A MUST READ FOR ALL MOTORISTS HOW TO CHALLENGE ANY SPEEDING ALLEGATION THE PUBLICATION EVEN WRITES YOUR

LETTERS

THE ULTIMATE SPEED CAMERA CHALLENGE

(3rd Edition 2010)
Unfolds the mystery of the Speed Camera Save a 6 point endorsement on your licence and a Fine Save a Court Appearance 99% of Speeding Allegations should be challenged A Speed Camera does NOT measure speed Challenge a Speeding Ticket like a solicitor for a lot less money!!! Discover how much evidence the police actually have with a Speeding Allegation --- You will wonder why you ever pleaded guilty Letters carefully structured that have been used on numerous occasions to successfully discontinue a prosecution. Step by step instruction on how to deal with any allegation of speeding. Written by: - M.L.Alford. C.Eng. MEI

www.speedcamerachallenge.co.uk

Copyright M. L. Alford 2008 - 2018 The Ultimate Speed Camera Challenge is copyright and no part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, scanned, stored in a retrieval system, recorded or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher or the Author. The book is sold on the understanding that the information produced in this publication is used solely by the purchaser to challenge an alleged speeding/traffic offence. The book and the information in the book are sold on the understanding that the information produced in this publication is not to be used for commercial or financial gain. Please note it is our intention to be as accurate in fact, detail and comment as possible. However, the publishers and their representatives cannot be held responsible for any error in detail, accuracy or judgement whatsoever. The Ultimate Speed Camera Challenge is sold on this understanding. ISBN: 978-0-9558715-0-4 Published by J. M. Alford, all correspondence to: - St. Christopher House. West Tisted. Hampshire. SO24 0HJ.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................3 2 SUMMARY OF PUBLICATION ..................................................................................................................4 3 ANALYSING THE ALLEGED OFFENCE ...................................................................................................6 4 THE NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION.........................................................................................8 5 CONDITIONAL OFFER OF FIXED PENALTY.........................................................................................10 5.1 WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER PLEAD GUILTY..................................................................................11 5.2 NOTICE OF DISCONTINUATION.....................................................................................................13 6 THE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................................14 6.1 LASER TECHNOLOGY .....................................................................................................................14 6.2 RADAR TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................................16 7 THE APPLICATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY .........................................................................................18 7.1 THE HOME OFFICE RESPONSE.....................................................................................................18 7.2 ANALYSIS OF THE HOME OFFICE RESPONSE ............................................................................19 7.3 EXAMINATION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.......................................................................................20 8 THE EVIDENCE .......................................................................................................................................22 8.1 IDENTIFYING & UNDERSTANDING THE POLICE EVIDENCE.......................................................23 8.1.1 The LTI: 20.20 Laser Speedscope. .............................................................................................23 8.1.2 Gatso Speed Camera Photograph Appendix Number 3 .............................................................24 8.1.3 Truvelo Forward Facing Fixed Camera. Photo Appendix No. 4..................................................25 8.1.4 SPECS Average Speed Enforcement System ..........................................................................32 9 THE CALIBRATION CERTIFICATE.........................................................................................................33 9.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CALIBRATION CERTIFICATE...........................................................34 9.2 THE FUNCTION OF THE CALIBRATION CERTIFICATE ................................................................34 10 THE BRITISH SYSTEM OF JUSTICE ...................................................................................................39 11 THE RESPONSE DETAILED STEP BY STEP ....................................................................................42 12 THE CHALLENGE..................................................................................................................................44 12.1 THE INITIAL CHALLENGE LETTER ...............................................................................................45 12.2 LTI: 20.20 SPEEDSCOPE LASER TECHNOLOGY LETTER .........................................................50 12.3 THE GATSOMETER SPEED CAMERA LETTER ...........................................................................55 12.4 TRUVELO & REDSPEED ROAD SENSOR CAMERA LETTER .....................................................61 12.5 SPECS AVERAGE SPEED ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM LETTER ................................................67 12.6 THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ......................................................................................73 12.7 MAGISTRATE & CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE LETTERS .................................................74 13 SPEED CAMERA REPORTS.................................................................................................................77 13.1 SPECS Average Speed Enforcement System...................................................................................77 13.2 Gatso Rear Facing Speed Camera..................................................................................................80 13.3 Truvelo & RedSpeed Road Based Sensor System..........................................................................84 13.4 LTI 20-20 Speedscope Laser Speed Detection Device ...................................................................88 13.5 Positional Laser Slippage.................................................................................................................90 14 APPENDIX.1 LTI 20:20 PHOTOGRAPHS ..........................................................................................94 14 APPENDIX.2 - LTI 20:20 PHOTOGRAPHS 2 ........................................................................................95 14 APPENDIX.3 GATSO PHOTOGRAPHS.............................................................................................97 14 APPENDIX.4 TRUVELO PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................98 14 APPENDIX.6 EXAMPLE COPY OF CALIBRATION CERTIFICATE.................................................101 15 ADDITIONAL LETTERS.......................................................................................................................103 The Laymans Defence Strategy............................................................................................................103 15.1 Mobile Response ...........................................................................................................................108 15.2 Gatso/Truvelo/RedSpeed/Specs Response ..................................................................................112 15.3 INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSION. ...............................................................116 15.4 Information Commissioner Unattended Automatic Operated Device .........................................118 15.5 Information Commissioner - "Attended Actively Operated Device" ...............................................120

1 INTRODUCTION
This publication has been produced to provide every motorist with a better understanding of Speed Cameras and help with a successful challenge to a speeding allegation. It has NOT been produced to encourage the motorist to flout the law. The majority of speeding offences that occur are generally unintentional. Equally, many independent studies have shown that the Speed Camera to be ineffective in the fight to reduce deaths related to alleged speeding offences. There is a perception that prosecutions related to alleged speeding offences are nothing but a blatant stealth tax. This fact has eventually been admitted by Swindon Borough Council th and reported in the Daily Mail on 15 July 2008. If you are of the opinion that it is time to fight back, then this publication will provide you with all the information that you need to challenge any allegation of speeding. This publication is intended to focus your attention on specific subjects that will enable you to successfully challenge the speed camera. The publication informs you of only lawful ways in which to challenge the speed camera. Illustrations and actual photographs are shown in the publication of successful challenges made to speeding allegations. Extracts from a Home Office letter dated the 16th June 2006, indicate that the Recorded Speed shown on many Notices of Intended Prosecution, is rarely the true speed of the vehicle involved in an alleged speeding offence. The publication features the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty and tells you exactly why you should NEVER plead guilty. You are told EXACTLY what questions to ask, how to construct your letters, what to look for in the evidence presented by the police and how to identify the flaws in the evidence. The publication also gives you an understanding of the technology used by the speed camera and the misuse in the application of this technology. Based upon successful challenges to speeding allegations, it is estimated that at least 95% of all camera related speeding allegations could be successfully challenged. The publication covers the importance of the Calibration Certificate and, questions whether the farcical acceptance that recalibration of all Speed Cameras on an annual basis irrespective of the use of the camera, is adequate. A copy of a typical Calibration Certificate and Data Sheet for a LTI: 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope is provided. What every motorist needs to know about their lawful rights related to a speeding prosecution!!!

2 SUMMARY OF PUBLICATION
This publication provides a substantial amount of information about Speed Cameras, plus letters that can be immediately copied to challenge an allegation of Speeding. The letters can be used without necessarily understanding the information, although it does help. There are no gimmicks in this publication only solid information. The objective is: - to save the motorist wasting money unnecessarily on a fine, saving a six point endorsement on the driving licence and a Court appearance. More importantly is the need to ensure that the police apply Speed Camera technology correctly. This publication has identified five specific issues that the disadvantaged motorist should concentrate upon if a challenge to a speeding allegation is to be successful. This publication should help in providing the level playing field needed to mount a successful challenge. Always remember; the police and the Crown Prosecution Service always have the advantage. Find out what that advantage is and, why it should always be challenged!!! The first and fundamental issue of this publication is SPEEDING or more correctly, the allegation of speeding. In addressing this fundamental issue it is necessary to focus the approach to this subject onto the true meaning of speeding and speed. This issue is covered in greater detail in the section 3, Analysing the Alleged Offence. A clearer understanding of this issue will help with a structured challenge to a speeding allegation. The definition of speed in its most simplistic form is the starting point. The second issue is the application of Speed Camera technology. This publication questions the myth of modern technology and whether this technology is being suitably applied in the form of the Speed Camera. Speed Camera technology is generally based upon the use of radar and laser. The Technology and The Application of the Technology Sections, questions in greater detail whether the application of the technology used in Speed Cameras, is being used correctly to punish offending motorist. The Home Office Type Approve the use of all Speed Cameras. It is recognised and confirmed by the Home Office that the camera does not have any inbuilt mechanism that would enable it to rectify any discrepancy between a recorded speed and a true speed of a vehicle. This publication is of the view that the application of the technology is being incorrectly used resulting in numerous motorist being unjustly fined and receiving unjust penalty points on their licence. John Reid a previous Home Secretary, once said that The Home Office was not fit for purpose. This publication queries whether anything has changed. The third issue is the Evidence that is offered by the police. This is very often only a single photograph of the alleged speeding vehicle, dependent upon which speed camera is being used and, occasionally video evidence is available. It is questionable whether the photographic evidence in many incidents, is sufficient to prove that the vehicle is actually moving. Actual photographs and illustrations are provided showing alleged speeding offences in which there is a discrepancy between the recorded speed and the true speed of the vehicle. Illustrations are provided indicating the reason for the discrepancy between the true speed and the recorded speed of the vehicle. The fourth issue is the Calibration Certificate that is issued for each individual camera. This certificate is a crucial part of any allegation of speeding. There appears to be a perception that the Calibration Certificate is too technical.

The Data Sheet which is an integral part of the Calibration Certificate, is a technical document, nevertheless it must be remembered that every aspect of a speeding allegation is subject to scrutiny, nothing should be sacred, and the Calibration Certificate is no exception to this rule. The publication attempts to simplify this technical data. The certificate has a major role to play in any allegation of speeding, not only for the alleged offender but more importantly for the police. The police would probably not agree with this statement. The Calibration Certificate is the ultimate benchmark against which the accuracy of the Speed Camera is measured. The foundation for an allegation of speeding is based upon this benchmark. Proof of accuracy is essential. The final issue is related to the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. This code is the operational standard used by the Police Service for the use of road policing enforcement equipment. This publication is of the view that the police invariably use their own Code of Practice incorrectly and questions the legality of any future or past prosecutions of motorists. This publication provides sufficient information and the letters to copy, that will provide the questions to a rightful challenge to overturn or discontinue an Intended Prosecution. The structure and format of letters to the police is vitally important. It is the key to the success of the challenge to an allegation of speeding. The significance and relevance of the information provided by the police is equally as important. Section 12 & 15 provides letters that can be used to challenge an allegation of speeding, covering all aspects of this publication. The letters can be adapted to suit any specific application. Finally, the focus should be upon the allegation of speeding, because that is exactly what it is, an allegation. The onus to conclusively prove an allegation of speeding should be the responsibility of the police and the CPS, regrettably it isnt, the motorist is responsible for proving his/her innocence. The police responses to your letters and the questions contained in your letters; should either conclusively prove the allegation, or fail to prove the allegation because of insufficient evidence. There is absolutely nothing to lose by asking the police to provide the evidence. The police have a duty to respond to questions, failure to do so can provide spectacular results to overcome any further action by the police. The motorist has a choice; to either accept that the allegation of speeding is correct, send a thank you card, accept the fine and a six point endorsement on the driving licence, or challenge the allegation. The response from the police to the letters should provide an indication to the strength of the allegation of speeding. The view of this publication is that up to 95% of all speeding allegations should be challenged.

3 ANALYSING THE ALLEGED OFFENCE

What is essential from the very outset is an understanding of the definition of SPEED. SPEED can be defined as: The time taken for a vehicle to travel a specified distance, alternatively a) The distance a vehicle travels in a specified time. b) The rate of change of distance. All mean the same. Mathematically, the calculation for speed is:Speed = Distance divided by Time Speed = Distance Time

No apologies for stating something we all know. The objective is focus attention on simple and specific detail. This is not Rocket Science. Old Science Modern Technology The speed displayed on the photograph produced by the camera is calculated using the above equationThe distance the vehicle is alleged to have travelled divided by the alleged time taken for the vehicle to travel that distance. The measurements of time and distance should be the minimum amount of information that is required to be displayed on the evidential photograph, to enable the calculation of the recorded speed of the alleged speeding vehicle to be verified. Always look very carefully at the photograph and attempt to identify these two measurements. These measurements are recorded, but are very rarely displayed. You will be surprised how many times they are NOT displayed on the photograph. IF THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PROVIDED, HOW DO THE POLICE CONCLUSIVELY PROVE AN ALLEGATION OF SPEEDING? MORE IMPORTANTLY --- HOW DOES THE MOTORIST CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT A SPEEDING OFFENCE WAS NOT COMMITTED? THE ANSWER IS SUBLIMELY SIMPLE The Police do not have to prove an allegation of Speeding. In law it is assumed the evidence provided by the Camera is always correct. IS THIS ASSUMPTION FAIR OR REASONABLE? THIS ASSUMPTION, THAT THE CAMERA IS ALWAYS CORRECT, IS THE REASON WHY THE POLICE & THE CPS ALWAYS HAVE THE ADVANTAGE. WHY SHOULD WE ACCEPT THAT THE CAMERA IS INFALLIBLY CORRECT? THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS AGAIN SUBLIMELY SIMPLE THE MOTORIST HAS NO CHOICE. THE BRITISH SYSTEM OF JUSTICE DICTATES - THERE IS NO DEBATE THAT THE SPEED CAMERA IS ALWAYS CORRECT. ALWAYS REMEMBER SPEED IS A CALCULATION NOT A MEASUREMENT.

The calculation of speed is a combination of two precise measurements provided by the camera, namely distance and time, both of which should be accurate and known for the allegation of speeding to be proven: A Speed Camera provides a calculation of speed, it does not measure speed!!!! Question: - WHY IS THE CAMERA ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT? Answer: - BECAUSE THE BRITISH SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WHERE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IS NORMALLY ACCEPTED, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SPEED CAMERA. The sole responsibility of the police is to provide photographic evidence with a calculated measurement of speed. The motorist then has the responsibility and unenviable task of proving the camera to be incorrect. This subject will be covered in greater depth. This publication considers that the assumption of the camera always being correct is a case of blindly accepting the infallibility of modern technology. In the case of the speed camera nothing could be further from the truth. The camera has its limitations and very often these limitations are exceeded. In fact the Operations Manual of one particular Camera namely the LTI: 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope, mentions that the calculation is prone to error. This issue is also dealt with later. It is extremely important to remember that the accuracy of the two measurements of distance and time is paramount to an accurate calculation of speed. Reference will continually be made to these two variables and question whether the measurements produced for these two variables are conclusively accurate in speeding allegations. This is not necessarily the camera functioning incorrectly, but the incorrect application of the camera, thus exceeding its limitations. The time and distance variables are both functions of the Calibration Certificate, the camera is recalibrated and the certificate is re-issued once a year. So for the remaining 364 days we assume that the accuracy of the camera is correct, irrespective of the amount of use. A separate section is dedicated to this subject. An incorrect measurement in either variable will provide an incorrect speed calculation, combine the two and the alleged speeding offence could result in any ridiculous answer. This unfortunate combination is probably the reason that has resulted in a wall travelling at 8 mph and a number of other unexplained incidents highlighted in the National Press and on television. Now that we are aware of the importance of the Time and Distance variables, the question that we should now be asking is: - Does the evidence provided by the police indicate these two variables? The answer to this question will be answered by viewing the photographic evidence. Actual photographs of alleged speeding offences are shown in the Appendix. None of the photographs reproduced in the Appendix indicate both variables. Two of the photographs actually indicate neither of the variables. None of these photographs under the normally accepted system of British justice provides sufficient evidence to prove an allegation of speeding. These photographs are typical examples of the evidence provided by the police.

4 THE NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION

If you unfortunately receive a Notice for an alleged speeding offence, it is extremely important if you wish to avoid a Court appearance, to respond immediately if possible and answer the questions truthfully. Failure to respond within a set period, generally 28 days, could result in a separate and additional offence of failing to provide information. This offence carries the same punishment as the alleged speeding offence of points on your licence and the equivalent fine. It is recommended that you do not give the police the opportunity to exercise their right to prosecute for this offence. When responding, if you intend to challenge the speeding allegation, complete the Notice and enclose a separate letter requesting information regarding the alleged speeding offence. There is a separate section in this publication, dedicated to assisting you to respond in the correct manner and recommending the relevant questions to ask to assist in your challenge to the allegation of speeding. It has been suggested that by naming yourself as the driver could be an abuse of your Human Rights because you could be incriminating yourself as the guilty party. Experience on this subject has shown that it is a distraction from the real issue of the allegation of speeding. The CPS will almost certainly bring a charge of failing to provide information that will incur a Court appearance and the onus will be on you to prove an abuse of your Human Rights, in which there will be no guarantee of you winning, in fact you will almost certainly loss. It is recommended that you avoid this subject if possible. As you will see in the publication, there are sufficient flaws with the questionable application of the camera, the evidence presented by the police and, questions related to the Calibration Certificate, to successfully challenge the allegation of speeding, without resorting to the protracted tactics of Human Rights abuse on the issue of naming the driver. The Notice is carefully worded and it is essential that you read every detail carefully against the evidence provided. A simple mistake such as time, date, location etc, will often be sufficient to nullify the allegation. ALWAYS check the date of the postmark on the envelope and keep the envelope as proof of delivery. There is a legal obligation for the Notice to be served within 14 days of the alleged offence. Failure to observe this obligation will render the Notice null and void. The Notice provides information regarding the alleged offence, vehicle details, location, time, date etc. It also requests information regarding the driver that needs to be answered. The information that is relevant to the allegation is the manner in which the alleged speed of the vehicle is presented. The speed of the vehicle is generally presented as the Recorded Speed and not the actual speed of the vehicle. Very rarely are the two compatible. The relevance of this will become clearer as we progress through the publication. A tactic often used by the police is to refer the motorist to the manufacturer or the Home Office when a technical or difficult question is asked related to the camera. The police are fully aware of the difficulties that this presents. We have a method of combating this tactic. The motorist will be informed that the camera is Home Office Type Approved; is designed to be reliable and tamper proof and has the ability to be self-checking, any technical data requests should be made to the manufacturers etc.

You could also be informed that it is not the responsibility of the police to provide or prepare evidence that would disprove its own case. The second letter to the police pre-empts the majority of these responses. Do not be intimidated by this tactic. If you decide to challenge an allegation of speeding always remain convinced of your innocence. It is the responsibility of the police to provide the evidence for the CPS. Any request that you make for information related to a speeding allegation, is not to disprove the Prosecution case, it is merely to confirm whether the evidence in the possession of the Prosecution, is sufficient to conclusively prove the allegation of speeding. All requests for information related to an allegation of speeding are justified and reasonable. Logic clearly says that nobodys interest is served attending Court unnecessarily. The CPS will only attend Court when they are extremely confident of securing a conviction. Regrettably the British System of Justice of innocent until proven guilty does not apply to speed cameras. The motorist is deemed to be guilty unless he/she can prove their innocence. Immediately, the CPS has an advantage. However, this publication provides a valid response. The system seems biased in favour of a conviction and extremely unfair. This publication agrees with this viewpoint and, provides adequate information to enable all motorists to challenge any speeding allegation. The current system of justice is addressed later in this publication. It is important therefore to seek as much information as possible from the police, even though they are not necessarily obliged legally to respond to disclosure of evidence. There is a legitimate tactic used by this publication however, that ensures that the police do provide a response. It could be classified as a loophole it is legitimate and it CANNOT BE CLOSED. The CPS is completely reliant upon the evidence provided by the police. If the police and CPS are unable to provide the answers by correspondence, it is reasonable to assume that these questions will form the basis of your defence should a Court appearance be necessary. That being the case, the CPS will need to be prepared to respond verbally to these questions in Court if necessary.

5 CONDITIONAL OFFER OF FIXED PENALTY

Once the police are aware of the name of the driver of the vehicle who allegedly committed a speeding offence, the Conditional Offer usually follows the Notice of Intended Prosecution. In the exact same manner as the Notice of Intended Prosecution there are specific guidelines that must be followed. The Offer that the alleged offender is faced with is: 1. Attend a driver awareness course, usually for one day. The cost of the course is usually the same as the fixed penalty fine, although it can sometimes be greater. The advantage is that your licence will not be endorsed with penalty points and, is worth considering. 2. Normally you will be informed that it may be possible to deal with the (alleged) offence with a fixed penalty fine and a 3 point endorsement on your licence without the need for Court Proceedings. This offer is conditional on there being no more than eight points on your licence. You could also be informed on all or some of the following: a. The offence carries a maximum fine of 1000.00 and a 6 point penalty endorsement. b. The police have or infer that there is sufficient evidence to commence Court Proceedings. c. If you do not meet the conditions you will remain liable for the offence and Court proceedings will be commenced against you. d. If you wish to contest this allegation in Court you may do so. e. The alleged offence could be penalised with disqualification at the discretion of the Court The Offer by the Constabulary is as follows: IF YOU WISH TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A FIXED PENALTY PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS OVERLEAF AND FOLLOW THEM CAREFULLY. You will be told that you have 28 days from the date of this Notice to take up the Conditional Offer. Failure to respond to the Notice or comply with the conditions will result in prosecution. Some Conditional Offers only make provision for a guilty response. Enclosed with the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, could be a letter of response to your first letter requesting the evidence. Assuming that you have used the first letter in this publication, the police response is likely to be incomplete and selective. However, what you will or should receive will be the photographic evidence. Analysis the evidence as shown, checking that the information provided on the photograph is compatible with the information on both Notices. For example, times, date, speed, frame number any references etc. The important information that you should look for, is the information from which the speed of the vehicle is alleged to have been travelling. The information required is: - the distance the vehicle is alleged to have travelled and the time taken to travel that distance. If that information is not on the photograph, then the evidence is insufficient to conclusively prove the vehicle was actually moving. The action recommended is to respond immediately with the second letter and acknowledge the Conditional Offer to avoid the threat of prosecution for failure of responding to the Notice.

