutes of fame !
Are you talkin about Idris or the business man in OP as Bill Payer mentioned?
|
|
|
>..and partly for burying Martyn in propoganda via e-mail.
I heard that he'd subjected a couple of people on other sites to floods of email and got similar reactions there. Maybe that's why his case hasn't been heard yet, they're too busy answering his emails ;-)
Even though I don't particularly like his methods I hope he wins his case. Forcing someone to incriminate themselves or face harsher punishment is pretty Middle Ages.
Kevin...
|
Fleetingly, I thought I'd seen his name signing a post on the very site in the last week or so - possibly in technical....?
I remember his contributions quite well.
|
|
As a sort of post script, according to todays North West news Mr Wiltshire has now been banned for 6 weeks after getting caught at 130mph on the M6. He has been quoted saying something along the lines of 'I didn't realise how powerful my new car was'. Its a Honda S2000 judging by the BBC footage - didn't he know how quick it was when he bought it?
|
|
He's had that S2000 for ages - he parks it outside my office in Lancaster most days, although I haven't seen it this week and probably wont for 6 weeks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