10

5.1 WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER PLEAD GUILTY

At this stage consider your position. You should have in your possession the photographic evidence and, you will also be aware that the CPS does not have to prove your guilt. British law accepts that you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence, its appears that everything is against you and a foregone conclusion that you have very little hope of walking away from this without a fixed penalty fine and 3 endorsement points on your licence. The very kind policeman will usually confirm that he does not have to answer your requests for information, but does offer you an easy option; pay the fine, accept the endorsement points on your licence and you will not need to make a Court appearance. To date, the majority of the British motoring public, in excess of 95%, Plead Guilty and accept the fine and endorsement points, cursing the injustice of the system and generally feeling that they have been professionally mugged by the modern day Dick Turpin. This is daylight robbery The remaining 5% plead Not Guilty. None of this need be necessary. The motoring public are providing a tremendous service to the police and CPS, by accepting the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty. This is music to their ears when you put your hard earned money into the government coffers without a struggle. If the government want your money that badly, this publication suggests that you should make the government work for it as hard as you did, with little or no additional cost to yourself. Never Enter a Plea - write a second letter to the police, requesting all the legitimate information that you are entitled too. The police will usually state that they do not need to disclose any information claiming that it is disclosure of evidence this is incorrect. Refusal to respond to your requests for information is a contravention of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. The letters require responses to some very difficult questions related to the use of this Code of Practice. This publication is of the view that the police are contravening their very own Code of Practice and, questions the legality of any future or past prosecutions of motorists. The upside to this is that if the police or CPS decide not to prosecute and it does happen, see the attached testimonial from the CPS you not only save a fine and endorsement points, you are also entitled to expenses if a Court appearance is necessary. The fact is you have very little to loss and a great deal to gain by exhausting the process. Legitimate and specific questions are the key to a successful challenge to a speeding allegation. Another tactic the police may employ to encourage a plea of guilty, is to attempt to restrict any correspondence time to the 28 day limit. This can be completely unrealistic and biased towards a speeding conviction. The Offer is quite clear but failure to respond to this notice OR comply with the conditions overleaf will result in a prosecution. Your letter of request for additional information will provide you with the opportunity and information to make an informed plea to the speeding allegation. If the police inform you that the 28 day period has expired and no further correspondence will be entered into, then this publication would suggest that the police are in breach of their Ethical Oath of acting impartially and, a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Committee is recommended another loophole!!! Failing be act impartially thus favouring a bias towards a conviction, restricts your option of making an informed plea, would be considered a contravention of the ACPO Code of Practice

11

Some off the Cuff Thoughts: In agreeing to accept the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty and pleading guilty to a speeding allegation, what message are you sending out? QUESTION: - Do you really know the exact speed that you were travelling at? Think carefully, were you looking at the speedometer at the exact moment the photograph was taken? Do you know or remember the exact moment the photograph was taken, or did you even know that a photograph had been taken? The answer to these questions is No!! Therefore, why would you ever consider pleading guilty to any allegation, not just an allegation of speeding if you didnt know the answer? Consider the hypothetical consequences of pleading guilty to travelling above the restricted speed limit, knowing the exact speed of your vehicle at any one time? Apart from the obvious admittance of speeding, you are also admitting to the technical offence of taking your eyes off the road whilst driving which could be interpreted as driving with undue care and attention and not being in control of your car. It could be argued that this offence is similar to answering a mobile phone whilst driving; eating an apple whilst driving, adjusting the radio whilst driving, lighting a cigarette whilst driving and the list goes on. These offences are all technically punishable with a fine and an endorsement on your licence, over and above the speeding offence. Could you be absolutely sure that this will never happen? We live in a Nanny State where anything can happen, especially where extracting money from the gullible motorist is concerned. A motorist was stopped by the police for laughing March 2009 The Government view the motorist as a bottomless pit of revenue, the easiest and least resistant group who will accept anything the government say and, pay whatever the government DEMAND. FIGHT BACK - MAKE THEM WORK FOR THE MONEY THEY STEAL FROM YOU. So carefully consider your position. Can you really afford to plead guilty to the offence of driving at a specified speed, without first confirming the evidence held by the police? You Must ALWAYS Ask to see the Evidential Photograph and irrespective what the police tell you it must be provided The Protocol of the ACPO Code of Practice failure to comply with the Code will represent a denial of your rights to a fair trial. This publication strongly recommends that every motorist without exception, challenges a speeding allegation through to the full disclosure stage. If you do not challenge the speeding allegation, the minimum outcome will be a fine and a 3 penalty point licence endorsement. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose with your legal entitlement of challenging the speeding allegation. Never plead Guilty ever!! Regrettably the workload of the police and CPS is immense; which of course we as motorists all naturally sympathise with this self inflicted overtime. Our sympathies for the burden of processing in excess two million speeding allegations, that no doubt means working additional hours, which must be horrific. However, every motorist must take opportunity to exercise their right to be fairly treated where the integrity of a speeding allegation is concerned. The CPS could decide to discontinue. See the attached Discontinuation Notice.

12

5.2 NOTICE OF DISCONTINUATION

13

6 THE TECHNOLOGY
Generally, the technology used is Radar or Laser. We will begin with the use of Laser Technology and the LTI: 20.20 Speedscope. This publication does not question the accuracy of Laser and Radar Technology. It is usually the Application of the technology that creates the errors.

6.1 LASER TECHNOLOGY

Laser technology is used with the controversial LTI: 20.20 TS/M device, which can be hand held, mounted on the top of police vehicles, inside of police vehicles etc. It catches many thousands of innocent motorists annually and reportedly earns more than 100 million per annum in fines. The LTI: 20.20 Laser Speedscope is capable of undertaking certain tasks very successfully and extremely accurately. The first task is to measure the distance between the camera and an object with extreme accuracy. The second task is to calculate the speed of a vehicle travelling directly towards or away from the camera, again very accurately, dependant upon the manner of the camera support and the consistency of the target position. However, there are some provisos. 1. The accuracy of both tasks is dependent upon proof of the performance of the camera being at least equal to the standards set by the Calibration Certificate and, compliance with the manufacturers recommendations for use. 2. The accuracy of the second task is dependent upon the vehicle travelling directly towards or away from the camera, with no shift of the target position. Any deviation from this defined direction of travel or target shift will result in an incorrect measurement of distance travelled by the vehicle, resulting in an incorrect calculation of speed. No deviation in the correct direction of travel is acceptable. Speed = Distance Time The Home Office description on the subject of speed calculation using laser technology is: The speed measured is the speed in the direction towards or away from the device. Lasers used to determine Speed. An extract from the Manufacturers Operations Manual. The LTI 20.20 TS/M Speedscope determines speed by measuring the time of flight of very short pulses of infrared light, using the speed of light as a known constant. The time it takes the laser pulse to travel to the target and back is directly proportional to the distance to the target. Consequently, by firing two pulses a known time apart, two distances can be calculated. The change in distance, divided by the known time interval between the two pulses, gives the speed of the target. In theory it is possible to use two pulses to determine the speed of the target, however, in practice this exercise is undertaken approximately 42 or 30 times, providing 42 or 30 independent sets of results over a period of one third of a second, dependent on the camera used. Speed = Distance divided by Time

14

A single individual reading of change of distance is prone to errors; typically a shift of the aiming point between pulses could be sufficient to provide an error. To eliminate the possibility of such errors independent tests are applied to the pulse data and failure of any one of the tests, results in an error being displayed. Hence a set of results is used to derive the speed of the target using a method known as the method of least squares. -------------------- ---------------------- --------------------Briefly, the method of least squares is a mathematical statistical estimation procedure for finding the best fitting curve or straight line graph to a set of given points, in this application, 42 or 30 given points. The resultant graph drawn from the recorded data is intended to be the most accurate line fitted between the data, thus ensuring that any error that could occur is minimised. The more data that is provided the more likelihood the error will be reduced but never eliminated, simply because the method is a statistical estimation. Diagrams and actual photographs in this publication are used to illustrate the correct and incorrect application of this technology. Without probing to deeply into Laser Technology, the simple explanation is that laser technology is linear, straight line or one dimensional technology. In other words any camera using laser technology is a linear measuring device that is only capable of giving an accurate measurement in an absolute straight line towards or away from the device. For the purpose of this publication, the only view of a vehicle that should be visible when photographed allegedly speeding, is the entire front or rear of the vehicle, dependent upon where the camera is located. Appendix 1 illustrates this explanation. This view is one dimensional If the top and/or the side of the vehicle are visible in the photograph, then the vehicle is not travelling in straight line towards the camera. Appendix 2 illustrates a two dimensional view, the front and side are in view, resulting in an incorrect calculation of speed. Appendix 3 & 4 are three dimensional views, the front, side and top are in view. Fig.1 indicates the direction the vehicle travels relative to the camera as indicated in Appendix 2. The calculated speed or measured distance from the camera is indicated by the vector CV. This is also known as the Recorded Speed of the vehicle, the recorded speed is the speed that is generally shown on a Notice of Intended Prosecution. The True Speed or distance travelled by the vehicle is represented by the vector VA. The True Speed of the vehicle is the figure that should be shown on the Notice of Intended Prosecution. It is very easy to see that any deviation by the vehicle, away from the absolute straight line towards or away from the camera, will produce different results for the true speed and the calculated speed of the vehicle. The diagrammatic illustration below shows the difference between the two measurements. True Speed or Distance travelled Vehicle =V Fig.1 Calculated Speed or Measured Distance C = Camera A

We have looked at Laser Technology and highlighted the limitations of its use for speed detection. As we progress through the book we will look at the other variable in the calculation of speed, namely time, and question whether the authorities are able to conclusively prove that this variable is always accurate when scrutinised.

15

6.2 RADAR TECHNOLOGY

Radar is an acronym derived from radio detection and ranging. It is an electronic system that uses radio waves. Measuring the time required for a radio wave to travel from a transmitter to an object (the target) and back again. The position, distance, speed and direction of the object can be determined. Similar difficulties exist with Radar. Unless the vehicle being targeted is driving directly towards or away from the camera/transmitter, the speed of the vehicle registered by the camera will not be the true speed of the vehicle. This is not to say that the instrument is incorrect, but merely confirms that unless the application of the technology is correctly applied, the true speed and the calculated or recorded speed will be different. There are numerous other difficulties associated with radar detection such as weather conditions, radio wave interference from other vehicles or static objects, electrical interference just to mention a few. However, some of these secondary issues may be difficult to prove, whereas the direction of travel in the majority of speeding allegations will be indisputable, as the camera will be located on the roadside and the photograph will show the side and/or top of the vehicle, in other words a deviation from the straight line measurement. As a general summary, cameras using radar and laser technology, which are elevated or fixed on the roadside or handheld etc., will generally provide a reading that differs between the true speed of a vehicle and the calculated or recorded speed of a vehicle. The reason for the difference is the true direction of travel of the vehicle is at a different angle to the camera that is used to calculate the Recorded speed of a vehicle. The recorded speed of a vehicle is the calculation used in the majority of allegations of speeding, irrespective whether the technology used is Laser or Radar.

Always ask for copies of all the photographic evidence.

The Gatso Speed Camera. Appendix 3 The photograph taken by this camera clearly shows that the camera is not only elevated but also situated on the side of the road, compounding the inaccuracy of the true speed of the vehicle. This is a three dimensional image used to calculate a one dimensional reading. The Truvelo Forward Facing Camera. Appendix.4 This camera, which is forward facing, operates on a road based sensor system and is discussed in the following Sections. Further discussion on both these cameras and photographs in the Appendix, deals in greater depth with the application of the technology, which by now you will have realised has a major bearing on the proposed challenge to the Speed Camera. Remember. Speed = Distance Time or Time = Distance Speed or Distance = Speed x Time

Three variations on the equation of Speed, that forms the entire basis for this publication and around which the Technology applied to Speed Cameras depends. Speed is a calculation, NOT a measurement. A Speed Camera calculates speed, it does NOT measure speed. This is extremely important to remember.

16

The measurement of Distance is a precise number and, the measurement of Time is a precise number, therefore by definition Speed is a precise calculation. If there is any doubt about the conclusive and precise accuracy of either measurement, the resultant calculation of speed cannot be guaranteed to be the true speed of the vehicle. The minimum evidence that the police should require to obtain a conviction for speeding is: Conclusive proof of the measured distance a vehicle travels and, conclusive proof of the time taken for the vehicle to travel that measured distance.

17

7 THE APPLICATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY

We have already partially touched upon the subject of the application of the technology in previous sections. The only correct and undisputed application of Laser and Radar Technology is to ensure that the camera is pointed directly at the front of an approaching vehicle or at the rear of a vehicle moving away from the camera in a direct straight line. Both positions would give 100% undisputed correct readings. The photograph in Appendix 1 is a classic example of the correct procedure. It is quite obvious from the photographs shown in Appendix. 2 & 3, of vehicles involved in actual speeding allegations, that the application of the technology is incorrect; the camera is being used at an angle to the car. The obvious question to ask is, are the police aware that the application of the technology is incorrect. The answer to that question, based upon correspondence with the police on this subject is a resounding yes, they are fully aware. If they are aware, then why do they continue with this incorrect application? This incorrect application is often referred to as the Cosine principle. Every day of the year similar photographs to those shown in this publication of vehicles allegedly speeding, is typical of those taken all around the UK, in which many thousands of innocent motorists accept that the allegation of speeding is correct and pay the fine without a challenge. However, in fairness to the Police, they are merely following policy guidelines as laid down by the Home Office. The Home Office view on the use of the application of the Technology is shown in an extract below.

7.1 THE HOME OFFICE RESPONSE

The LTI 20.20 laser speedmeter does not include any correction to the speed measured to take account of the angle of measurement to the direction of the traffic measured. The speed measured is the speed in the direction towards or away from the device. Consequently the speed measured is the true speed multiplied by the cosine of the angle to the direction of the traffic. As the cosine of any angle is less than one, the measurement is always reduced in favour of the driver. The speed used is the speed displayed and no correction is made to it and no additional information is required to be programmed into the device or camera attached to it. This above statement by the Home Office acknowledges that the recorded speed taken from two and three dimensional photographic images will not be the correct speed of the vehicle, due to the incorrect application of the speed camera technology. Whenever the true speed is obviously different to the calculated or recorded speed, the calculated or recorded speed is nothing more than an assessment of the true speed and should be challenged accordingly. Regrettably, due to the current system of British justice, it is extremely unlikely that the motorist would ever win this argument.

18

Certain aspects of The Home Office response will not necessarily have a great deal of meaning, however, for information only a brief outline of the Trigonometric Principles of Cosine is included in the Appendix. It not necessary to understand this principle, it has been inserted for information only and, will hopefully be of assistance. The important issue to understand is that it is accepted in law that the practice of prosecuting the motorist for allegedly speeding, knowing that the recorded speed of a vehicle, is not necessarily the true speed of the vehicle. The Trigonometric Principle of Cosine mentioned in the Home Office response is applied to right angled triangles. The relevant Home Office comment being, consequently the speed measured is the true speed multiplied by the cosine of the angle. The basis of the explanation by The Home Office is that the true speed of the vehicle will always be greater than the calculated speed, so the Home Office view is that it is not necessary to calculate the true speed. The camera does not provide sufficient information to calculate the true speed of the vehicle. The illustration Fig.1 below clearly indicates the difference between the true speed and the calculated speed. The measurement of the true speed, vector VA, is longer than the calculated speed VC. The angle g represents the difference between the true direction and the measured direction of the vehicle. V = Vehicle g Fig.1 Measured Direction & Calculated Speed C = Camera True Direction & Speed A

7.2 ANALYSIS OF THE HOME OFFICE RESPONSE

The Home Office response states that the LTI 20.20 Laser Speedmeter does not include any correction to the speed measured to take account of the angle of measurement to the direction of the traffic measured. This basically means; that the true speed of any vehicle, travelling at an angle other than directly towards the camera, cannot be accurately calculated by the camera. If the true speed of the vehicle cannot be accurately calculated by the camera, what is the basis of the prosecution? By definition, speed is a precise calculation that is dependent upon a precise measurement of distance and a precise measurement of time. Any deviation from these precise measurements will provide an incorrect calculation of the True Speed. The Notice of Intended Prosecution is based upon a Recorded speed, which we know is not the true speed. The recorded speed is nothing more than an assessment of the true speed. The final sentences of the Home Office response also requires some consideration, simply because it appears to qualify the reason why it is considered that no speed correction is required to take account of the angle of measurement to the direction of the traffic measured.

19

As the cosine of any angle is less than one, the measurement is always reduced in favour of the driver. The speed used is the speed displayed and no correction is made to it and no additional information is required to be programmed into the device or camera attached to it. If we consider each sentence individually, this will probably give us an insight into Home Office logic. As the cosine of any angle is less than one, this statement is 100% correct and indisputable. The measurement is always reduced in favour of the driver. Now this statement is a classic in lateral thinking and a tongue in cheek assessment. It is unimaginable that any motorist receiving a Notice of Intended Prosecution will believe that the Constabulary or the Home Office has done him/her any favours. It is very doubtful whether the Home Office has ever received a thank you card for this favour. It is an undeniable fact that the speed used to prosecute a driver using two and three dimensional photographic images, is a calculated speed based upon a vehicle travelling in a completely different direction to the true direction of the vehicle. This calculated or recorded speed is most certainly not the true speed of the vehicle. In this particular instance, any prosecution for an alleged speeding violation is based upon an assessment of the true speed. If the motorist accepts the prosecution without a challenge, the only recipients of any favours on offer will be The Home Office, the Treasury, the police etc. Finally, The speed used is the speed displayed and no correction is made to it and no additional information is required to be programmed into the device or camera attached to it. The meaning of this sentence could not be clearer. The speed displayed is the speed used for a prosecution, irrespective of the accuracy of the speed. ALTHOUGH AN ALLEGATION OF SPEEDING UNDER THESE CONDITIONS SHOULD ALWAYS BE CHALLENGED, REGRETTABLY IT IS EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL. HOWEVER THERE ARE OTHER LAWFUL METHODS TO CHALLENGE THE CAMERA THAT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL. There is a clear acceptance of the incorrect application of cameras used for speed detection.

7.3 EXAMINATION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photographs in the Appendix indicate vehicles that have been involved in speeding allegations. Laser Technology.Appendix.1 The illustration shows a vehicle where the application of the technology is 100% correct, indicating that the vehicle is moving towards the camera in a direct straight line. It is noticeable that only the front of the vehicle is visible. The photograph clearly provides a detailed explanation of the information recorded by the camera.

20

Laser Speedscope. Appendix.2 The illustration shows two vehicles that were involved in alleged speeding incidents. The incidents were recorded on separate dates. One vehicle is driving away from the camera, whilst the other vehicle is driving towards the camera. In both these incidents, incorrect application of laser technology has been applied. It is noticeable that in both photographs that the offside of the vehicle is partially visible. This indicates that both vehicles although driving in directions apparently towards or away from the camera, were not driving in a direct straight line towards or away from the camera. The angle of direction relative to the camera is unknown; therefore the true speed of the vehicle is unknown. The true speed of the vehicle is the recorded or calculated speed that is shown on the Notice of Intended Prosecution divided by the cosine of the unknown angle. The Gatso Speed Camera. Appendix.3. The GATSO rear facing camera shown in these photographs is clearly elevated and situated on the side of the road. The technology associated with this camera also requires that to obtain an accurate calculation of the speed and distance of the vehicle being monitored, the vehicle should move in a direct straight line towards or as in this case away from the camera. The inaccuracy of the true speed of the vehicle is compounded by the fact that not only is the side of the vehicle visible, but the top of the vehicle is also visible. It is therefore quite obvious that the camera will be unable to measure the true distance that the vehicle travelled. If the camera is unable to measure the true distance the vehicle travelled, it follows that the calculated speed will also be inaccurate. This particular camera, a rear facing camera used Radar Technology in this instance. Truvelo Forward Facing Fixed Camera. Appendix.4. The technology associated with this camera is a road based sensor system, where the distance measurements are known and constant. The only variable is time. The publication provides a substantial report to the authenticity of the Truvelo and Gatso cameras; that can be downloaded or individually printed and presented with the relevant letters to be used to challenge any speeding allegation. Independent letters and reports are also provided for the LTI: 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope and, the SPECS Average Speed Enforcement System.

21

8 THE EVIDENCE
At this stage, every reader should by now be very confident about the evidence that police require to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a speeding violation has occurred. At the risk of being repetitive, the evidence required is the distance that a vehicle travels and the time taken for the vehicle to travel that known distance. This is an obvious statement and one that we continue to emphasis, simply because this is the evidence that the police should provide to prove beyond reasonable doubt an allegation of speeding. Speed = Distance or Time = Distance or Distance = Speed x Time Time Speed To reinforce earlier statements, Speed by definition is a precise number, simple because it is a calculation based upon the precise measurements of distance and time. These comments are obvious; they are repeated in this section merely to re-focus attention on the obvious. It has been shown previously in this text that distance measurements in particular are not all they seem to be. Also the measurement of time should never be accepted as accurate without conclusive proof. If an allegation is made, not necessarily a speeding allegation, then it is not unreasonable to request the accuser making that allegation to provide proof. This is surely a basic human right. Regrettably where speed cameras are concerned, this basic human right does not appear to be applicable. The only proof provided by the police in a speeding allegation is generally a still photograph showing a calculation of the alleged speed of the vehicle. Under the British system of justice this photographic evidence is assumed to be correct and accepted in law. The quality of photographic evidence varies immensely to the point of being extremely disappointing and unprofessional. The information displayed in some photographs is almost illegible. The photographs shown in the Appendix of this publication are typical examples of the photographic evidence provided by the police. It is recommended to request an explanation of the printed information. It must be remembered that generally, this is the only evidence available, although the police do claim that they may have video evidence. A request for confirmation of video evidence is recommended, with the request for all available evidence related to the allegation of speeding. Upon receipt of the evidence it is worth referring to the previous sections. In particular carefully consider whether the evidence provided does actually contain sufficient information to prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegation of speeding. A very useful reference document is the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. This publication provides extracts from the operational standards for the Police Service in the use of road policing enforcement equipment.

22

This publication recommends that every motorist should obtain a copy. Remember, The Ultimate Speed Camera Challenge recognises the accuracy of speed camera technology, but also recognises that errors in speeding allegations are in the majority due to the incorrect application of the technology associated with speed cameras. This has been highlighted in the previous section. The strength of any challenge is dependent upon the quality of information available. Initially, some information may appear to have no bearing on the allegation; however, it is usually preferable to have too much information than not enough. A certain amount of information is a prerequisite to enable the alleged offender to defend himself/herself against the allegation. This is usually the distance, time information. What technology/camera was used in this particular allegation? Does the allegation and information provided, conform to ACPO Codes of Practice? very important Is the application of the technology correct? This will be apparent from the photograph. Never be afraid to ask the questions, some of the responses will be surprising and others very disappointing. The more information that is gathered through various questions asked of the Constabulary; could be the catalyst that saves a Court appearance, a fine and endorsement points.

8.1 IDENTIFYING & UNDERSTANDING THE POLICE EVIDENCE

Photographic evidence will be central to any prosecution. Understanding and analysing the evidence is the next step. This publication is amazed in the acceptance, that generally the only evidence the police currently provide does not show the basic information that could conclusively prove a speeding allegation. British Law deems it unnecessary for the police to provide any additional evidence.

8.1.1 The LTI: 20.20 Laser Speedscope.

The quality of photographs and especially the information displayed appears to generally be superior where laser technology is used. With laser technology, only a single photograph is offered in evidence to an allegation of speeding. There may also be video evidence. Photograph. Appendix.1 This photograph was supplied by the police following a request for information. It appears to be a Standard Mobile Data Block Guide, probably using a LTI 20.20 Speedscope Laser Device, complete with a detailed description of all the information displayed. What is noticeable with this particular photograph is that the Application of the Technology, that so much time and space has been devoted too in this publication; is absolutely perfect. This is the correct application of laser technology. The laser beam is directed at the number plates at the front of the vehicle and, the vehicle is directed straight at the camera. No other elevation or part elevation of the vehicle is visible. Please note, the crosshairs of the camera are centralised on the registration number plate. This is extremely important.

23

This photograph and the information on the data block, is reasonably self explanatory and standard for the majority of alleged speeding violations using the LTI: 20.20 Laser Speedscope. However, what appears to be missing from the information recorded; is the time and distance detail that would confirm that the vehicle was travelling at the alleged speed of 40mph. The information required to confirm the allegation is the actual distance travelled and the time taken to travel the recorded distance. When writing your letter it is important to ask for recorded evidence of the distance travelled and the time taken to travel that distance related to the allegation of travelling at 40mph. There is insufficient information on that photograph to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle was travelling at 40mph, or actually moving. Photographs. Appendix 2. These two photographs were also taken with a LTI 20.20 Speedscope Laser Devise. Both cameras were mounted in or on police vans. The first photograph was taken from the opposite side of the carriageway, the vehicle driving away from the camera, whilst the second photograph was taken from an elevated bridge with the vehicle driving towards the bridge. Neither vehicle is travelling in a true straight line towards or away from the camera. Illustration Fig.1 in the Application of the Technology, page 19, indicates the measured and true directions of the vehicles. It is clear to see from both photographs that the application of the technology is incorrect. The offside of both vehicles is clearly visible, indicating that both vehicles are moving in a different direction to the camera and, not directly at the camera. There are two issues in these photographs; both are covered in the Reports and Letters Section. 1. Both crosshairs are shown on each number plate; this is not always the case. If either crosshair is not centred on the number plate a challenge is required to the speeding allegation. Refer to Positional Laser Slippage. 2. Please Note that in the second photograph there are additional vehicles in the photograph which could represent a contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice where two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measurement field, the reading must be disregarded.

8.1.2 Gatso Speed Camera Photograph Appendix Number 3

These two photographs were taken by a Gatso Speed Camera. The photographs are of poor quality and the information contained on the photographs unreadable. If this is the normal standard of photographs issued, then the requirement for information related to these allegations of speeding is as follows: a. The recorded distance travelled by the vehicle as registered by the camera. b. The recorded time taken to travel the recorded distance as registered by the camera. c. The time taken between the two photographs that provide the secondary evidence and the distance between the road markings. This will be the only information provided. Also request a printout of all the illegible data from the camera. The trigonometric principles of cosine are applicable to this incident. The incorrect application of the technology due to the side and elevated position of the camera will provide different readings for the recorded and true speed. Again, refer to the illustration on page 19. The fallibility of the application of the technology is well documented. To check the accuracy of the speed recorded by the camera, two photographs are taken of the allegedly speeding vehicle. The markings on the road, usually five feet apart, allow a secondary check of the speed to be carried out, based upon the distance travelled between flashes of the camera. The time taken between photographs is predetermined, this can vary and needs to be known; this secondary check allows the speed recorded by the camera to be checked.

24

Secondary Check evidence is the only evidence permissible in Court, to assist in the defence of the accused. This explanation is extremely important because this information confirms that the allegation of speeding is based only upon the evidence gathered by the camera technology, prior to the secondary check. The ACPO Codes of Practice requires that the secondary check is Home Office approved and The Secondary Check timing mechanism must be totally independent of the Primary Speed timing mechanism to retain the integrity of the total independence of the Secondary Check calculation of speed. The information that is required and should be provided; is the distance the vehicle moved and the time taken for the vehicle to move as recorded by the camera, prior to the secondary check. As the camera provides a secondary check function, the motorist should also request the distance the vehicle moved as shown in the photographs and the time period between camera flashes. If the photographs are of acceptable quality, it should be possible to confirm the distance moved as indicated by the distance moved between the road markings. As can be seen from the photographs, the clarity of the information is extremely poor, in fact illegible. Therefore the importance of confirmation from the Constabulary for the above information is an absolute necessity. The basis of any prosecution is based around this evidence. Always make your own assessment of the distance travelled between road markings; it could be very different to the police assessment. The speed recorded by the camera and the secondary check should be compatible. Before continuing another reminder of the definition of speed:Speed = Distance divided by Time This reminder is there to retain the focus. During the examination of the photographs, the publication has focused generally on one variable of speed and that was Distance. We have shown that the distance variable should always be challenged, although this is only one reason why the calculation of speed is incorrect. The assumption being that the time variable was or is always correct. Let us dispel that myth immediately. Whenever a challenge to an allegation of speeding is made, both variables of speed will or should be scrutinised thoroughly. The Time variable will be carefully considered in the following text and, is relevant to all cameras. Always remember, the CPS has the advantage, the motorist has to prove his/her innocence by proving that the camera provided an incorrect calculation of speed. This publication can help by providing the in depth letters and a specific report on the subject.

8.1.3 Truvelo Forward Facing Fixed Camera. Photo Appendix No. 4

The photograph is of reasonable quality but the information confirming an allegation of speeding is difficult to read. The information required from the police is clearly outlined in the following text, and in the Letter Section.

25

The technology associated with this camera is a road based sensor system, where the distance measurements are known and constant. The only variable is time. The Constabulary Explanation of the Truvelo Road Based Sensor System Truvelo systems operate on a road based sensor system. Basically there are two sets of sensors embedded in the road containing Piezo electric crystals. These are activated by a vehicles front wheel or wheels passing over them. The crystals produce electrical impulses which provide the electronics in the housing with two independent readings on which calculations of speed are made. This is the case because the distance between the sensors is both known and constant. If the speed readings are compatible and are above the preset threshold, the camera is tripped along with the flash, when the camera calculates that the front wheel or wheels will cross the white lines across the carriageway, having already calculated the vehicles speed. The three white lines show the acceptable tolerance for the offence to be proved. The camera also records in milliseconds the time the vehicle takes to travel 1.8 metres from the last sensor to the point where the picture is taken. If the camera is working correctly the photo will show the front wheel or wheels are on the white lines. This provides the secondary check, and proof that the camera was working correctly. Photograph. Appendix 4. Illustrates typical photographs taken with the Truvelo Camera. --------- ------------ ---------Again, the photograph is the source for all the necessary information required to prove an allegation of speeding. The information required from the photograph is the recorded measured distance the vehicle travelled and the time taken to travel the recorded distance. This information is not displayed on the photographic evidence; it is however, the minimum amount of information that should be provided by the police to obtain a conviction for the alleged speeding offence. The police should provide two distance measurements and two measurements of time, although under the current system of justice, this is not necessary. The Secondary Check information is available for the benefit of the police and the defendant to provide conclusive proof of the Primary Speed calculation. The distance measurements to the three white lines, which are known and constant and, the time taken to travel the recorded distance is the information that should be available to enable a calculation of the secondary check speed, to confirm compatibility with the primary speed reading. The important issue here is if the Secondary Check measurement of time isnt blatantly obvious, then this should be provided as an absolutely essential reading. This secondary measurement of time is the only unknown measurement that is required to provide conclusive proof to the accurate calculation of the primary speeding allegation. This Secondary Check timing mechanism must be totally independent of the Primary Speed timing mechanism to retain the integrity of the total independence of the Secondary Check calculation of speed. The CPS or police are required to provide this information if requested. This measurement forms part of the secondary check; therefore it must be made available. Equally it is extremely unlikely that they can actually provide or have this information, which suggests that the allegation of speeding should be discontinued. To request documentary proof is quite acceptable. Typically, the crystals sensors that confirm the known and constant distance measurement, are often buried in the road; therefore it would not be unreasonable to request documentary proof of the certified distance between these crystal sensors. Documentary proof certifying the date of installation of the crystals should be available. Unless absolute proof of the distance between the set of crystals is available, such as a Certificate of Conformity, it may prove difficult to conclusively prove an allegation of speeding.

26

This publications interpretation of the Cameras function is that a number of sequential events occur, all of which are functions of the equation for speed, or variations of the equation. Speed = Distance divided by Time. (A) Speed = Distance Time or (B) Time = Distance Speed or (C) Distance = Speed x Time

The first item to note is that all measured sensor distances are known and therefore constant. The diagram below illustrates a typical sensor/white lines installation. The strength of the road based sensor system is the known and constant measurement of distance. This could equally be the systems Achilles Heel. The first event is where two independent recorded measurements of time are taken for the vehicle to travel a known and constant distance between two sets of piezo crystal sensors. Based upon these two recorded measurements of time, two independent speed calculations (A) are made. Dependent upon the compatibility of these two calculations of speed and the proviso that they are above a preset threshold, which incidentally should be requested, the second event occurs. The second event is, or should be, the measurement of the time that the vehicle takes to travel the known distance between the last piezo crystal sensors, to a position where the camera calculates that the front wheels will cross the white lines across the carriageway. If the calculated speed is above the preset threshold and shows the front wheels on the white lines, the camera is tripped confirming that the alleged offence is alleged to have occurred. The second event is interpreted as the Secondary Check, which the ACPO Codes of Practice defines as, the means of corroborating the primary speed reading and, should be totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. The preset threshold speed predetermined by the police, could be any speed above the legal speed limit. Therefore the Secondary Check is determined by using the calculated primary speed and the known constant distance of 1.8 metres to the centre white line of the three white lines. The resultant calculation will provide the time, which in theory should indicate the front tyre(s) of the vehicle to be on the centre white line. This Secondary Check calculation of time is the alleged preset threshold calculation that trips the camera and the flash when the camera calculates that the front wheels will cross the white lines across the carriageway. 1. The real issue is the contravention of the ACPO Code of Practice, by the camera, that requires the secondary check to be totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. The secondary check in this case is totally dependent on the primary speed reading, which provides the secondary check calculation of time. This contravention alone should invalidate the speeding allegation. 2. Very rarely are the front wheels on the centre line of the three white lines. 3. It is claimed that the provision of the three white lines show the acceptable tolerance (claimed to be 10%) for the offence to be proved and, if the front wheels are on the white lines, provides proof that the camera was working correctly. 4. The three white lines that show the acceptable tolerance for the offence to be proved are 50mm wide and the extremities of the three white lines are 400mm apart. This represents a percentage differential of 11% of either side of the centre line.

27

The provision of the three white lines apparently confirms that if the wheels of a vehicle are photographed on or within the extremities of the lines, a speeding violation is alleged to have occurred. Whether this provides proof that camera was working correctly is debatable. The camera only measures time, all distances are known or predetermined. Any allegation of speeding is based upon the comparison of the measurement of time in the second event, namely the Secondary Check. Total independence of the Secondary Check will require a measurement of time for the vehicle to travel 1.8 metres, not a calculated time. The preset distance has a defined starting point, which is the last set of sensors, but a variable finishing position dependent upon the preset threshold speed. The preset threshold distance has a claimed acceptable tolerance of 360 mm for an offence to be proved, however, in reality the tolerance is 400mm as described below. Speed is a precise calculation, where the two variable functions, namely distance and time are precise measurements. It is vitally important that the police provide documentary proof of the Secondary Check measurements, in the form of a printout from the camera, that will confirm the total independence of the distance and time measurements used to calculate the speed that trips the camera. Without both these measurements, this camera contravenes the ACPO Codes of Practice which clearly states that, not only is it a requirement for the Secondary Check to be totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated, but The Code of Practice also takes precedence where ACPO standards vary from those laid down by manufacturers. Any tolerance in the accurate and precise measurement of either distance or time will only result in an assessment of the calculated speed. Finally, the camera records in milliseconds the time that the vehicle takes to travel 1.8 metres from the last sensor to a point where the picture is taken. It is claimed that if the camera is working correctly, this will provide the secondary check and the photo will show the front wheels on the white lines, proving that the camera was working correctly.

Three White Lines

Piezo Crystal Sensors

Direction of traffic

400mm 1800mm 1530mm 1530mm Fig.2

Typical Truvelo Road Sensor System

28

This publication once again recommends that documentary proof of the measured time, the stated distance and the calculated speed is provided for the secondary check. Also if possible, physically measure the 1.8 metre position from the last sensor. The position from the last sensor is generally in the centre of the three white lines. Compare this position with the photograph. The ONLY conclusive proof of accuracy of the camera is completely dependent upon conclusive proof of accuracy of the Secondary Check measurement of time. Analysis: The only measurement taken in this exercise/speeding allegation is the measurement of time for the primary speed calculation. All measurements of distance are known and constant. The first question that needs to be answered is: - How can the motorist be confident that the only measurements taken, namely time, are conclusively correct? Let us assume that an error of 5% arises with the primary measurement of time. The primary speed event occurs and two measurements of speed are calculated. Both measurements of time are compatible albeit with an error of 5%. The result will be an error of 5% with the primary speed calculation. The Secondary Check event occurs where the speed from the first event is used with the preset threshold distance from the second event. This calculation provides the time, equation (B), for the vehicle to travel to the predetermined threshold position that sets off the camera flash. Comparison of the measured time of the Secondary Check (if taken); with the predetermined calculated time will provide confirmation whether or not a speeding offence has occurred. However, if only the primary measurement of time was used in the above events, the predetermined calculated time that contains an unrecognised error of 5%, will be transferred to the Secondary Check event. This would produce an unrecognised error of 5%, resulting in the achievement of compatibility of speed with the threshold position of the wheels of the vehicle within the white lines without recognising any error. Any error arising from the primary speed event would be consistent throughout the entire process, with the error being carried forward to the Secondary Check event. The error would continue to exist but would not be recognised. This can be confirmed by substituting any percentage time error into the relevant equation. Combine this potential 5% error of time with an acceptable tolerance of distance of 10% and it is very easy to see the unacceptable advantage the Police, CPS and the Government have when prosecuting unsuspecting motorist. Incidentally, this device has Home Office Type approval. Also, the huge acceptable distance tolerance, of 400mm would not necessarily recognise an error, simply because the wheels of the vehicle would still be within the white lines and the acceptable tolerance. The calculated acceptable tolerance of the three white lines, based upon the measurements in Fig.2 is +/-11%. This huge percentage margin of error totalling 22% for acceptance of the correct operation of the camera is totally unacceptable.

29

The introduction of a tolerance of +/-11% to the measured distance travelled by a vehicle immediately alters the concept of the accurate calculation of speed. Any calculation of speed that contains a margin of error of the magnitude of +/-11%, in either function of distance or time; can only ever be an assessment of the true speed. As the cameras only function is to measure time and, the unit of measurement is milliseconds, the only conclusive method of accurate time measurement is to compare the current calibrated operational time parameters against the approved time parameters of the Calibration Certificate. Comparison of acceptable margins of error between the time and distance functions will provide the answer to which level of error is most appropriate to confirm conclusive proof of accuracy of the Speed Camera. The distance function as shown provides a margin of error of 400mm = 22% or +/-11%. The allowable margin of error for the time function of 22% is totally unacceptable. Clearly it is quite obvious that the Calibration Certificate is the ultimate benchmark against which the conclusive accuracy of the camera must be judged. The precise nature and independence of the measurement of time is the only acceptable proof that the camera operates correctly. A request for the police to provide documentary evidence that the camera functioned within the calibrated parameters of the Calibration Certificate, to conclusively prove the accurate operation of the camera, is essential. As an aside, the manufacturers apparently are not obliged to respond to requests for information. The only sanction a Court has in assisting with obtaining information is to issue a witness summons when the case is listed for trial. It is possible that an indication of a summons would result in the information being forthcoming. Equally, the depth and consistency of questions could also be a catalyst that prevents a Court appearance. To summarise the requirements generally needed in this section is relatively easy. None of the photographs in this publication provide adequate evidence to obtain a conviction for an alleged speeding violation. None of the photographs provide the requirements to solve the equation of speed. The evidence that we have generally focused upon is the distance variable to the equation for speed, with an occasional foray into the time variable. The time variable will be fully covered in the Calibration Certificate Section. Remember. Speed = Distance Time or Time = Distance Speed or Distance = Speed x Time

Three variations of the equation of Speed, that forms the entire basis for this publication and around which the Technology applied to Speed Cameras depends. Speed is a calculation. A Speed camera calculates speed it does NOT measure speed. Speed is a precise calculation that is dependent upon a precise measurement of Distance and a precise measurement of Time.

30

If there is any doubt about the conclusive and precise accuracy of either measurement, the resultant calculation of Speed cannot be guaranteed to be correct. Do not be intimidated, if the police are unable to provide conclusive documentary evidence to the allegation of speeding, or are unable to provide answers to all the questions asked in the letters, do not hesitate to proceed to a conclusion. Remember, it is the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who decides whether to proceed with a prosecution. If the police are unable to provide answers to your questions in writing, the questions will eventually need an answer, to enable the allegation to be proven. Naturally there are provisos with this statement that will be adequately covered in the Section - The British System of Justice

31

8.1.4 SPECS Average Speed Enforcement System

SPECS technology is an average speed enforcement system, using linked video cameras to cover a predetermined length of road. Linked video cameras do not have to be adjacent; they may bracket other cameras within the speed control zone. Although there is debate upon whether these cameras are or are not lane specific, rest assured they are NOT. Neither are they limited to vehicles that enter and exit the zone in the same lane. The video cameras continuously capture images of vehicles as they pass through the field of view of the camera. Their number plates are read using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and the average speed of the vehicle is calculated between the linked cameras, over the known baseline distance. If this exceeds the Police Speed threshold, an offence record is created and violation images and data logged. SPECS average speed enforcement system is classified in exactly the same category as GATSO and Truvelo systems, as an Automatic Unattended Operation Device and as such subject to the same ACPO Codes of Practice. The only evidence admissible in court necessary to assist in the defence, is that associated with the secondary check information. Unlike the Truvelo and Gatso cameras which provide secondary check evidence, it is difficult to see how any secondary check information provided by this system can comply with the ACPO Codes of Practice.

32

9 THE CALIBRATION CERTIFICATE

This section is probably the single most important and least used asset, related to a Notice of Intended Prosecution in respect to an allegation of speeding. Every Speed Camera is issued with a Calibration Certificate. Currently, the requirement for every Speed Camera is an annual recalibration. The Calibration Certificate sets the parameters within which each Speed Camera operates. The Calibration Certificate is the ultimate benchmark against which the accuracy of the Speed Camera can without question, be proved or disproved. It is the conclusive proof that the camera is operating correctly or incorrectly. Secondary Checks is an ACPO requirement to confirm the continuous accuracy of the camera, but it must be stressed they are only checks. Secondary Checks are reliant upon information provided by the camera, which appears to conflict with the ACPO Codes of Practice requirement of total independence for Secondary Checks. If Secondary Checks are reliant upon the camera for information, this must question the total independence of secondary check systems. By definition, the benchmark for secondary check systems will also require identical parameters set by the Calibration Certificate. This places more importance upon the Calibration Certificate. A continuous malfunction in a Speed Camera is very easy to recognise and rectify. However, an intermittent malfunction in a Speed Camera could be difficult to recognise and equally difficult to rectify. It is the intermittent malfunction to the Speed Camera that should be the real cause for concern. It would not be unreasonable to expect information to be freely available on the subject of the Calibration Certificate. Obtaining copies of the certificate is extremely difficult. It is equally difficult obtaining any significant information on the Calibration Certificate. The Certificate is in two parts, part one is the Certificate of Conformity, verifying the calibration and, part two shows technical data on the details of the calibrated information. To date this publication has only managed to obtain the Data Sheet for the LTI: 20.20 TS/M Speedscope. A copy of parts one and two of a typical Calibration Certificate is shown in the Appendix. The importance of gaining a reasonable understanding, of the calibration of the Speed Camera is certainly advantageous in the effort to successfully challenge a Notice of Intended Prosecution for an alleged speeding violation. Those who have unfortunately experienced the difficult task of requesting specific information from the police in respect to the Calibration Certificate, will know that anything but a standard query will almost certainly be directed to the Home Office, who in turn will generally direct you to their websites, or worse, dependent upon the perception of difficulty, suggest that you contact the manufacturers directly. The Home Office by their own admission are limited in the information they can divulge, simply because of the signed Confidentiality Agreements which are in place to safeguard the technological and the commercial interests of the manufacturers. Confidentiality Agreements are commonplace in Commerce and Industry, but once again this highlights the ever increasing disadvantage experienced by the motorist in any challenge to the Speed Camera.

33

9.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CALIBRATION CERTIFICATE

It is the only resource available that could unquestionably and conclusively prove whether a Speed Camera is working within the test parameters set by the Calibration Certificate. Check systems are in place to confirm whether the camera is working correctly, but what does correctly mean. Correctly generally means that the camera is programmed to register speeds above a preset threshold and provide an assessment of the speed of a vehicle. This check system is no substitute for the Calibration Certificate and, it is very doubtful whether it could confirm that the Frequency Test for example, was functioning within the set parameters of the Calibration Certificate.

9.2 THE FUNCTION OF THE CALIBRATION CERTIFICATE

It would be reasonable to expect that a calibration certificate, would define a set of standards by which instruments/machinery/camera or any piece of equipment would function safely, satisfactorily and accurately within an operational set time frame, whilst ensuring that the equipment was capable of undertaking the specific tasks for which it was designed. Continuous accuracy of a manufactured item within a set time frame is of paramount importance. No manufactured item is capable of functioning throughout its lifespan without an agreed and logical periodical maintenance schedule. Identical manufactured items will deteriorate at different rates. This would apply equally to individually manufactured items or identically manufactured mass produced items, the rate of deterioration would not be identical. It would therefore seem logical to establish a periodic maintenance/calibration schedule that recognises the most suitable requirements for that particular item of equipment. For this publication we are attempting to establish the most suitable method of determining an acceptable calibration/maintenance schedule for the periodic calibration of the Speed Camera. Currently the system for the calibration of the Speed Camera is annually irrespective of the type of camera, the manufacturer of the camera and, more importantly the rate of use of the camera. The Home Office, by sanctioning the agreement that annual calibration of Speed Cameras is acceptable, irrespective of use, is effectively guaranteeing that no matter how often a Speed Camera is used; there is no likelihood of the camera malfunctioning in any twelve month period. This is unrealistic. Listed below are four typical maintenance schedules currently in use. Which of the requirements would be considered suitable for Speed Cameras: a. Hours of use. -- Typically-- Aircraft Servicing requirements b. A combination of hours of use and a specific time period, based upon whichever came first. Typically --- Motor vehicle servicing periods. c. A specific time period irrespective of use. Typically -- Speed Cameras d. A function of the weakest component. ---Typically --- Flue Gas monitoring equipment. The most suitable method would be: - (a), (b) or (d). All would address the specific requirements for individual cameras.

34

The most unsuitable method would obviously be (c); this is the method currently being used. This method addresses none of the requirements for individual cameras. There appears to be a blanket calibration requirement for all cameras irrespective of type or use. Method (c) assumes that every Speed Camera in the UK is used in exactly the same manner, with identical maintenance and calibration requirements. We know that the static Speed Camera and the mobile Speed Camera are used differently. Therefore it would not be unreasonable to expect the Home Office to introduce a more satisfactory arrangement for the calibration of Speed Cameras, than that which currently exists. The static roadside Speed Camera, the Gatso and the Truvelo fixed units, are operational 24 hours per day and 365 days per year. The calibration requirement is one recalibration per annum. These cameras are classified as Automatic Unattended operated speedmeters. For an annual calibration under the above operational conditions, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the Home Office together with the manufacturers have actually placed these cameras under a strict testing regime continuously for one year, without any malfunction of the camera. The testing regime should naturally monitor as closely as possible actual operational conditions that the camera would experience throughout the year. This information is not available. The mobile Speed Camera is rarely operational 24 hours per day and 365 days per year, but used on an intermittent basis, usually at different locations. This unit is frequently handled and could therefore be more prone to damage than the fixed unit, irrespective of the claimed robust nature of the equipment. This camera also has an annual calibration requirement, irrespective of use. It would not be unreasonable to assume an equally testing regime as the fixed camera. Does the Speed Camera conform to our list of requirements for the Calibration Certificate? 1. Does the camera function safely? 2. Does the camera function satisfactorily? 3. Does the camera function accurately within a set time frame, currently annually? 4. Is the camera capable of undertaking the specific tasks for which it was designed? If the answer to any of these questions is anything but yes, then an immediate review should be undertaken to put into place a more suitable arrangement for the calibration requirements of the Speed Camera. Does the Camera function safely? The answer is obviously yes. Does the Camera function satisfactorily? The answer is dependent upon which side of the fence you are standing. For the motorist, the answer is very, very questionable. Prolonged accuracy throughout the period between calibrations needs to proven before the motorist should accept the question of satisfaction. Currently, the motorist should be very dissatisfied and challenge the question of continuous accuracy of the camera. Does the camera function accurately within a set time frame? The police, manufacturers and the Home Office will obviously say yes, which is quite understandable.

35

From the motorist viewpoint the function of continuous accuracy throughout the period of one year, is questionable. The only manner, in which conclusive proof of continuous accuracy can be shown, is to provide continuous monitoring of the fixed camera and, a minimum of twice daily monitoring of mobile units. As mentioned previously, the benchmark against which conclusive proof of accuracy of the Speed Camera is measured is the information that is provided on the Calibration Certificate. If we accept that the Calibration Certificate is the benchmark of conclusive proof for the accuracy of the Speed Camera, then it would be necessary to provide continuous monitoring of the Speed Camera to satisfy that requirement of conclusive proof. For any motorist who believes that the camera has made a mistake, it is perfectly legitimate to ask whether the police could provide a printout of the data from the camera and, compare the compatibility of this data against the current Calibration Certificate to conclusively prove an allegation of speeding. Regrettably, the CPS is not required to respond. This question is perfectly legitimate. Any deviation from the calibrated parameters of the Calibration Certificate would conclusively prove the allegation of speeding to be incorrect. Since the inception of the Speed Camera, there have been thousands of incidents where perfectly innocent and frustrated motorists have been unable to prove their innocence. Many of the incidents have been shown on television and publicised in the National Press, all to no avail. Continuous monitoring is the conclusive answer to these queries. Everybody would benefit from continuous monitoring. Until that time arrives, this publication has queried the authenticity of the current method of calibration and, fully recommends that the perfectly legitimate question of conclusive proof of compatibility with the Calibration Certificate is requested. Whether the police could provide the answer is questionable. The cries of anguish from the police on the continuous monitoring issue would be heard almost before the question had finished. Justification of the additional costs for continuous monitoring would be totally unacceptable. So let us see how we can help with the funding of this terrible injustice for the authorities. What costs will the police incur? Fortunately the answer is very simple absolutely nothing. Where will the funding come from to pay for the monitoring equipment? Again the answer is very simple: - From the same purse that provided and continues to provide the funding for the cameras, the bottomless purse of the motorist. It is quite obvious that any cost associated with additional monitoring of the camera would also be paid for by the motorist. How much revenue does the camera generate per annum: - Reportedly in excess of 220,000,000 A very small percentage of the revenue received in fines would be adequate to provide every police force in the country with continuous monitoring equipment, identical to the equipment used by the manufacturers. The new equipment could continuously monitor the accuracy of each camera 24 hours per day. The new monitoring equipment would immediately identify a malfunction with the camera, saving many hundreds/thousands of innocent motorists from the trauma and injustice of a fine and penalty points. With this equipment in place, the police could then return any faulty equipment for immediate repair.

36

If you have become a cynic, you will probably by now be of the opinion that speeding fines are nothing more than a stealth tax, so what incentive do the police have to voluntarily purchase continuous monitoring equipment that would benefit the motorist; Answer None. Voluntary purchase is probably not the answer; however, if enough motorists asked the same question and insisted upon conclusive proof of accuracy, the Authorities would be placed in a position where continuous monitoring equipment became an absolute necessity. It is the duty of The Home Office to issue approval for the use of every Speed Camera on the roads of Great Britain, as fit for purpose. The Home Office was once described by Mr. John Reid, a previous Home Secretary, as not fit for purpose. It beggars the question, has anything changed at the Home Office apart from Mr Reid being sacked? The Calibration Certificate is probably the most underused resource in the challenge to an allegation of speeding, whereas it should be one of the first resources every motorist should use. There are no viewpoints on what is right or wrong; there is no guess work on any subject related to the allegation of speeding. The Calibration Certificate deals in facts, the Speed Camera either conforms to all the calibrated parameters of the Calibration Certificate or it doesnt. The outcome is very simple, either guilty or not guilty. The fallibility of annual calibrations is obvious, it is unrealistic to expect that the accuracy of every camera throughout the UK to be 100% correct over such an extended unmonitored period. The shrouded mystery surrounding the Calibration Certificate needs to be more transparent. A Copy of a Calibration Certificate and Data Sheet is shown in the Appendix. It is probably unnecessary to understand the functions listed on the Data Sheet, however a basic understanding could prove useful. The objective or function of the Calibration Certificate has been covered. For this exercise we will focus specifically on the accuracy of the Speed Camera related to the two calibrated test functions of speed, namely DISTANCE and TIME. Each test is or should be undertaken independently. The Calibration Certificate clearly defines the specification, test results and the operating parameters within which the Speed Camera will operate accurately. Identification of the distance function is reasonably obvious. It is assumed that the distance checks are measured against known and true registered points. However, this is only 50% of the equation to accurately confirm a true and indisputable calculation of speed. Identification of the time function is also reasonably obvious. The Pulse Repetition Frequency Test uses the unit of measurement of milliseconds, so this ultimately is a major factor in the measurement for time. The Optical Power Output Test is no longer used The Pulse Repetition Frequency Test/Output Period Specification is calibrated to measure the time of flight of very short pulses of infrared light. The calibrated nominal pulse per second rate is 125, which provides a pulse every 8.0000 milliseconds. New cameras are being introduced with a calibration rate of 100 pulses per second, providing a pulse every 10.0000 milliseconds.

37

Again, the important aspect with this function is that the specification dictates a specific calibrated range within which the Output Period Specification must operate. Within this range we have to assume and accept that the accuracy is unquestionable. Remember, it is the application of the technology where errors generally occur. Should the camera operate outside the acceptable working range specified by the Calibration Certificate, then it would probably be safe to assume that a malfunction of the Camera had occurred. The reason for specifically concentrating on these two functions is that they both specify a maximum and minimum working range in which it is virtually guaranteed they will provide accurate measurements that would be difficult to disprove. Throughout this publication the focus has been that the conclusive proof of a speeding allegation is being able to prove that a vehicle has travelled a known distance in a known time. Both the variable functions of speed, namely distance and time have to be conclusively proved. If the police choose to make an allegation, it is not unreasonable for the motorist to ask whatever requisite questions necessary to ensure that the police conclusively prove the allegation. The motorist receiving a Notice of Intended Prosecution needs to make one of two choices: 1. Return the completed Notice with a thank you card, accepting the fine and possibly six points on the licence, or 2. Return the Notice with a letter informing the police that you believe a mistake has occurred and request further information. If the intention is to take option 2, then the use of the information in this section on the Calibration Certificate should be paramount in a challenge. The information contained in this section on the Calibration Certificate has been an under utilized resource where allegations of speed violations are concerned and, its importance cannot be stressed enough. The motorist is at a distinct disadvantage and, this publication will help in providing a level playing field.

38

10 THE BRITISH SYSTEM OF JUSTICE

The vast majority of British citizens have grown up accepting that the democratic system of justice used in the UK is probably the fairest in the world. Innocent until proven guilty just trips off the tongue, nothing could be fairer, until we encounter the Speed Camera. Every year in excess of 2.0 million speeding tickets are issued and without exception every recipient of a Notice of Intended Prosecution is deemed Guilty until they can prove their innocence. If you think were wrong Prove it!! Nice money if you can get it. Speed Cameras could be considered to be a licence to print money for the Government at the expense of the motorist. It is very likely that the majority of the motorists receiving a Notice of Intended Prosecution are completely unaware that it is their responsibility to prove their innocence. Under the British System of Justice the evidence provided by the Speed Camera is assumed to be correct and accepted in Law. The question to what appears a draconian policy, is why? The Crown Prosecution Services explanation to this policy is that some things in law need to be accepted as correct. Apparently, this policy of evidence being assumed to be correct and accepted in law also applies to other incidents, one such incident likened by the CPS as comparable to the Speed Camera, where the evidence is assumed to be correct, is the roadside breathalyser. So, how does the motorist who is convinced that the speeding allegation is incorrect, tackle the task of proving his innocence? Naturally, it must also be assumed that this policy in which members of the general public are Guilty until they prove their innocence must provide certain safeguards. Therefore let us use the breathalyser and the Speed Camera to see whether the safeguards are comparable and adequate. This publication suggests the equality of any evidence that is assumed to be correct and accepted in law, should be identical for both the Speed Camera and the Roadside Breathalyser. The equality of the evidence provided for both devices should ensure that the Home Office objective of providing evidence leading to safe convictions is achieved and, the ACPO Codes of Practice is equally satisfied, in that clear and unambiguous evidence of the offence is provided. Equality of Evidence for both Devices 1. What safeguards or secondary checks are in place, particularly for the defendant, ensuring accuracy of the readings of the equipment used? 2. Does the equipment used to confirm the accuracy of the readings, provide the specific recorded information that will be used as the evidence? 3. Does the information provided by the equipment conform to the requirements of the ACPO Code of Practice of clear and unambiguous evidence of the offence and, the Home Office objective of providing evidence leading to safe convictions. 1. Safeguards: - On the subject of the secondary checks and safeguards, if any doubt is expressed about the accuracy of the Roadside Breathalyser, the motorist is entitled to a blood test to confirm the accuracy of a breathalyser, in other words an independent secondary check mechanism is in place to confirm any errors that could occur, human or otherwise.

39

It is a Home Office and ACPO Code of Practice requirement, that all Automatic Unattended Operated fixed roadside cameras use an independent Secondary Check mechanism to confirm whether the primary evidence is accurate. To suggest that errors do not occur, human error in particular, would be nave. The safeguard of a secondary check in this instance is available to both the Speed Camera and the Roadside Breathalyser and of equal quality. However, whether the Secondary Check used by the Automatic Unattended operated cameras is valid is another issue and is covered in the letters section of this publication. This publication considers all Speed Camera Secondary Checks Unsuitable. In sharp contrast to the roadside Automatic Unattended Operated Devices, the LTI: 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope, which is classified as an Attended Actively Operated Device, provides no Secondary Check against which the reading for speed can be assessed for accuracy, whereas the Roadside Breathalyser offers a blood test as a secondary safeguard. There is a major imbalance in the safeguards provided by LTI: 20.20 TS/M Speed Camera and the Roadside Breathalyser. The LTI 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope provides no independent Secondary Check safeguards for a defendant which is obviously required. The Speed Camera without any safeguards is obviously biased towards a conviction. This camera is the subject to a separate report. 2. Provision of information: - British law is very clear, the evidence provided by all speed cameras is assumed to be correct and accepted under British Law, consequently there is no necessity for the CPS to provide the actual evidence, namely the requested measurements of time and distance that are used to calculate the alleged primary speed of the vehicle. The only information provided to the defendant is the evidential photograph indicating the calculation of the alleged speed that the vehicle was moving. The defendant is denied visual and verbal access to the actual evidence. This is applicable to all Speed Cameras. However, independent Secondary Check safeguards are in place for the Automatic Unattended roadside cameras, namely Gatso, Truvelo RedSpeed & Specs, albeit this independent secondary check information is somewhat questionable. However, this information should be made available. The answer to the question Does the equipment used to confirm the accuracy of the readings, provide the specific recorded information that will be used as the evidence is: a. Yes for the Roadside Breathalyser, b. No for Automatic Unattended devices, albeit the secondary check evidence is available. c. No for the LTI: 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope Attended Actively Operated devices. The LTI: 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope provides no information to confirm the accuracy of the recorded readings which is used for the evidence, in direct contrast to the readings taken by the Roadside Breathalyser and secondary check blood test. The irony and the obvious bias of the LTI: 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope situation is that the CPS has access to all the evidence to enable them to prosecute the defendant for allegedly speeding, whilst the defendant is denied any access to the actual evidence and, is consequently unable to contest his innocence. The actual evidence recorded by the camera is a specified number of readings of change of distance and an equal number of readings of time, these readings are used to calculate the alleged speed that is shown on the evidential photograph. The calculation of speed indicated on the evidential photograph is not the actual evidence recorded by the camera, it is a calculation. The LTI: 20.20TS/M Laser Speedscope does not provide the same comparable equality of evidence as the roadside breathalyser. The information available to the defendant vastly differs.

40

The recorded evidence provided with the breathalyser is available to both the defendant and the CPS. Equally, the safeguard or independent secondary check provided with the breathalyser, namely the recorded results of the blood test, is also available to the defendant and the CPS. Both defendant and CPS have the same equal opportunity to contest all the recorded evidence. Also the evidence used to convict the defendant using the LTI: 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope is a calculation based upon the recorded readings, it is NOT the evidence recorded by the camera. 3. Conforming to requirements: It would be difficult to disagree with the comment that the Roadside Breathalyser and the independent alternative blood test did not conform to the requirements of clear and unambiguous evidence of the offence or the Home Office objective of providing evidence leading to safe convictions. The equality of the evidence provided to the defendant and the CPS is indisputable. Regrettably, where the LTI: 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope is concerned it could be argued that the ambiguous and biased nature of the evidence provided to a speeding allegation, will never provide clear and unambiguous evidence of the offence, simply because the actual evidence is never presented or provided. The evidence used to obtain a conviction is clearly not the information provided on the evidential photograph; therefore it is very doubtful whether the Home Office objective of providing evidence leading to safe convictions will ever comply. The system that currently exists, where the evidence is assumed to be correct and accepted in law, is so clearly flawed in the inequalities of the evidence provided by the LTI: 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope and the Roadside Breathalyser. The lack of any independent safeguards provided by the Speed Camera requires legislation to provide safeguards that will save any further unjust motoring convictions. You have now been provided with information that questions whether the current legislation is not only biased towards a conviction, especially where the LTI:20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope is concerned, but also questions whether the current legislation infringes your Human Rights. This is equally applicable to all speed cameras; it could be argued that legal denial to the actual evidence is an infringement of your Human Rights. If an allegation is made, not necessarily a speeding allegation, then it is not unreasonable to request the accuser making that allegation to provide proof. This is surely a basic human right. This publication suggests that you would be hard pressed to find an incident similar to the LTI:20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope, or any speed camera, that is so biased towards a conviction without being required in law to provide any substantial evidence of guilt. Finally, The Challenge to a speeding allegation Section 12 encompasses all the issues discussed. 1. Obtain as much information as possible using the tactic shown in the letters. 2. Every camera has a specific weakness. 3. Always use the system, including full disclosure to the full, this is your right. 4. Following Full Disclosure of all the evidence, you will then be in a position to make an informed choice of whether to proceed or change your plea if necessary.

41

11 THE RESPONSE DETAILED STEP BY STEP

1. The first Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) will basically inform you a speeding prosecution is intended, you will be requested to name the driver of the vehicle, within 28 days. You may be the owner but not the driver; you have the responsibility to name the driver. If you fail to do so you could incur a fine and endorsement points. 2. If you are the driver of the vehicle that the police intend to prosecute, it is recommended that you respond using letter number one requesting additional information. Again your response is required within the 28 day period. 3. The next response from the police will be The Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty. This assumes that this offer is made. Again the statutory 28 day period for a response applies. Enclosed with this Offer could be a response to your letter requesting additional information. See Section 5. 4. If The Conditional Offer is not made it is generally due to an allegation of excess speed above a certain threshold. A Court appearance is usually required. 5. Analyse evidence for time and distance measurements and consider the five issues that constitute a challenge. Check whether all questions have been answered from your first letter. 6. At this point there are a number of choices, the responses or lack of responses by the police to your requests for information is extremely important. The likelihood is that in the majority of instances, the response from the police will be incomplete. This provides you, the motorist, with the opportunity to expand your legitimate quest for information. This is absolutely necessary and, is covered in the Letter Section. 7. It is essential that you respond to the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty. The choices of response are covered in Section 5. The assumption here is that you will respond with the 2nd letter (depending upon which camera is applicable), requesting further information, using the tactic that will guarantee a response. 8. The Conditional Offer letter of response provides the opportunity to inform the police that you are unable to enter an informed plea due to insufficient information. The original police response will almost certainly be incomplete; consequently this statement will be correct. 9. Before you even consider entering a plea, remember that your letter requested information under either or both The Freedom of Information Act and, The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. If the police responses are incomplete then you must now make a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office and the IPCC, this is your right. This issue is covered in Section 12.6. This process can be extensive, simply because it is in your hands whether you accept that the police have adequately responded to your requests for information. Our advice is NEVER enter a written plea. 10. If the police refuse/ignore/avoid to respond to all of your legitimate requests for information never enter a plea. They have a duty to respond otherwise they are contravening the ACPO Code of Practice. 11. If you never enter a plea, the police have to make a decision whether to proceed with a Prosecution without a plea being entered. Your refusal to enter a plea is because the police have failed to provide the legitimate information that you are entitled too. If the police decide to proceed with a prosecution you can use the police failure to respond to your legitimate requests under the ACPO Code of Practice as a discussion point and ask the Court to insist the police respond to every issue otherwise you will not get a fair trial See Section 15 for more information. 12. This can be an extremely sensitive issue for the police, who would prefer that a plea was entered, thereby avoiding the issue of the Police failing to respond to your legitimate requests for information being the subject of discussion in the Court room. The CPS will insist that it is guide, which it is however, the police must adhere to this guide.

42

13. Will a solicitor offer this advice very unlikely simply because they are part of a structured age old legal process that appears to work which is not in their interest to change. This could be an area of stalemate. 14. Do the police want to appear in Court and respond to questions over the refusal to provide legitimate information that denies a defendant a fair trial. 15. Following the conclusion of this process, in which the police either decide to continue or withdraw, it could be necessary to enter a plea, dependent upon whether the police provide adequate responses, or whether in your view the investigation is flawed. The motorist then has the opportunity to challenge the speeding allegation by choice if necessary, or enter a plea of guilty or refuse to enter a plea. 16. If a court appearance is inevitable, a letter of Summons will be sent informing you that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) intends to prosecute, complete with a prosecution date. If this is the case and you have not entered a plea, proceed as above at the hearing. 17. You may consider attending a full trial, using the information in Section 15 or writing to the CPS and the Court, requesting a pre-trial review. Letters provided. Enclose with your request to the CPS, all letters requesting information. Provide the Court with the same information. It is recommended that the letter to the CPS is by recorded delivery. 18. A pre-trial review is not a Court appearance; it is a review process that you request to ensure you are not disadvantaged in the interest of justice. The review should ensure that any information not provided by the police, is disclosed at the pre-trial review. This is known as full disclosure. 19. If in any doubt, once the date for the full disclosure hearing is disclosed, it is recommended that all copies of correspondence is sent to the CPS. This should be sent as soon as possible prior to the Full Disclosure Hearing, this gives the CPS a fair and reasonable time to gather the evidence. 20. Full Disclosure is usually used when a plea has been made, where the defence request disclosure of all the evidence. In this instance the evidence is the photograph which will have been provided. You are requesting disclosure of the legitimate information requested under The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, because you are unable to make an informed plea. Also send a copy of all correspondence to the Court. Also enclose a personal letter to the Court requesting guidance on any action they would advise, such as an adjournment, due to the lack of response from the CPS and the disadvantage of your position. Send a copy of this letter to the CPS. Always remember, the CPS, the police and the Court service, are tremendously busy therefore the more work placed upon them encourages them to prioritise their workload. 21. The CPS may claim that all evidence has been provided and The ACPO Code of Practice is merely a guide with no legal standing, which is true. However, please read The ACPO Code of Practice Definition 12.7, which provides a detailed explanation of the Code. Recommendations should be scrupulously adhered to by the police otherwise your right to a fair trial will be compromised. Every defendant needs to be completely satisfied that they have received full disclosure of the information requested. 22. If you are satisfied that there is no case to answer you can challenge the allegation of speeding, alternatively you can change your plea to guilty with very little additional costs. 23. The letters represent a tremendous amount of work for very little reward for the police and the CPS. You can undertake this process yourself; you do not need a solicitor, simply use the questions in the letters to obtain the answers. You will be surprised what the police and CPS do not know. You can become your own Expert Witness. This chapter provides an insight into the full length of the process in the event that the Police and the CPS decide to go the distance. The publication provides all the information, complete with letters, reports and responses. A Full Disclosure hearing could save the motorist a reasonable amount in Court costs.

43

12 THE CHALLENGE
This is where we now apply all the information contained in this publication and begin the challenge to the allegation of speeding. If you decide to challenge an allegation of speeding in court, remember throughout the challenge to focus on the issues that are important. Use the publication continuously as a reference. Remember, although you are assumed to be guilty, for Unattended Automatic Operated Devices, it is the Secondary Check evidence that every motorist should focus on, this is the subject area where the CPS are required to respond. For Attended Actively Operated Devices, it is the Positional Laser Slippage where the main focus of a challenge should be centred. Read the Notice of Intended Prosecution carefully and if possible, complete and return the Notice within the 28 day period for the reasons given earlier. With the Notice enclose a letter requesting information. It is recommended the letter should be along the lines of the letter below: The two challenge letters should be adequate to obtain the information necessary to satisfy yourself that all the procedures required of the police by The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, have been followed. Regrettably this has proved not to be the case. Experience indicates that the Police appear to be in denial over their responsibilities towards The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology and, will avoid these issues wherever possible, providing a variety of reasons why they do not and are not required to respond. The ACPO Code of Practice is very clear on this subject if the police fail to respond the integrity of the Police Force and the evidence is compromised. Consequentially, it has been necessary to provide additional letters of complaint to ensure that the police do not short circuit the system.

44

12.1 THE INITIAL CHALLENGE LETTER

Date: Constabulary Address Notice Number: Dear Sir, Re: - Notice of Intended Prosecution. Thank you for the Notice Intended Prosecution dated the ---------. It is alleged that the recorded speed of my vehicle was ----- mph in a --- mph restricted zone. The alleged time, date and place of the offence was ----- on the -- of --- at Fictitious Road etc. Would you please provide all the information in your possession that supports your allegation that the recorded speed of the vehicle was ---mph? I bring to your attention The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, the code used by all Constabularies throughout the UK for speed enforcement and detection where technology is used. The Policy Code is very clear in its objectives. The Introduction and Foreword Statements clearly state that: 1. The Code "is provided for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence". 2. The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual are applied scrupulously each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service. SCU Reference: Name/Address/etc Other Reference: -

The Police (PSDB) and the Home Office have laid down operational standards that should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity. R.Brunstrom Head of ACPO Road Policing Business Area 3. To maintain the integrity of the Police Service It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual are applied scrupulously. The Code is available for those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence. As this is a technology based speeding allegation, I wish to be entirely satisfied, prior to making a plea, that the Constabulary and every individual member of staff involved in this allegation, have scrupulously applied the correct procedures as laid down in the operational standards of the ACPO Code of Practice. This right has been assigned to me by Mr R. Brunstrom. Please provide the following information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology: I will also draw your attention to Page 11 of the Code Key Rights & Legitimate Aims. It follows that formal prosecutions launched as a result of the application of this Code of Practice may interact with a defendants Article 6 (Fair Trial) rights.
45

Adherence to the recommendations within the Code of Practice and to Disclosure Legislation should ensure that any engagement with this right is securely lawful. Consequently, deliberate refusal to satisfy my requests of Adherence to the recommendations within this Code of Practice, will obviously impact upon my right to a Fair Trial. Where a speeding allegation is concerned, it is assumed in British law that the photographic evidence provided by the speed camera is always correct and, is sufficient evidence in isolation, with possibly a video recording, for the CPS to obtain a conviction. Disclosure of this photograph has been sanctioned under Section 16.3 Para (e) The Protocol. There is a clear distinction between Disclosure of Evidence, namely the photographic evidence - and Legitimate requests for Information related to the correct application of the procedures of the Code of Practice. These requests for information are not requests for disclosure of evidence. In exercising my right to request this information, assigned to me by Mr R. Brunstrom, I am seeking to ensure that the procedures set out in the ACPO Code of Practice have been scrupulously applied by every individual in the evidential chain. A. Please provide a copy of the photograph which supports the allegation, that the recorded speed of the vehicle was mph and confirm whether you have video evidence to support the allegation. Reference: - Page 79/80 Section (e), which clearly states: -The Protocol - Any potential defendant, in respect of a speed or red light offence, should be given the opportunity of viewing the image. B. Please provide the certified periodic calibration check measurements of speed immediately prior to the incident and following the incident, including the dates of these checks. Reference: - Page 68 Calibration/Testing periodic checks recorded at the start and conclusion of tour of duty. C. Please provide the Competency Certificates of the Officer using the device and the Trainer who provided competency training for the officer. Reference: - Page 29 Operational Training. All training should be documented and a robust audit trail maintained. The ACPO recommendation is for operator competency and maintenance of trainer standards. D. Please provide copies of maintenance and calibration records for the device, including any intermediate maintenance or repairs since the last calibration. Reference: - Page 21 Maintaining Type Approval Standards periodic checks of calibration E. Please provide copies of site calibration documentation, fixed and mobile, including correct calibration procedures had been actioned and recorded. Reference: - 1. Section 14.7 - A record of all laser devices is checked and calibration verification is undertaken and recorded. 2. Page 72 Section 15.3 Accuracy checks to be carried out at least once a day during each period of operation. F. Please confirm the type of camera used to support the allegation, Fixed or Mobile and, the location of the camera, i.e. van, hand held, tripod, fixed roadside etc. G. Please provide a complete and full explanation of the technology associated with this type of camera, including a complete explanation of any secondary check if applicable, providing detailed measurements of the secondary check, namely totally independent measurements of time and distance. Reference: - Page 23 Unattended Automatic Operated Devices. The requirement for the Secondary Check is defined as the means of corroborating the primary speed reading which is TOTALLY independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. Page 11 Key Rights and legitimate Aims Application of the Code and the

46

defendants Article 6 Fair Trial rights. Page 23 Automatic Unattended Operation there must an approved independent secondary check of the primary speed reading. 2a. Secondary Check Requirement of Total Independence. H. Please confirm whether the operator concerned, using the Attended Actively Operated device, recorded the presence of other vehicles in the vicinity. Please provide a valid exceptional circumstance why the camera was concealed from public view. Reference: - 1. Page 31 Attended Actively Operated Devices. Operators should record other factors (such as the presence of any other vehicle in the vicinity), which may be used in defence Criminal Procedure & Investigations Act 1996. 1a. Except in exceptional circumstances, devices should be normally be operated from positions where they will be clearly visible to the public. 2. Page 11 Key Rights and legitimate Aims Application of the Code and the defendants Article 6 Fair Trial rights. 3. Page 65 Section 14.1 Laser/Optical Speedmeters The Operator must clearly be visible to the public and target vehicle throughout the check. I. Please confirm whether the camera used, provided information that conforms in every aspect to the ACPO Codes including independent Office Procedures and correct laser beam positioning on the vehicle. Reference: - Page 65 Section 14.2 1. Speed Recording is performed by aiming the device at the target vehicle in the area around the registration plate. It is important that the beam is held steady on the target area (registration plate) to avoid any slip factor. The beam must not be projected through glass or mirrors. J. Please provide the data of the commissioning procedure for the site of an unattended automatic device. Reference: - Site calibration certificate Page 73 Section 15.4 Unattended Automatic Devices Before enforcement activity commences each installation will be the subject of a commissioning procedure at which the police will be present. The record of that commissioning will be retained for evidential purposes to ensure integrity of the site. K. All mobile and Fixed speed camera sites represent a potential danger or hazard and a risk to life, where in the worst case scenario a fatal accident could occur. Please provide the Risk Assessment from your files, of the Risk Assessment taken on the day of the alleged speeding offence and, countersigned by a Senior Officer. Reference: - Unattended Automatic Device. Temporary and Permanent. 1. 13.3 Checking Procedures Prior to use. Checks will be recorded and noted as evidence of integrity. 2. Page 27 Section 3 Police (Health & Safety) Act ALL Risk Assessments. L. Please provide the Competence Certificates of the trained staff member who viewed the photographic image, clearly signed by the Chief Officer. Reference: - 1. Page 11/12 Key Rights and Legitimate Aims 2. Page 77 Section 16 - All staff that view films or images for evidential purposes must be suitably trained. Operators must have their Chief Officers authority to carry out this task. 2a. Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measurement field, the reading must be disregarded. 2b. A record of all the information required by Type approval. Please provide the following information based upon the requirements of the Freedom of information Act. M. Please confirm whether the practice of ensuring Risk Assessments are conducted regularly for every site used for mobile speed detection and, the use of generic Risk Assessments are completed and countersigned. Reference: - Page 11/12 Key Rights and Legitimate Aims Regular H&S Risk Assessments are carried out. 2. Page 27. Police (H&S) Act 1997 -Risk Assessments must be completed for all enforcement activity N. Please provide a copy of the Constabulary procedure for the use of laser and radar.

47

O. Where a device is classified as an "Automatic Unattended Operated Device" in which these Type approved unattended/automatic devices, has a second independent method of checking the primary speed measurement, please provide a detailed explanation related to the requirements of the independence of The secondary check. This information is absolutely essential in the checking procedure and the reliability of the primary speed calculation. Failure to provide this justifiable information before the trial prejudices my ability to prepare any defence and compromises my rights to a fair trial. Reference: - 1. Page 11 Key Rights and legitimate Aims Application of the Code and the defendants Article 6 Fair Trial rights. 2. Page 23 Automatic Unattended Operation there must be an approved independent secondary check of the primary speed reading. 2a. Secondary Check Requirement of Total Independence. 3. Page 73 Section 15.4 Type Approved Unattended Automatic Devices will have a second independent method of checking the primary speed reading. P. Please confirm whether Automatic Unattended Operated devices provide totally independent timing mechanisms for the primary and secondary measurements of time. Reference: - 1. Page 23 Automatic Unattended Operation there must be an approved independent secondary check of the primary speed reading. 2. Secondary Check Requirement of Total Independence. 3. Page 11 Key Rights and legitimate Aims Application of the Code and the defendants Article 6 Fair Trial rights. Q. Please confirm whether these independent timing mechanisms used on Automatic Unattended Operated devices, are independently calibrated to provide measurements of time. Reference: - 1. Page 23 Automatic Unattended Operation there must be an approved independent secondary check of the primary speed reading. 2. Secondary Check Requirement of Total Independence. 3. Page 11 Key Rights and legitimate Aims Application of the Code and the defendants Article 6 Fair Trial rights. Following clarification of the type of camera used in this speeding allegation, specific information related to the camera will be requested. You will no doubt appreciate that this information is only available from the Constabulary; manufacturers will not and are not required to respond to requests from members of the public. The Human Rights Statement: - Page 11 Related to Discrimination/Article 14 ECHR, is very clear where the application of the ACPO Code of Practice is concerned discriminatory practices should not occur. Any deliberate act of discrimination such as withholding information will impact on my Human Rights and will obstruct my ability to satisfy myself that the correct ACPO Codes of Practice procedures were followed. Summary The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology is a document prepared in joint consultation between the Police (PSDB) and The Home Office who have laid down operational standards, which should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity. The Code is clearly available for all defendants to satisfy themselves, that the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence.

48

Deliberately withholding information will ultimately compromise my ability to make an informed plea to the speeding allegation. The Code is equally available for the police to use as guidance as the enforcer of the law. With this responsibility as the enforcer of the law is attached additional responsibilities which clearly state that It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual are applied scrupulously each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service. Also the Code clearly states that: - It follows that formal prosecutions launched as a result of the application of this Code of Practice may interact with a defendants Article 6 (Fair Trial) rights. Adherence to the recommendations within the Code of Practice and to Disclosure Legislation should ensure that any engagement with this right is securely lawful. Clearly, failing to scrupulously apply the procedures set out in this manual and failing to adhere to the recommendations within the Code of Practice raises questions as to whether a prosecution is lawful. The integrity of the Police in this situation will clearly be compromised as will be the integrity of the evidence. Consequently, my right to a Fair Trial will obviously be compromised; making it totally unreasonable to expect a plea of any description to be made in view of the questionable integrity of the police and the evidence. In simple layman terms, the police will have failed to do their job correctly if they refuse to provide all the information requested a job that is written in clear and plain English. The consequences of this failure will threaten the integrity of the evidence, their employers and most importantly, the general motoring public, who could be wrongly accused and convicted of major motoring offences. Any discriminatory act will compromise the integrity of the Police Service, whilst failing to act impartially, would be considered a breach of the Ethical Oath for Police Officers. Yours etc

49

12.2 LTI: 20.20 SPEEDSCOPE LASER TECHNOLOGY LETTER

Date: Constabulary Address: Reference/Notice No: Dear Sir/Madam, Re: - Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty Thank you for your response dated the -- of to my letter of request for information (and the Conditional Offer - if applicable). I would bring to your attention the requirements of your Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty which clearly states that: YOU HAVE 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO TAKE UP THIS CONDITIONAL OFFER. No proceedings will be instituted/commenced against you during this period but failure to respond to this notice OR comply with the conditions overleaf will result in proceedings. The Conditional Offer provides two options within the 28 day period: To take up the Conditional Offer and in doing so, comply with the conditions overleaf OR Respond to the Notice, because failure to respond to either will lead to proceedings. I will assume that the time imposition is discretionary and not lawfully imposed. Because I am unable to enter an informed plea due to insufficient information, I have complied with the notice of Conditional Offer within the enforcement period of 28 days, by accepting option 2 and requesting additional information that will allow me to make an informed choice of plea. I wish to once again bring to your attention the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology and the accepted policy of this Code which is very clear in its objectives. The Introduction and Foreword Statements clearly state that: 1. The Code "is provided for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence". 2. The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual are applied scrupulously each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service. 3. The Police (PSDB) and the Home Office have laid down operational standards that should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity. R.Brunstrom Head of ACPO Road Policing Business Area. To maintain the integrity of the Police Service It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual are applied scrupulously. The Code is available for those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence. SCU Ref: Mr/Mrs ---------Address: -

50

Mr R. Brunstrom has clearly assigned me the right under The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology to entirely satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed by every individual involved in this alleged technology based speeding offence. In this instance the requirement of the response will be specifically related to Attended Actively Operated Devices, to which specific comment is added. I will also draw your attention to Page 11 of the Code Key Rights & Legitimate Aims. It follows that formal prosecutions launched as a result of the application of this Code of Practice may interact with a defendants Article 6 (Fair Trial) rights. Adherence to the recommendations within the Code of Practice and to disclosure legislation should ensure that any engagement with this right is securely lawful. This requirement suggests that a failure of any description to adhere to the recommendations of the Code of Practice will impact on my Right to a Fair Trial Article 6 My requests for information previously and now, are all related to the Correct Application of the procedures of the Code of Practice, not Disclosure of Evidence. In exercising the right assigned to me by Mr R. Brunstrom, I am seeking to ensure that the procedures set out in this manual have been scrupulously applied by every individual in the evidential chain, so that it does not affect my Right to a Fair Trial. Photographic evidence is all that is required in British Law for the Police or the CPS to obtain a conviction. Disclosure of this photograph has been sanctioned under Section 16.3 Para (e) The Protocol. Consequently, refusing to respond to my assigned requests for information, will compound the failure by the police to Adhere to the recommendations within this Code of Practice, discharging their responsibilities to the Code of Practice, thereby deliberately obstructing my right to a Fair Trial. Where a speeding allegation is concerned, it is assumed in law that the evidence provided by the speed camera is always correct. Consequently no other evidence apart from possibly a video recording is required or necessary to obtain a conviction. Currently, your responses provide no information that will satisfy me that the correct procedures have been followed. Consequently, my Right to a Fair Trial has been compromised; making any prosecution will be unsound. The Code clearly recognises the difficulty for a defendant in making an informed plea to a speeding allegation without being provided specific information. However the police response clearly ignores the requirements of the Code by deliberately withholding information which not only obstructs my ability to make an informed plea, but also denies me the opportunity to satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed. These deliberate and discriminatory acts of refusing to acknowledge the Code, compromises the integrity of the police force, whilst constituting a breach of the Ethical Oath for Police Officers and impacts upon my Human Rights Page 11 of The ACPO Code of Practice. [The following is a list of potential contraventions that may be relevant to your specific incident if you are uncertain whether the explanation applies; we recommend that the incident is not removed. Only remove issues that obviously do not apply].

51

The device used in this particular incident was an "Attended Actively Operated Device", where operators have a responsibility to note additional factors such as the presence of other vehicles in the vicinity. Where two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measurement field, the reading has to be disregarded Page 77 Section 16 of The ACPO Code of Practice. This incident indicates a clear contravention of the Code. Trained Operators must use the camera in such a manner as to provide photographs that clearly show the crosshairs in the photograph aligning with the vertical registration plate as described on page 65 of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. This is also a manufacturers requirement otherwise, the manufacturer confirms that any reading of speed not conforming to this requirement is prone to error. This incident clearly contravenes the Code. Equally, only under exceptional operational circumstances, devices should normally be operated from positions where they will be clearly visible to the public. Deliberate concealment of a vehicle, clearly does not conform to the requirement of being clearly visible to the public, or exceptional circumstances. This incident clearly contravenes the Code. The Disguised Location of the Site raised serious issues related to the Health & Safety Policy of the Police Force and the Risk Assessments undertaken. The Code of Practice is very specific over the issue of site selection especially if it could present a potential hazard and, compromise the safety of other road users. It is inexcusable to ignore Health and Safety enquiries. This incident clearly contravenes the Code. All Sites require consideration to Health & Safety. Risk Assessments must be completed for all enforcement activity and where the advent of new technology or changes in the working environment dictates such a need Page 27 Section 3. No Risk Assessments have been provided. This incident clearly contravenes the Code The Office procedures of the Code are very clear: 1. All staff that view films for evidential purposes must be suitably trained, with the Chief Officer's authority to carry out this task. 2. All photographic images must clearly comply with the requirements of the Code. If the camera image clearly indicates that the target is missed, namely the vertical surface of the registration plate, indicated by the "crosshairs" in the photograph, then this viewing should be recognised by the responsible staff member as a non compliance with the ACPO Code and rejected as unsound. 3. Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measured field, the reading must be disregarded. This would represent another non compliance viewing to be considered by the Constabulary. 4. In the event of circumstances whereby the detection of an offence may be unsound, officers are prohibited from making detections or pursuing prosecutions. Item.2 Where an image indicates the crosshairs are centred on a curved/angled, open section (radiator grill) or glass surface, this should be identified as an unsound image by the trained member of the office staff responsible for viewing images for prosecution purposes. Acceptance of this image for prosecution not conforming to the above recommendations within the ACPO Code of Practice, would represent an unsound potential prosecution. Item.3 Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measured field, the reading must be disregarded. This should be identified as an unsound image by the trained member of the office staff responsible for viewing images for prosecution purposes. Acceptance of this image for prosecution would represent an unsound potential prosecution.

52

Item.4 The trained operator of the device and the trained member of the office staff trained in viewing images for evidential purposes are both aware that where the photographic image identifies a contravention of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, the image must be disregarded due to the unsound nature of the intended prosecution. The Office procedures clearly contravene the Code. Contravention of these issues will deny the motorist the right to legitimate and crucial information and will infringe on the right to a fair trial. The regrettable issue to be noted is that both trained members of staff were clearly aware of all these issues, as was their Senior Officer and, yet decided to proceed towards a prosecution, discharging their responsibility towards the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, which clearly compromises the integrity of the Police Force. Please provide the following information based upon the requirements of the Freedom of information Act. I would add that you are requested to respond to these and the previous requests for information within twenty days Please provide an explanation to confirm absolute certainty that a camera allegedly registers a complete set of data, namely the set number of distance or change of distance reading. 2. Please confirm what recorded set of data information is collected to satisfy the requirements for compatibility with the Calibration Certificate Pulse Repetition Frequency Test. The data allegedly comprises of 30 or 42 readings dependent upon speed camera specification. The manufacturer acknowledges that a shift of the aiming point, namely the registration plate, increases the likelihood of error. 3. Please confirm the minimum number of readings required by the laser aiming point on the vertical target, namely the registration plate, for a reading of speed to be valid. Please qualify any statements. 4. Please confirm whether or not readings gathered from the curvature positions of a vehicle or alternative target points other than the vertical number plate, are sufficient to invalidate a speed reading. Please qualify any statements. 5. Please confirm whether the practice of ensuring Risk Assessments are conducted regularly for every site used for mobile speed detection and, the use of generic Risk Assessments are completed and countersigned. 6. Please provide a copy of the Constabulary procedure for the use of laser 7. Please provide detailed information of the independent tests applied to the pulse data, which is claimed by the manufacturer to eliminate any error that a shift of aiming point from the registration plate could cause. 8. Please provide documented information of the method adopted to ensure that the aiming point will remain constant and fixed upon the registration plate for the entire 0.3 second measurement period, which the manufacturer stresses, is very important. This is particularly important when the Cosine Factor in the vertical and/or horizontal plane is applicable. The Cosine Factor encourages the aiming point to move away from the target in a vertical and/or horizontal plane, dependant upon the location of the camera. This represents an important issue to consider when contesting the accuracy of any speeding allegation. 9. Please provide all information related to the Testing procedures of this speed camera for Type Approval. 10. Please confirm whether a printout is provided of the collected camera data, following a speeding allegation. Compatibility of the data with the Calibration Certificate would provide conclusive proof of camera accuracy. [Please Note: - If the police refuse to provide information under the FOI Act Complain] 1.

53

It is noted that the vehicle image in the evidential photograph completely covers the page, providing no evidence that the vehicle was actually on the alleged highway. The photograph could easily have been taken whilst the vehicle was parked. (Delete if untrue this occurs often to hide other vehicles in the picture) Under The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, please respond to the following requests for information. Please show that the vehicle was isolated in the field of view and not shadowed by any other vehicle. It is likely that if the image was expanded to indicate the vehicle was on a highway, other vehicles would appear in the image, which is clearly a contravention of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, in which the viewed image should be disregarded. (Delete if untrue this is a favourite) Please provide an explanation why evidence is being used that clearly contravenes the ACPO Code of Practice for Office Procedures and Operator Application. [Note: - Remove this paragraph if the statement is incorrect this type of photograph is often used in contravention of the Code usually to hide other cars in the photograph] Deliberate denial to respond to these requests will compromise the judicial process and my right to a fair trial as stated in The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology Finally, the only source of information related to this speeding allegation is through the police and the manufacturer. You will no doubt be aware that manufacturers are not obliged to respond to external enquiries from the public. The police in a deliberate act of discrimination of failing to adhere to the recommendations within The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, and failing to act impartially, withheld information that denied me the opportunity to make an informed plea to the allegation of speeding. These acts of discrimination will deny me the right to a fair trial and confirms the unsound nature of this proposed prosecution. The integrity of the Police Force is undoubtedly compromised and could also be considered a breach of the Ethical Oath of the Police Force. Regrettably, unless a level of clarity is provided by the police to enable me to make an informed plea, the only alternative option is to register a complaint with the IPCC, that the (insert name) Constabulary actively condones the practice of encouraging the individuals shown below, to discharge their obligation and responsibilities to the recommendations of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Please provide the names of each individual listed below: a. b. c. d. e. The signatory to the letters of response The Camera Operator(s) The officer viewing the images The officer responsible for all office staff viewing images The Senior Officer with overall responsibility for all staff

I respectfully await your response. Note: - Send a letter of complaint to the IPCC 15/20 days after sending this letter. Send a letter of complaint to the Information Commissioner 20 days following the first letter.

54

12.3 THE GATSOMETER SPEED CAMERA LETTER

Date: Constabulary Address: Mr/Mrs ---------Address: Reference/Notice No: Dear Sir/Madam, Re: - Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty Thank you for your response dated the -- of to my letter of request for information (and the Conditional Offer - if applicable). I would bring to your attention the requirements of your Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty which clearly states that: YOU HAVE 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO TAKE UP THIS CONDITIONAL OFFER. No proceedings will be instituted/commenced against you during this period but failure to respond to this notice OR comply with the conditions overleaf will result in proceedings. The Conditional Offer provides two options within the 28 day period: To take up the Conditional Offer and in doing so, comply with the conditions overleaf OR Respond to the Notice, because failure to respond to either will lead to proceedings. I will assume that the time imposition is discretionary and not lawfully imposed. Because I am unable to enter an informed plea due to insufficient information, I have complied with the notice of Conditional Offer within the enforcement period of 28 days, by accepting option 2 and request additional information that will allow me to make an informed choice of plea. I wish to once again bring to your attention the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology and the accepted policy of this Code which is very clear in its objectives. The Introduction and Foreword Statements clearly state that: 1. The Code "is provided for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence". 2. The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual are applied scrupulously each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service. 3. The Police (PSDB) and the Home Office have laid down operational standards that should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity. R.Brunstrom Head of ACPO Road Policing Business Area. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual and the operational standards laid down by the Police (PSDB) and the Home Office are applied scrupulously, to maintain the integrity of the Police Service and protect the evidential integrity. SCU Ref: -

55

The Code is available for those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence. Please provide the previous and the following information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Mr R. Brunstrom has assigned me the right to entirely satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed by every individual in this alleged technology based speeding offence. In this instance the requirement of the response will be specifically related to "Automatic Unattended Operated Device", to which I will provide specific comment. I will draw your attention to Page 11 of the Code Key Rights & Legitimate Aims. It follows that formal prosecutions launched as a result of the application of this Code of Practice may interact with a defendants Article 6 (Fair Trial) rights. Adherence to the recommendations within the Code of Practice and to Disclosure Legislation should ensure that any engagement with this right is securely lawful. Where a speeding allegation is concerned, it is assumed in British law that the photographic evidence provided by the speed camera is always correct and, is sufficient evidence in isolation, with possibly a video recording, for the CPS to obtain a conviction. Disclosure of this photograph has been sanctioned under Section 16.3 Para (e) The Protocol There is a clear distinction between Disclosure of Evidence, which is the photographic evidence - and Legitimate requests for Information related to the correct application of the procedures within the Code of Practice. These requests for information are not requests for disclosure of evidence. In exercising my right to request this information, assigned to me by Mr R. Brunstrom, I am seeking to ensure that the procedures set out in the ACPO Code of Practice have been scrupulously applied by every individual in the evidential chain. Refusal to respond to my requests for information by discharging your responsibility towards The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, encourages every individual to discharge their responsibilities towards the ACPO Code and confirms your failure to Adhere to the recommendations within this Code of Practice, thereby deliberately obstructing my right to a Fair Trial. These statements clearly entitle me to request specific information that will allow me to satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed where technology has been used to detect an alleged speeding offence. Mr R Brunstrom clearly states that it is necessary to provide this information to maintain the integrity of the Police Service. Currently, your response provides no information that will satisfy me that the correct procedures have been followed. Consequently, any potential prosecution will be unsound. The Code clearly recognises the difficulty for a defendant in making an informed plea to a speeding allegation without being provided specific information. Failure by the police to respond to the issues raised in my previous letter clearly indicates that the police deliberately intend to ignore the requirements of the correct procedures laid down by The ACPO Code of Practice. Consequently it is unreasonable to expect anybody to enter a plea or accept the Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty, based upon the police refusal to comply with the ACPO Code of Practice, by deliberately withholding information.

56

Any deliberate act of discrimination such as withholding information that will obstruct my ability to satisfy myself that the correct ACPO Codes of Practice procedures were followed, will ultimately compromise my ability to make an informed plea to the speeding allegation and subsequently, my right to a fair and potentially unnecessary trial. The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology is a document prepared in joint consultation between the Police (PSDB) and The Home Office who have laid down operational standards, which should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity refusal to comply will compromise the integrity of the evidence. Therefore please provide additional information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology and any omissions to my original request for information from my letter dated -------. I note from the photograph a significant amount of information is displayed. The information indicates the time, date, an unidentified distance, a speed in mph and a few other numbers that appear to have very little significance to a speeding allegation. The Gatso Camera is classified as Automatic Unattended Operated Device in which the Secondary check information MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE to a defendant as a specific requirement of the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Equipment. Refusal to lawfully deny access to the actual and only available information recorded by the camera; would indicate that this denial is not only biased towards obtaining a conviction, but could also be considered an infringement of my Human Rights. Therefore please provide additional information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology associated with items 1 - 16. 1. Please confirm the recorded distance travelled by the vehicle and the recorded period of time the vehicle took to travel this distance. A printout from the camera will provide conclusive proof of both measurements. 2. Please confirm your assessment of the secondary check distance travelled as indicated by the two photographs, which is an Office Procedure requirement Section 16. 3. Please provide an independent secondary check measurement of the time taken to travel this distance. The technology associated with this camera requires an object, in this case a vehicle, to travel directly towards or away from the camera, to record the true speed of that object. I note from the photographs, that the side and/or the top of the vehicle is visible. The indication is that the vehicle is not moving in a direct straight line towards/away from the camera. 4. Please confirm whether the recorded speed of ---mph is the true speed of the vehicle or an assessment of the true speed of the vehicle. The Secondary Check is defined on page 23 as the means of corroborating the primary speed reading which is totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. Section 16.1 requires that the images be scrutinized using the approved independent secondary check procedure, page 23, to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. It must be remembered that speed has two variable components, namely distance and time. Total independence means both secondary check components must be independent of both the primary speed components. The secondary check measurement of distance is provided by an independent method using a number of white lines a known distance apart.

57

However, the timing mechanism used to measure primary speed reading of time is the same mechanism used to measure the secondary speed reading of time, consequently the primary and secondary speed calculations are both dependent upon the same mechanism. This dependency immediately contravenes Section 16.1 as there is no independent means of verifying the continuing accuracy of the device because both calculations rely upon a single timing mechanism. This can be verified by responding to the following questions. It is understood that under British law the Primary evidence provided by the speed camera is assumed to be correct and accepted in law. However, failure or refusal to provide answers to questions related to the secondary check information, which incidentally is not evidence, will deny me access to legitimate information that will allow me to confirm whether the correct procedures of the ACPO Code of Practice has been followed. This will be interpreted as compromising the integrity of the evidence and an infringement of my Human Rights. Using the Freedom of Information Act, please respond to questions 5, 6, 7 & 8 which relate to the secondary check information. 5. Please explain in precise detail how the secondary check photographs are used in a speeding allegation to prove that the camera operated correctly. 6. Please explain in precise detail the operation of the Gatso Rear Facing Camera, especially details of the secondary check. 7. The following explanation provides details on how the Gatso Camera gathers information and provides the alleged speed of the vehicle. Please confirm whether you accept this explanation; otherwise please provide an alternative explanation. An explanation of the Gatso Rear Facing Camera Gatso cameras emit radar beams from which specific information is provided. Two measurements are provided from which the alleged speed of the vehicle is calculated. The information gathered is the distance the vehicle travels in a measured period of time. To check the accuracy of the speed recorded by the camera, two photographs are taken of the allegedly speeding vehicle. The markings on the road, usually five feet apart, allow a secondary check of the speed to be carried out, based upon the distance travelled between flashes of the camera. The time taken between photographs is predetermined, this secondary check allows the speed recorded by the camera to be checked. This explanation is extremely important because this information confirms that the speeding allegation is based only upon the evidence gathered by the camera technology, prior to the secondary check. 8. Please explain the means or mechanism by which the calculation of the Secondary Check Speed is achieved, confirming that it is totally independent to the means or mechanism by which the primary speed was calculated, detailing the independence of the timing mechanisms for each calculation. Please bear in mind that speed is a function of both distance and time. This requirement from the ACPO Codes of Practice is the central issue related to the authenticity of the Secondary Check. Any dependency of the Secondary Check on the primary speed reading should immediately invalidate the speeding allegation. Please respond to the following requests for information based upon The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. 9. Please provide the documented and totally independent, evidential recorded measurement of time used to calculate the secondary check information of speed.

58

10. Please confirm the distance between the white lines. 11. Please confirm the time interval between the two photographs. 12. Please confirm that the secondary check measured time interval between photographs was totally independent to the mechanism that provided the primary speed measurement of time, used to calculate the primary speed reading. 13. Please provide details of the totally independent primary and secondary check timing devices used to measure time, that were ultimately used to calculate speed. 14. Please provide the approved procedural secondary check information to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. Section 16.1 ACPO Codes of Practice 15. Please provide details and independent Calibration Certificates and Data sheets of the totally independent mechanisms and timing devices used to calculate the primary and secondary check speeds Alternatively, please justify the contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, in which the Secondary Check information as defined on page 23 of the Code and Section 16.1., is not independent of the primary speed evidence. It is noted that more than two vehicles appear in the evidential photograph, which is a contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice, Section 16, which clearly states that where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may be in the measured field, the reading must be disregarded. Please provide the reason why you have provided evidence that clearly contravenes your ACPO Code of Practice. [Note: - Remove this paragraph if the statement is incorrect] The annual calibration of Speed Cameras appears to be standard procedure for all cameras irrespective of make, type or use of the camera. The benchmark, by which undisputed accuracy of the camera is measured, is the Calibration Certificate. You will therefore appreciate the importance of the request to: 16. Please provide documentary confirmation that the camera functioned within the calibrated parameters of the Calibration Certificate at the time of the speeding allegation. Finally, the only source of information related to this speeding allegation is through the police and the manufacturer. You will no doubt be aware that manufacturers are not obliged to respond to external enquiries from the public on technical, commercial or other sensitive matters where Confidentiality Agreements have been agreed between the Home Office and the manufacturer. Manufacturers will however respond in a positive manner to an enquiry from the police, simply because the police are their customer, they will not respond to a request for information from a member of the public. In view of my previous comments, would you please provide under the Freedom of Information Act, all information related to the Testing procedures of this specific speed camera for Type Approval. Deliberate refusal to provide the information requested will result in complaints to the IPCC and the Freedom of Information Commissioner.

59

My requests for information are not requests for disclosure of evidence; these requests are only related to the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, the camera and the secondary check information for the speeding allegation to this specific incident. Finally, on an issue of safety, Please provide the following information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology: The Risk Assessment conducted for the site when originally commissioned. This is a requirement of the ACPO Code of Practice and should be held by every Constabulary, to maintain the integrity of the Police Force. The position of the camera could be considered hazardous and a risk to life with the potential for a FATAL accident. Please provide documented evidence that you identified every potential hazard, decided who might be harmed and how you evaluated all the risks and decided upon precautions, recorded and implemented your findings, reviewed your risk assessment and updated your findings. I respectfully await your response.

Yours etc.

60

12.4 TRUVELO & REDSPEED ROAD SENSOR CAMERA LETTER

Date: -Constabulary Address: Mr/Mrs ---------Address: Reference/Notice No: Dear Sir/Madam, Re: - Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty Thank you for your response dated the -- of to my letter of request for information (and the Conditional Offer - if applicable). I would bring to your attention the requirements of your Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty which clearly states that: YOU HAVE 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO TAKE UP THIS CONDITIONAL OFFER. No proceedings will be instituted/commenced against you during this period but failure to respond to this notice OR comply with the conditions overleaf will result in proceedings. The Conditional Offer provides two options within the 28 day period: To take up the Conditional Offer and in doing so, comply with the conditions overleaf OR Respond to the Notice, because failure to respond to either will lead to proceedings. I will assume that the time imposition is discretionary and not lawfully imposed. Because I am unable to enter an informed plea due to insufficient information, I have complied with the notice of Conditional Offer within the enforcement period of 28 days, by accepting option 2 and request additional information that will allow me to make an informed choice of plea. I wish to once again bring to your attention the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology and the accepted policy guideline of this Code which is very clear in its objectives. The Introduction and Foreword Statements clearly state that: 1. The Code "is provided for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence". 2. The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual are applied scrupulously each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service. 3. The Police (PSDB) and the Home Office have laid down operational standards that should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity. R.Brunstrom Head of ACPO Road Policing Business Area. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual and the operational standards laid down by the Police (PSDB) and the Home Office are applied scrupulously, to maintain the integrity of the Police Service and protect the evidential integrity. SCU Ref: Other Reference: -

61

The Code is available for those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence. Please provide the previous and the following information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Mr R. Brunstrom has assigned me the right to entirely satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed by every individual in this alleged technology based speeding offence. In this instance the requirement of the response will be specifically related to "Automatic Unattended Operated Device", to which I will provide specific comment. I will draw your attention to Page 11 of the Code Key Rights & Legitimate Aims. It follows that formal prosecutions launched as a result of the application of this Code of Practice may interact with a defendants Article 6 (Fair Trial) rights. Adherence to the recommendations within the Code of Practice and to Disclosure Legislation should ensure that any engagement with this right is securely lawful. Where a speeding allegation is concerned, it is assumed in British law that the photographic evidence provided by the speed camera is always correct and, is sufficient evidence in isolation, with possibly a video recording, for the CPS to obtain a conviction. Disclosure of this photograph has been sanctioned under Section 16.3 Para (e) The Protocol There is a clear distinction between Disclosure of Evidence which is the photographic evidence - and Legitimate requests for Information related to the correct application of the procedures within the Code of Practice. These requests for information are not requests for disclosure of evidence. In exercising my right to request this information, assigned to me by Mr R. Brunstrom, I am seeking to ensure that the procedures set out in the ACPO Code of Practice have been scrupulously applied by every individual in the evidential chain. Refusal to respond to my requests for information by discharging your responsibility towards The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, encourages every individual to discharge their responsibilities and confirms your failure to Adhere to the recommendations within this Code of Practice, thereby deliberately obstructing my right to a Fair Trial. These statements clearly entitle me to request specific information that will allow me to satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed where technology has been used to detect an alleged speeding offence. Mr R Brunstrom clearly states that it is necessary to provide this information to maintain the integrity of the Police Service. Currently, your response provides no information that will satisfy me that the correct procedures have been followed. Consequently, any potential prosecution will be unsound. The Code clearly recognises the difficulty for a defendant in making an informed plea to a speeding allegation without being provided specific information. Failure by the police to respond to the issues raised in my previous letter clearly indicates that the police deliberately intend to ignore the requirements of the correct procedures laid down by The ACPO Code of Practice. Consequently it is unreasonable to expect anybody to enter a plea or accept the Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty, based upon the police refusal to comply with the ACPO Code of Practice, by deliberately withholding information.

62

Any deliberate act of discrimination such as withholding information that will obstruct my ability to satisfy myself that the correct ACPO Codes of Practice procedures were followed, will ultimately compromise my ability to make an informed plea to the speeding allegation and subsequently, my right to a fair and potentially unnecessary trial. The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology is a document prepared in joint consultation between the Police (PSDB) and The Home Office who have laid down operational standards, which should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity refusal to comply will compromise the integrity of the evidence. Therefore please provide additional information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology and any omissions to my original request for information from my letter dated -------. I note from the photograph a significant amount of information displayed, much of which is illegible. Although the information is partially legible, it would be appreciated if you would kindly issue this information in a more legible fashion. I am unable to identify any information on the photograph that could conclusively prove the vehicle was travelling at the alleged indicated speed. It would be greatly appreciated if you could kindly explain the significance of these numbers. The indication of a calculated speed is shown; however the manner in which this figure was derived does not appear to be quite so obvious. Speed is a function of distance and time and, in this particular situation, the information that is required to confirm the alleged speeding allegation is the measured distance the vehicle travelled and the measured time taken to travel that particular distance. Neither distance nor time measurements are displayed on the photograph. Refusal to lawfully deny access to the actual and only available evidence recorded by the camera; would indicate that this denial is not only biased towards obtaining a conviction, but could also be considered an infringement of my Human Rights. Therefore please provide additional information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. 1. Please provide the measurements of time and distance recorded by the camera from which the calculation of speed was derived. Also a printout from the camera would provide proof of both measurements. The Truvelo and Redspeed Cameras are classified as Automatic Unattended Operated Devices in which the Secondary check information MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE to a defendant as a specific requirement of the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Equipment. Deliberate refusal to provide the information is a contravention of the ACPO Code of Practice, denying the defendant the opportunity to satisfy themselves that the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence". Consequently, any deliberate refusal to scrupulously apply the procedures set out in the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Equipment Manual, by failing to Adhere to the recommendations within this Code of Practice, will constitute an act of deliberately obstructing my right to a Fair Trial by refusing to immediately provide the information, NOT EVIDENCE, that I am legitimately entitled to request and receive.

63

Truvelo and Redspeed Systems operate on a road based sensor system. Basically there are two sets of sensors embedded in the road containing Piezo electric crystals. These are activated by a vehicles front wheel or wheels passing over them. The crystals produce electrical impulses which provide the electronics in the housing with two independent readings on which calculations of speed are made. This is the case because the distance between the sensors is both known and constant. If the speed readings are compatible and are above the preset threshold, the camera is tripped along with the flash, when the camera calculates that the front wheel or wheels will cross the white lines across the carriageway, having already calculated the vehicles speed. The white lines are a preset known distance apart and show the acceptable tolerance for the offence to be proved, which is claimed to be 10%. The photographs provided by the camera, is the Secondary check of the recorded preset speed of the vehicle, confirming the camera was working correctly. The interpretation of the Cameras function is that a number of sequential events occur all of which depend upon variations of the equation for speed. Speed = Distance divided by Time. (A) Speed = Distance Time or (B) Time = Distance Speed or (C) Distance = Speed x Time

The first event, namely the primary speed calculation, is where two independent measurements of time are recorded for the vehicle to travel a known and constant distance between two sets of piezo crystal sensors. Based upon these two recorded measurements of time, two independent speed calculations (A) are made. Dependent upon the compatibility of these two calculations of speed and the proviso that they are above a preset threshold, the second event occurs, namely the secondary check. The second event is interpreted as the Secondary Check, which the ACPO Codes of Practice defines as the means of corroborating the primary speed reading and, should be totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. Reference: - Page 23 ACPO Codes of Practice. In order for the secondary check event to comply with ACPO Codes of Practice of total independence, a totally independent measurement of time should be provided from an independent timing mechanism used specifically for the secondary check event. This mechanism should indicate the time the vehicle takes to travel the known distance between the last piezo crystal sensors, to a position where the camera calculates that the front wheels will cross the white lines across the carriageway. Currently, no proof exists to confirm that the primary and secondary speed calculations use independent timing mechanisms. If the same timing mechanism is used for the primary speed calculation and the secondary speed calculation, this represents a blatant violation of The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Equipment for Total Independence of the primary and secondary speed calculations. It must be remembered that speed has two variable components, namely distance and time. Total independence means both secondary check components must be independent of the primary speed reading.

64

Please respond to questions 1 -3 under the Freedom of Information Act, which are related to the secondary check. 1. Please explain in precise detail how a secondary check photograph is used in a speeding allegation to prove that the camera operated correctly. 2. Please explain in precise detail how the Truvelo/RedSpeed Road Based Sensor system works, especially details of the secondary check. 3. Please confirm whether you accept the operational explanation; otherwise please provide an alternative explanation. 4. Please explain the means or mechanism by which the calculation of the Secondary Check Speed is achieved, confirming that it is totally independent to the means or mechanism by which the primary speed was calculated, detailing the independence of the timing mechanisms for each calculation. Please bear in mind that speed is a function of both distance and time. Please provide information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology associated with items 5 -12. 5. Please provide the DOCUMENTED and totally independent, evidential recorded measurement of time used to calculate the secondary check evidence of speed. 6. Please provide the means or mechanism by which the calculation of the Secondary Check Speed is achieved, confirming that it is totally independent to the means or mechanism by which the primary speed was calculated. 7. Please provide documentary proof of the alleged secondary check distance travelled by my vehicle. 8. Please confirm the recorded time my vehicle took to travel the secondary check distance was: (a) A measurement based upon a totally independent mechanism that was used to calculate the primary speed reading or (b) A calculation based upon the primary speed reading, using a configuration of the time honoured equation of Speed = distance divided by time. The configured equation for this calculation being: - Secondary Check Time = Secondary Check Distance divided by Primary Speed Reading. 9. Please provide details and an independent Calibration Certificate of the totally independent mechanism that was used in 7(a) above. Alternatively, please justify the contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology 7(b), in the contravention of The Secondary Check evidence as defined on page 23 of the Code, in which: The means or totally independent mechanism, used to calculate the Secondary Check time was the primary speed reading, which used the same mechanism that measured the primary reading of time, thereby contravening the ACPO Codes. 10. Details of the independent primary and the secondary check devices used for measuring time. 11. Calibration Technical Data Sheets for both timing devices. (This information is unavailable to the public, the manufacturer will not respond. The information is a requirement of the ACPO Code of Practice. Failure to provide this information will place me at a distinct disadvantage. This would be a contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice that require clear and unambiguous evidence of the offence, contravening the Home Office requirements of providing accurate evidence leading to safe convictions.
65

12. The approved procedural secondary check information to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. Section 16.1 ACPO Codes of Practice. Finally, the only source of information related to this speeding allegation is through the police and the manufacturer. You will no doubt be aware that manufacturers are not obliged to respond to external enquiries from the public on technical, commercial or other sensitive matters where Confidentiality Agreements have been agreed between the Home Office and the manufacturer. Manufacturers will however respond in a positive manner to an enquiry from the police, simply because the police are their customer, they will not respond to a request for information from a member of the public. In view of my previous comments, would you please provide under the Freedom of Information Act, all information related to the Testing procedures of this specific speed camera for Type Approval. Deliberate refusal to provide the information requested will result in complaints to the IPCC and the Freedom of Information Commissioner. My requests for information are not requests for disclosure of evidence; these requests are only related to the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, the camera and the secondary check information for the speeding allegation to this specific incident. Finally, on an issue of safety, Please provide the following information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology: The Risk Assessment conducted for the site when originally commissioned. This is a requirement of the ACPO Code of Practice and should be held by every Constabulary, to maintain the integrity of the Police Force. The position of the camera could be considered hazardous and a risk to life with the potential for a FATAL accident. Please provide documented evidence that you identified every potential hazard, decided who might be harmed and how you evaluated all the risks and decided upon precautions, recorded and implemented your findings, reviewed your risk assessment and updated your findings. I respectfully await your response.

Yours etc.

66

12.5 SPECS AVERAGE SPEED ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM LETTER

Date: -Constabulary Address: Mr/Mrs ---------Address: Reference/Notice No: Dear Sir/Madam, Re: - Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty Thank you for your response dated the -- of to my letter of request for information (and the Conditional Offer - if applicable). I would bring to your attention the requirements of your Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty which clearly states that: YOU HAVE 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO TAKE UP THIS CONDITIONAL OFFER. No proceedings will be instituted/commenced against you during this period but failure to respond to this notice OR comply with the conditions overleaf will result in proceedings. The Conditional Offer provides two options within the 28 day period: To take up the Conditional Offer and in doing so, comply with the conditions overleaf OR Respond to the Notice, because failure to respond to either will lead to proceedings. I will assume that the time imposition is discretionary and not lawfully imposed. Because I am unable to enter an informed plea due to insufficient information, I have complied with the notice of Conditional Offer within the enforcement period of 28 days, by accepting option 2 and request additional information that will allow me to make an informed choice of plea. I wish to once again bring to your attention the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology and the accepted policy of this Code which is very clear in its objectives. The Introduction and Foreword Statements clearly state that: 1. The Code "is provided for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence". 2. The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual are applied scrupulously each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service. 3. The Police (PSDB) and the Home Office have laid down operational standards that should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity. R.Brunstrom Head of ACPO Road Policing Business Area. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual and the operational standards laid down by the Police (PSDB) and the Home Office are applied scrupulously, to maintain the integrity of the Police Service and protect the evidential integrity. SCU Ref: Other Reference: -

67

The Code is available for those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence. Please provide the previous and the following information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Mr R. Brunstrom has assigned me the right to entirely satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed by every individual in this alleged technology based speeding offence. In this instance the requirement of the response will be specifically related to "Automatic Unattended Operated Device", to which I will provide specific comment. I will draw your attention to Page 11 of the Code Key Rights & Legitimate Aims. It follows that formal prosecutions launched as a result of the application of this Code of Practice may interact with a defendants Article 6 (Fair Trial) rights. Adherence to the recommendations within the Code of Practice and to Disclosure Legislation should ensure that any engagement with this right is securely lawful. Where a speeding allegation is concerned, it is assumed in British law that the photographic evidence provided by the speed camera is always correct and, is sufficient evidence in isolation, with possibly a video recording, for the CPS to obtain a conviction. Disclosure of this photograph has been sanctioned under Section 16.3 Para (e) The Protocol There is a clear distinction between Disclosure of Evidence which is the photographic evidence - and Legitimate requests for Information related to the correct application of the procedures within the Code of Practice. These requests for information are not requests for disclosure of evidence. In exercising my right to request this legitimate information, assigned to me by Mr R. Brunstrom, I am seeking to ensure that the procedures set out in the ACPO Code of Practice have been scrupulously applied by every individual in the evidential chain. Refusal to respond to my requests for information by discharging your responsibility towards The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, encourages every individual to discharge their responsibilities and confirms your failure to Adhere to the recommendations within this Code of Practice, thereby deliberately obstructing my right to a Fair Trial. These statements clearly entitle me to request specific information that will allow me to satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed where technology has been used to detect an alleged speeding offence. Mr R Brunstrom clearly states that it is necessary to provide this information to maintain the integrity of the Police Service. Currently, your response provides no information that will satisfy me that the correct procedures have been followed. Consequently, any potential prosecution will be unsound. The Code clearly recognises the difficulty for a defendant in making an informed plea to a speeding allegation without being provided specific information. Failure by the police to respond to the issues raised in my previous letter clearly indicates that the police deliberately intend to ignore the requirements of the correct procedures laid down by The ACPO Code of Practice. Consequently it is unreasonable to expect anybody to enter a plea or accept the Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty, based upon the police refusal to comply with the ACPO Code of Practice, by deliberately withholding information.

68

Any deliberate act of discrimination such as withholding information that will obstruct my ability to satisfy myself that the correct ACPO Codes of Practice procedures were followed, will ultimately compromise my ability to make an informed plea to the speeding allegation and subsequently, my right to a fair and potentially unnecessary trial. The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology is a document prepared in joint consultation between the Police (PSDB) and The Home Office who have laid down operational standards, which should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity refusal to comply will compromise the integrity of the evidence. Therefore please provide additional information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology and any omissions to my original request for information from my letter dated -------. I am unable to identify any information on the photograph that could conclusively prove the vehicle was travelling at the alleged indicated speed. It would be greatly appreciated if you could kindly explain the significance of these numbers. The manufacturers explanation of the SPECS System is that it is an average speed enforcement system, using linked video cameras to monitor a length of road. The video cameras continuously capture images of vehicles as they pass through the field of view of the camera. Their number plates are read using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (APNR) and the average speed of the vehicle is calculated between the linked cameras, over the known baseline distance. If this exceeds the police speed threshold, an offence record is created and violation images and data are logged. The SPECS system is classified as an Automatic Unattended Operated Device in which the Secondary check information MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE to a defendant as a specific requirement of the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Deliberate refusal to provide the information is a contravention of the ACPO Code of Practice, denying the defendant the opportunity to satisfy themselves that the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence". Consequently, any deliberate refusal to scrupulously apply the procedures set out in the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology Manual, by failing to Adhere to the recommendations within this Code of Practice, will constitute an act of deliberately obstructing my right to a Fair Trial by refusing to immediately provide the information, NOT EVIDENCE, that I am legitimately entitled to request and receive. The Primary Speed evidence is clearly described above, in which a vehicle travels a known distance in which the time to travel that known distance is measured. From the two measurements an average speed calculation is provided. The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Equipment requires that every "Automatic Unattended Operated Device" provides Secondary Check information, Section 16.1., is defined on page 23 as the means of corroborating the primary speed reading which is totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. Currently, the evidential photograph provides no Primary Speed evidence of time and distance to conclusively prove the speeding allegation, but more importantly there is no Secondary check information provided, confirming total independence of the Primary Speed calculation.

69

In order for the secondary check information to comply with the recommendations of the ACPO Codes of Practice of total independence, two totally independent measurements should be used and made available to a defendant. It must be remembered that speed has two variable components, namely distance and time. Total independence means both secondary check components must be independent of the primary speed reading. Section 16.1 requires that the images be scrutinized using the approved independent secondary check procedure, page 23, to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. The first independent Secondary Check measurement should be a known and independent distance over which the vehicle travelled, which should be measured by an independent timing mechanism used specifically for the secondary check event. This timing mechanism should be totally independent of the timing mechanism used to measure the time in the Primary speed calculation. Currently, no proof exists to confirm that the primary and secondary speed calculations use independent timing mechanisms or independent distances. If the same distance and/or the same timing mechanism are used for the primary and secondary speed calculations, this represents a blatant violation of The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology for Total Independence of the primary and secondary speed calculations. Unless the Constabulary can show otherwise and provide independent Secondary Check information as requested, it is abundantly obvious that a contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice has occurred in that the primary and secondary check measurement of time is provided by the same mechanism. This immediately contravenes Section 16.1 because there is no independent means of verifying the continuing accuracy of the device as both calculations rely upon the same timing mechanism used for the primary and secondary speed readings. This can be verified by responding to the following questions. The total independence of the secondary check is further compromised, simply because the second function of speed, namely distance, is the identical distance travelled for the primary and secondary calculations of speed. Using the Freedom of Information Act, please respond to the following questions, which relate to the secondary check measurement. Deliberate denial to respond to these requests for information will be interpreted as compromising the integrity of the Police Force and the integrity of the evidence. Please explain in precise detail, the secondary check method adopted that will corroborate the primary speed reading and, which is totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. This total independence will require a measurement of distance which is totally independent of the distance used to calculate the primary speed and, a measurement of time using a totally independent mechanism to that used to measure the time travelled, in the calculation of the primary speed. 1. If applicable, please provide an alternative explanation of the operation of the SPECS system or please confirm your acceptance of the above explanation.

70

2. Please provide an explanation of the independent Secondary Check measurement of distance of vehicle travel that is used, to corroborate total independence from the primary speed reading. 3. Please provide an explanation of the independent Secondary Check measurement of time, that will corroborate the use of a totally independent timing mechanism to that used in the primary time measurement, ensuring total independence from the primary speed reading. You are aware that the ACPO Codes of Practice clearly entitles me to satisfy myself as to whether the correct procedures have been followed where technology was used to detect an alleged offence. Therefore please provide additional information based upon the requirements of The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. 4. Please provide the Secondary Check calculation of speed, using the totally independent information which will corroborate the calculation of the primary speed reading. 5. Please provide the independent secondary check measurement of distance the vehicle travelled in this alleged incident. 6. Please provide the independent secondary check measurement of time, provided by an independent timing mechanism to that used to for the primary measurement of time. 7. Please provide independent Calibration Certificates for the Primary and Secondary timing devices. 8. Please provide the approved procedural secondary check information to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. Section 16.1 ACPO Codes of Practice. 9. Please provide the primary measurements of distance and time that were used to calculate the speed of the vehicle. Finally, if paragraphs 3, 4 or 5 are not totally independent of the primary speed reading or rely upon the mechanism that calculated the primary speed reading, the speeding allegation should be declared invalid, due to the contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice. Reference: - Page 23 - The Secondary Check Definition & Section 16.1 The Secondary Check Office Procedure Requirement The inability to verify the continuing accuracy of the device using the independent approved secondary check procedure would represent a contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice, confirming that the correct ACPO Code procedures had not been followed. If the Secondary Check is dependant upon the mechanism by which the primary speed reading is calculated, this would also confirm the ACPO Code procedures had not been followed. Any restriction on the ability to use the secondary check procedure to enable the verification of the continuing accuracy of the device would represent a contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice. Reference: - Section 16.1 of the Code The ACPO Codes of Practice requirements are clearly detailed, together with my assigned rights to satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence.

71

If you are unable to comply fully with the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, by scrupulously applying the procedures laid down in The Police (PSDB) and the Home Office operational standards to protect the evidential integrity and, the integrity of the Police Service, then I will require the names of all individuals involved in the evidential chain. Mr R. Brunstrom has assigned me the right to entirely satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed by every individual in this alleged technology based speeding offence. In this instance the requirement of the response will be specifically related to "Automatic Unattended Operated Device". Currently it is clear that you are contravening Page 11 of the Code Key Rights & Legitimate Aims which states that It follows that formal prosecutions launched as a result of the application of this Code of Practice may interact with a defendants Article 6 (Fair Trial) rights. Your failure to Adhere to the recommendations within the Code of Practice by deliberately withholding information: is a clear violation of the Code. Clearly, failing to scrupulously apply the procedures set out in this manual and failing to adhere to the recommendations within the Code of Practice raises questions as to whether this prosecution is lawful. The integrity of the evidence and the Police Force has clearly been compromised. Consequently, my right to a Fair Trial has also been compromised; making it totally unreasonable to expect a plea of any description to be made in view of the questionable integrity of the police and the evidence. In simple layman terms, the police will have failed to do their job correctly, refusing to provide all the information requested, to a job that is written in clear and plain English. The consequences of this failure has threatened the integrity of the evidence, their employers and most importantly, the general motoring public, who could be wrongly accused and convicted of major motoring offences. You will no doubt be aware that manufacturers are not obliged to respond to external enquiries from the public on technical, commercial or other sensitive matters where Confidentiality Agreements have been agreed between the Home Office and the manufacturer. Manufacturers will however respond in a positive manner to an enquiry from the police, simply because the police are their customer, they will not respond to a request for information from a member of the public because they are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Please provide the names of the following individuals as I intend to register a complaint with the IPCC for failure to comply fully with the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. a. b. c. d. The signatory to the letters of response The officer viewing the images The officer responsible for all office staff viewing images The Senior Officer with overall responsibility for all staff

I respectfully await your response.

Yours etc

72

12.6 THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

The Freedom of Information Act is a legitimate tactic that should always be used. Public Bodies are required to respond. The system presents adequate bias in favour of the Police and CPS; this Act helps to provide a level playing field. This publication does not intend to offer any guidelines on what is and isnt admissible. There is adequate information on the Information Commissioners Office website. Our view is that everything is admissible. Having written two letters that under normal circumstances should be adequate to halt any further action, however, the police use tactics that intimidate the general motoring public, consequently it is sometimes necessary to use this legitimate tactic to obtain a legitimate response. The police very often do not answer every question and, have been known to answer none. However, to make sure that the police do answer every question, follow this legitimate tactic of requesting all information under the Freedom of Information Act. This at least ensures a response, although not always adequate. If the police fail to respond, or do not answer every question or give evasive answers, do not hesitate to make a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office @ www.ico.gov.uk, its quite an easy process. The process is clearly explained on the website. Provide the Commissioners Office with as much information as possible. When making a complaint to the Commissioners Office, always remember that you are responsible for proving the speeding allegation is incorrect, therefore due to this difficulty do not hesitate to remind the Commissioners Office that the information that you are requesting is only obtainable from the police, who are your only source of information, because manufacturers refuse to respond to questions from the public. It is very important to stress this point and follow this issue as far as possible, simply because dealing through the Information Commissioners office is a great opportunity not to be missed to obtain a satisfactory conclusion. The police must respond within 20 working days. If they fail to respond within that period and/or, fail to provide a full response, write another letter to the police informing them that this letter is formal complaint of failing to respond to your letter within the set period. Alternatively, remind the police of the items that they have failed to provide a full response too and ask for more detailed information etc. A letter of complaint related to unanswered questions is legitimate and will require additional time. Never hesitate to complain if you have not received a satisfactory response you are defending your driving licence and a fine (stealth tax). In tandem with this complaint to the Information Commissioner, also complain to the Independent Police Complaints Committee the IPCC. Insist upon full responses from the police to your requests for information. Use the Offices of the Information Commissioners services to the full. Police responses can be extremely vague, using reasons why they cannot provide information as they do not hold this information, you should contact the manufacturer etc. Remind the police that they are the only source of information and any information related to primary and secondary check evidence requires a response. Never accept vague answers. Finally, if the police write to you refusing to respond, citing the reason that your complaint is Vexatious, do not accept this excuse as a reason not to respond, this is nothing but another tactic to obstruct the motorist from obtain legitimate information. Respond with a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

73

12.7 MAGISTRATE & CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE LETTERS

If a summons is issued, write immediately to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Magistrates Court, requesting a pre trial review for Full Disclosure of all the evidence. This is the procedure following a plea to an allegation. Where a Speeding allegation is concerned the only evidence is the photograph and, this has usually been provided. The issue in this instance is the inability of the accused to enter a plea, because in your view the integrity of the evidence has been compromised by the police, due to their refusal to scrupulously adhere to the recommendations of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. The letters requesting information contain adequate proof that the police have not responded in full to your legitimate requests for information. We suggest that the accused write brief letters to the Magistrates Court and to the Crown Prosecution Service, requesting a pre trial review based upon the police providing compromised evidence that denies you the opportunity of making an informed plea to the allegation. Enclose copies to both parties, your original letters to the police. These copies are for their records and show that you have requested the relevant information from the police. This will provide the opportunity to state your views without a full trial taking place. The cost options will be significantly lower and will also provide the opportunity to change your plea to either guilty or not guilty without a Court appearance. This will entail additional work for the police and the CPS to decide whether the evidence has been compromised. Ensure that the Magistrates Court are aware that the CPS has been provided with the same information.

The ACPO Code of Practice Definition

The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology: There appears to be no one single view on what and why this Code is being used and the responsibilities associated with this Code. However, these are facts. 1. It is not a legal document, it is claimed by the CPS to be only a guideline. 2. The Code is a joint venture document produced by the Home Office & the Police (PSDB). 3. The Code has been produced with specific objectives. The Policies and Procedures of this Code of practice are to be used specifically for evidence gathering when technology has been used to detect an alleged speeding offence. 4. The Code is provided for the benefit of the following: a. The police This Code has been produced primarily for the police in which the Policy Code is very clear in its objectives. The Introduction and Foreword Statements provide very clear statements regarding the responsibilities and the scrupulous application by the police of the procedures in the manual. Adherence to the procedures and correct use of the recommendations provided within the Code are extremely important, ensuring that the integrity of the police is beyond reproach. b. The accused - for the information of those accused of Alleged Offences who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed. c. Protection of the evidential Integrity Operational Standards laid down by the Home Office & the Police (PSDB), scrupulously followed by the police, is essential if the evidential integrity is to be protected.

74

Summary: Acceptance of the Code as only a guideline and not a legal document should not detract from the extremely important message provided by this guide, that the provision of justice should be paramount for all concerned. Magistrates: - The important role played by Magistrates in ensuring that Justice must be seen to be done cannot be overstated they are human and like the rest of us can make mistakes. An appearance in court by the accused is extremely intimidating, but at this stage it is only for an Allegation. Although the law accepts the accused is guilty of the offence, this does not mean that every motorist is guilty of the allegation of speeding and should be accorded that respect. The ACPO Code of Practice should play a major role in decision making by Magistrates not just dismissed as a guide. The accused has every right to ask and expect the police to confirm whether they have scrupulously followed the ACPO Code and expect the Magistrates to insist upon a response from the police. A Magistrate in accepting police compliance of the ACPO Code without query, is accepting that the Code is merely a guide without responsibilities, which encourages the police to discharge their responsibilities towards the Code, resulting in an unfair trial, due to both the compromised integrity of the evidence and the police The Police: - should remember that deliberate contraventions or refusal to scrupulously adhere to the recommendations and the Operational Standards of the ACPO Code, compromises the integrity of both the evidence and the Police Force, due to the police refusal to respond to requests for information, which could result in an unfair trial. The accused: - should remember that they are legitimately entitled to request procedural information if accused of an alleged offence if they wish to satisfy themselves that the correct procedures have been followed. The difference between evidence and requests for information is: Evidence: - The Camera gathers and provides the only evidence required to obtain a conviction namely the photograph whereas Requests for Information relate to the ACPO Code upon whether the Procedures used to gather the evidence were followed correctly. If they werent followed correctly then the evidence is compromised. Therefore use the following format for the two letters To the Magistrate Court: Address & All relevant References: Dear Sir, I have written to the offices of the CPS, to request a pre-trial review Hearing to obtain Full Disclosure of all witness statements and outstanding undisclosed information regarding this case. I am being denied the opportunity to enter an informed plea to the allegation, due to the refusal of the ------ Constabulary to scrupulously adhere to the recommendations of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Consequently, both the integrity of the evidence and the Police Force has been compromised, denying me the opportunity of a Fair Trial. Please find enclosed copies of letters that I have sent to ------- Constabulary and the Central Ticket Office. The letters to the ------- Constabulary are requests for information related to a speeding allegation. I have also provided the CPS with copies of all correspondence, detailing the information that I believe will be required at the pre-trial Disclosure Hearing, to enable me to prove my innocence.

75

Regrettably, responses from the police to my requests for information have been extremely disappointing, placing me at a distinct disadvantage in attempting to prove my innocence to the speeding allegation. I have with respect, attached a copy of my understanding of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology I would respectfully request whether a pre-trial review date could be arranged, at which I can assess all the relevant information regarding this case. I thank you for your co-operation in this matter and can be contacted on ---- -- or --- ---- if there are any problems.

To the CPS: All Relevant References: Dear Sir, I would respectfully request you to confirm a pre-trial review date for a Full Disclosure Hearing to obtain Full Disclosure of all witness statements and outstanding undisclosed information regarding this case. I am being denied the opportunity to enter an informed plea to the allegation, due to the refusal of the ------ Constabulary to scrupulously adhere to the recommendations of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Consequently, the integrity of the evidence and the Police Force is compromised, denying me the opportunity of a Fair Trial. I have with respect, attached a copy of my understanding of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology I have asked --------- Magistrates Court to issue me with the same. Regrettably, responses from the police to my requests for information have been extremely disappointing, placing me at a distinct disadvantage in attempting to prove my innocence to the speeding allegation. Please find enclosed copies of letters that I have sent to --------- Constabulary and the Central Ticket Office. The letters to the -------- Constabulary are requests for information related to a speeding allegation to which I have pleaded not guilty. The information requested from the police are numbered and detailed in my letters. It would be greatly appreciated if clear and concise responses could be available at the Full Disclosure Hearing. With this information, I have also decided to ask yourselves to serve all the witness statements relating to this case and, also all the evidence I asked for in my letters. I thank you for your co-operation in this matter and can be contacted on --- --- or --- --- if there are any problems. Yours faithfully etc.

76

13 SPEED CAMERA REPORTS

13.1 SPECS Average Speed Enforcement System
Author: -THE ULTIMATE SPEED CAMERA CHALLENGE - Michael L Alford. C.Eng. Member of Energy Institute This report has been prepared in response to an allegation of speeding in which the accused challenged the accuracy of the camera using only requests for information related to the information provided by the Secondary Speed Check for a SPECS Speed Enforcement System, which is classified as an "Automatic Unattended Operated Device". The manufacturers explanation of the SPECS System is that it is an average speed enforcement system, using linked video cameras to monitor a length of road. The video cameras continuously capture images of vehicles as they pass through the field of view of the camera. Their number plates are read using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (APNR) and the average speed of the vehicle is calculated between the linked cameras, over the known baseline distance. If this exceeds the police speed threshold, an offence record is created and violation images and data are logged. The SPECS system is classified as an Automatic Unattended Operated Device in which the Secondary check information MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE to a defendant as a specific requirement of the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. It must always be remembered that any challenge to the accuracy of the speed camera, should almost entirely focus upon the Secondary Speed Check. This evidence is the most likely to be successful with a challenge in Court. Remember, under the British System of justice, the evidence provided for the primary speed calculation is assumed to be correct and accepted in law. The ACPO Code of Practice is quite specific in its definition of The Secondary Check where Automatic Unattended Operated Devices are concerned. Page 23 of the Code clearly states: The Secondary Check is the means of corroborating the primary speed reading which is totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. In order for the secondary check information to comply with the recommendations of the ACPO Codes of Practice of total independence, two totally independent measurements should be used and made available to a defendant. It must be remembered that speed has two variable components, namely distance and time. Total independence means both secondary check components must be independent of the primary speed reading. Section 16.1 requires that the images be scrutinized using the approved independent secondary check procedure, page 23, to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. The Primary Speed evidence is clearly understood. A vehicle travels a known distance in which the time to travel that known distance is measured. From the two measurements an average speed calculation is provided.

77

The Secondary Check Speed definition requires a totally independent distance measurement and a totally independent timing mechanism to corroborate the total independence of the calculated Primary Speed. Conclusion There appears to be no obvious indication that a Totally Independent Secondary Check function of time or distance exists with this speed enforcement system. The issues related to the Secondary Check requirements are in the opinion of this publication extremely flawed and, should be vigorously challenged in Court. The following questions related to the secondary check require answers under The Freedom of Information Act. These questions are general questions of procedure related to The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. 1. Please explain in precise detail, the secondary check method adopted to corroborate the primary speed reading which is totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. One Constabulary confirmed that the independent check is by means of a member of staff viewing the video recording of detection. This explanation, which is likely to be a stock response, certainly requires some clarification as well as a tremendous amount of justification. This type of viewing is the normal ACPO Codes of Practice Office Procedures Section 16.1, which clearly states that the images will be scrutinized using the approved secondary check procedures (page 23) to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. This leads us to the next question. 2. Please explain how, by scrutinizing the photographic images as required by Section 16.1 of the ACPO Codes of Practice and, using the approved secondary check procedures, will the continuing accuracy of the device be verified? The Total Independence of the Secondary Check is clearly explained; consequently independent measurements of time and distance are the only means of verifying the continuing accuracy of the device. An office viewing clearly does not conform to the ACPO Code of Practice of the Secondary Check requirements of a totally independent means of corroborating the primary speed reading. Equally, an office viewing will most certainly not be capable of verifying the continuing accuracy of the device. The minimum requirement necessary to verify the continuing accuracy of the device will be proof of the accuracy and the existence of the secondary check timing device. 3. Please explain in precise detail how the SPECS system works, describing the primary speed and secondary check functions, including the total independence of both functions. Please provide the following information under The ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Equipment: -

78

a. Please provide the independent Secondary Check measurement of distance that the vehicle travelled that will corroborate total independence from the primary speed reading. b. Please provide the independent Secondary Check measurement of time, that will corroborate a totally independent time mechanism was used to that which provided the primary time measurement. c. Please provide the Secondary Check calculation of speed which will corroborate total independence, from the information used in the calculation of the primary speed reading. d. Please provide the approved procedural secondary check information to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. Section 16.1 ACPO Codes of Practice. e. Please provide the primary measurements of distance and time that were used to calculate the speed of the vehicle.

The inability to verify the continuing accuracy of the device using the independent approved secondary check procedure represents a contravention of the ACPO Codes. If the Secondary Check is totally dependant upon the mechanism by which the primary speed reading is calculated, it would be practically impossible to verify the accuracy of the camera, simply because no independent secondary measurements of time and distance are provided. Any restriction on the ability to use the secondary check procedure to enable the independent verification of the continuing accuracy of the device would represent a contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice. Reference: - Section 16.1 of the Code

79

13.2 Gatso Rear Facing Speed Camera

Author: -THE ULTIMATE SPEED CAMERA CHALLENGE - Michael L Alford. C.Eng. Member of Energy Institute The Gatso Speed Camera is classified as an Automatic Unattended Operated Device. This report has been prepared in response to an allegation of speeding in which the accused challenged the accuracy of the camera using only requests for information related to the information provided by the Secondary Speed Check. As a system which is classified as an Automatic Unattended Operated Device, the Secondary check information MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE to a defendant as a specific requirement of the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. An explanation of the Gatso Rear Facing Camera Gatso cameras emit radar beams from which specific information is provided. Two measurements are provided from which the alleged speed of the vehicle is calculated. The information gathered is the distance the vehicle travels in a measured period of time. To check the accuracy of the speed recorded by the camera, two photographs are taken of the allegedly speeding vehicle. The markings on the road, usually five feet apart, allow a secondary check of the speed to be carried out, based upon the distance travelled between flashes of the camera. The time taken between photographs is predetermined; normally less than a second; this secondary check allows the speed recorded by the camera to be checked. This explanation is extremely important because this information confirms that the allegation of speeding is based only upon the evidence gathered by the camera technology, prior to the secondary check. It must always be remembered that any challenge to the accuracy of the speed camera, should almost entirely focus upon the Secondary Speed Check. This evidence is the most likely to be successful with a challenge in Court. Remember, under the British System of justice, the evidence provided for the primary speed calculation is assumed to be correct and accepted in law. The ACPO Code of Practice is quite specific in its definition of The Secondary Check where Automatic Unattended Operated Devices are concerned. Page 23 of the Code clearly states: The Secondary Check is the means of corroborating the primary speed reading which is totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. In order for the secondary check information to comply with the recommendations of the ACPO Codes of Practice of total independence, two totally independent measurements should be used and made available to a defendant. It must be remembered that speed has two variable components, namely distance and time. Total independence means both secondary check components must be independent of the primary speed reading. Section 16.1 requires that the images be scrutinized using the approved independent secondary check procedure, page 23, to verify the continuing accuracy of the device.

80

The Primary Speed evidence is clearly understood. A vehicle travels a known distance in which the time to travel that known distance is measured. From the two measurements an average speed calculation is provided. The Secondary Check Speed definition requires a totally independent distance measurement and a totally independent timing mechanism to record the time function, which is required to corroborate the total independence of the calculated Primary Speed. The issues related to the Secondary Check requirements are in the opinion of this publication extremely flawed and, should be vigorously challenged in Court. Conclusion There appears to be no obvious indication that a Totally Independent Secondary Check function of time exists with this speed enforcement system. It appears that the mechanism that provides the function of time is identical for the Primary and Secondary calculations of Speed. The independent distance function is provided by the calibrated white lines marked on the road. The following questions related to the secondary check require answers under The Freedom of Information Act. These questions are general questions of procedure related to The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. 1. Please explain in precise detail, the secondary check method adopted to corroborate the primary speed reading which is totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. One Constabulary confirmed that the independent check is by means of a member of staff viewing the video recording of detection. This explanation, which is likely to be a stock response, certainly requires some clarification as well as a tremendous amount of justification. This type of viewing is the normal ACPO Codes of Practice Office Procedures Section 16.1, which clearly states that the images will be scrutinized using the approved secondary check procedures (page 23) to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. This leads us to the next question. 2. Please explain how, by scrutinizing the photographic images as required by Section 16.1 of the ACPO Codes of Practice and, using the approved secondary check procedures, will the continuing accuracy of the device be verified? The Total Independence of the Secondary Check is clearly explained; consequently independent measurements of time and distance are the only means of verifying the continuing accuracy of the device. An office viewing clearly does not conform to the ACPO Code of Practice of the Secondary Check requirements of a totally independent means of corroborating the primary speed reading. Equally, an office viewing will most certainly not be capable of verifying the continuing accuracy of the device. The minimum requirement necessary to verify the continuing accuracy of the device will be proof of the accuracy and the existence of the secondary check timing device.

81

1. Please explain in precise detail how the secondary check photograph is used in a speeding allegation to prove that the camera operated correctly. 2. Please explain in precise detail how the Gatso Rear Facing Camera works, especially details of the secondary check. The interpretation of the Cameras function is that a two events occur, both of which depend upon the equation for speed. Speed = Distance divided by Time. (A) Speed = Distance Time or (B) Time = Distance Speed or (C) Distance = Speed x Time

The first event, namely the primary speed calculation, is dependent upon the vehicle travelling above a preset trigger speed. The camera then emits a radar beam in which two measurements are recorded. The measurements recorded are a distance travelled by the vehicle and the time taken for the vehicle to travel the measured distance. Based upon these two measurements, the alleged speed of the vehicle is calculated. The second event is interpreted as the Secondary Check, which describes the requirement of total independence from the primary speed calculation. This event should provide a totally independent calculation of the alleged speed of the vehicle, confirming the existence of a totally independent timing mechanism from which the primary speed was calculated. Speed is a function of distance and time; therefore we are looking for two totally independent methods by which the measurements of distance and time are derived. If the timing mechanism for the primary and secondary check measurement of time is identical, then it is quite obvious that the calculated readings of speed are inextricably linked and cannot possibly be independent, thereby being unable to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. The conclusion is that the speeding allegation should be classified as invalid if this is correct, due to the contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice. The following requests for information should be requested under the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Equipment. 3. Please provide the DOCUMENTED and totally independent, evidential recorded measurement of time used to calculate the secondary check evidence of speed. 4. Please provide the means or mechanism by which the calculation of the Secondary Check Speed is achieved, confirming that it is totally independent to the means or mechanism by which the primary speed was calculated. This requirement from the ACPO Codes of Practice is the central issue related to the authenticity of the Secondary Check. Any dependency of the Secondary Check on the primary speed reading should invalidate the speeding allegation. 5. Please confirm the distance between the white lines. 6. Please confirm the time interval between the two photographs. 7. Please confirm that the secondary check time interval between photographs was totally independent to the mechanism that provided the primary speed measurement of time, which was used to calculate the primary speed reading.

82

8.

Please provide details of the totally independent primary and secondary check devices used to measure time and calculate speed.

9. Please provide the approved procedural secondary check information to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. Section 16.1 ACPO Codes of Practice 10. Please provide details and an independent Calibration Certificate and Data sheet of the totally independent mechanisms and timing devices used to calculate the primary and secondary check speeds Alternatively, please justify the contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, in the contravention of The Secondary Check evidence as defined on page 23 of the Code. The provision of Calibration Technical Data Sheets for both timing devices is extremely important in an attempt to prove innocence of a speeding allegation, especially where the secondary evidence requires discussion.

83

13.3 Truvelo & RedSpeed Road Based Sensor System

Author: -THE ULTIMATE SPEED CAMERA CHALLENGE - Michael L Alford. C.Eng. Member of Energy Institute The Truvelo & RedSpeed Road Based Sensor Cameras are classified as Automatic Unattended Operated Devices. This report has been prepared in response to an allegation of speeding in which the accused challenged the accuracy of the camera using only requests for information related to the information provided by the Secondary Speed Check. As a system which is classified as an Automatic Unattended Operated Device, the Secondary check information MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE to a defendant as a specific requirement of the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. An Explanation of the Truvelo & RedSpeed Road Based Sensor System Truvelo and RedSpeed Systems operate on a road based sensor system. Basically there are two sets of sensors embedded in the road containing Piezo electric crystals. These are activated by a vehicles front wheel or wheels passing over them. The crystals produce electrical impulses which provide the electronics in the housing with two independent readings on which calculations of speed are made. This is the case because the distance between the sensors is both known and constant. If the speed readings are compatible and are above the preset threshold, the camera is tripped along with the flash 1. Truvelo: - when the camera calculates that the front wheel or wheels will cross the white lines across the carriageway, having already calculated the vehicles speed. The three white lines show the acceptable tolerance for the offence to be proved. The camera also records in milliseconds the time the vehicle takes to travel 1.8 metres from the last sensor to the point where the picture is taken. If the camera is working correctly the photo will show the front wheel or wheels are on the white lines. This provides the secondary check, and proof that the camera was working correctly. 2. RedSpeed: - providing two photographs, taken at a specific time interval indicating the distance travelled between road line markings. This provides the Secondary check to the primary speed calculation, providing proof that the camera was working correctly, This explanation is extremely important because this information confirms that the allegation of speeding is based only upon the evidence gathered by the camera technology, prior to the secondary check. It must always be remembered that any challenge to the accuracy of the speed camera, should almost entirely focus upon the Secondary Speed Check. This evidence is the most likely to be successful with a challenge in Court. Remember, under the British System of justice, the evidence provided for the primary speed calculation is assumed to be correct and accepted in law. The ACPO Code of Practice is quite specific in its definition of The Secondary Check where Automatic Unattended Operated Devices are concerned. Page 23 of the Code clearly states: -

84

The Secondary Check is the means of corroborating the primary speed reading which is totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. In order for the secondary check information to comply with the recommendations of the ACPO Codes of Practice of total independence, two totally independent measurements should be used and made available to a defendant. It must be remembered that speed has two variable components, namely distance and time. Total independence means both secondary check components must be independent of the primary speed reading. Section 16.1 requires that the images be scrutinized using the approved independent secondary check procedure, page 23, to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. The Primary Speed evidence is clearly understood. A vehicle travels a known distance in which the time to travel that known distance is measured. From the two measurements an average speed calculation is provided. The Secondary Check Speed definition requires a totally independent distance measurement and a totally independent timing mechanism to record the time function, which is required to corroborate the total independence of the calculated Primary Speed. The issues related to the Secondary Check requirements are in the opinion of this publication extremely flawed and, should be vigorously challenged in Court. Conclusion There appears to be no obvious indication that a Totally Independent Secondary Check function of time exists with either manufactured speed enforcement system. It appears that the mechanism that provides the function of time is identical for the Primary and Secondary calculations of Speed. This represents a contravention of the APCO Code of Practice. The independent distance function is provided by the calibrated white lines marked on the road. The following questions related to the secondary check require answers under The Freedom of Information Act. These questions are general questions of procedure related to The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. 1. Please explain in precise detail, the secondary check method adopted to corroborate the primary speed reading which is totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. One Constabulary confirmed that the independent check is by means of a member of staff viewing the video recording of detection. This explanation, which is likely to be a stock response, certainly requires some clarification as well as a tremendous amount of justification. This type of viewing is the normal ACPO Codes of Practice Office Procedures Section 16.1, which clearly states that the images will be scrutinized using the approved secondary check procedures (page 23) to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. This leads us to the next question. 2. Please explain how, by scrutinizing the photographic images as required by Section 16.1 of the ACPO Codes of Practice and, using the approved secondary check procedures, will the continuing accuracy of the device be verified?

85

The Total Independence of the Secondary Check is clearly explained; consequently independent measurements of time and distance are the only means of verifying the continuing accuracy of the device. An office viewing clearly does not conform to the ACPO Code of Practice of the Secondary Check requirements of a totally independent means of corroborating the primary speed reading. Equally, an office viewing will most certainly not be capable of verifying the continuing accuracy of the device. The minimum requirement necessary to verify the continuing accuracy of the device will be proof of the accuracy and the existence of the secondary check timing device. The following questions related to the secondary check, all require answers from the police, under the Freedom of Information Act. 1. Please explain in precise detail how the secondary check photograph is used in a speeding allegation to prove that the camera operated correctly, explaining the independent time function/mechanism. 2. Please explain in precise detail how the Truvelo Road Based Sensor system works, especially details of the secondary check. The interpretation of the Cameras function is that a number of sequential events occur all of which depend upon variations of the equation for speed. Speed = Distance divided by Time. (A) Speed = Distance Time or (B) Time = Distance Speed or (C) Distance = Speed x Time

The first item to note is that all measured sensor distances are known and therefore constant. The white lines are a known distance from the last sensor. The alleged strength of the road based sensor system is the known and constant measurements of distance. The first event, namely the primary speed calculation, is where two independent measurements of time are recorded for the vehicle to travel a known and constant distance between two sets of piezo crystal sensors. Based upon these two recorded measurements of time, two independent speed calculations (A) are made. Dependent upon the compatibility of these two calculations of speed and the proviso that they are above a preset threshold, the second event occurs, namely the secondary check. The second event is interpreted as the Secondary Check, which the ACPO Codes of Practice defines as the means of corroborating the primary speed reading and, should be totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. Reference: - Page 23 ACPO Codes of Practice. In order for the secondary check event to comply with ACPO Codes of Practice of total independence, a totally independent measurement of time should be provided from an independent timing mechanism used specifically for the secondary check event. This mechanism should indicate the time the vehicle takes to travel: 1. Truvelo: - the known distance between the last piezo crystal sensors, to a position where the camera calculates that the front wheels will cross the white lines across the carriageway. 2. RedSpeed: - the distance between the white lines indicated by the two photographs.

86

There is no indication of the secondary time or distance measurements provided on the photograph. This information should be available to everybody alleged to have committed a speeding violation. This is a prerequisite of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Under the Freedom of Information Act please provide the following information: 3. The DOCUMENTED and totally independent, evidential recorded measurement of time used to calculate the secondary check evidence of speed. 4. The means or mechanism by which the calculation of the Secondary Check Speed is achieved, confirming that it is totally independent to the means or mechanism by which the primary speed was calculated. This requirement from the ACPO Codes of Practice is the central issue related to the authenticity of the Secondary Check. Any dependency of the Secondary Check on the primary speed reading should invalidate the speeding allegation. 5. Please provide details and an independent Calibration Certificate of the totally independent mechanism that was used for the Secondary Check. Alternatively, please justify the contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, in the contravention of The Secondary Check evidence as defined on page 23 of the Code. The means or totally independent mechanism used to calculate the Secondary Check time was the primary speed reading, which used the same mechanism that measured the primary reading of time, thereby contravening the ACPO Codes. There appears to be no evidence that a Secondary Check measurement of time was taken, only a calculation of the secondary check time. This contravention of the ACPO Codes of Practice should invalidate the speeding allegation. Please provide the following information: 6. Details of the independent primary and the secondary check devices used for measuring time. 7. Calibration Technical Data Sheets for both timing devices. (This information is unavailable to the public, the manufacturer will not respond. The information is however extremely important and should be available). Failure to provide this Calibration Certificate will confirm the contravention of the ACPO Code of Practice that requires clear and unambiguous evidence of the offence. This could also contravene Home Office requirements that provide accurate evidence leading to safe convictions. Contravention of the ACPO Code of Practice should invalidate any speeding allegation.

87

13.4 LTI 20-20 Speedscope Laser Speed Detection Device

Author: -THE ULTIMATE SPEED CAMERA CHALLENGE - Michael L Alford. C.Eng. Member of Energy Institute The LTI 20-20 Speedscope Laser Speed Detection Device is classified as Attended Actively Operated Device. This report has been prepared in response to an allegation of speeding in which the accused challenged the accuracy of the camera, using The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology as the basis for the challenge This camera is used extensively throughout the UK by the police for speed detection and is responsible for the majority of the 2.2 million speeding prosecutions per annum in the UK. Lasers used to determine Speed. An extract from the Manufacturers Operations Manual. The LTI 20.20 TS/M Speedscope, or any laser operated device, determines speed by measuring the time of flight of very short pulses of infrared light, using the speed of light as a known constant. The time it takes the laser pulse to travel to the target and back is directly proportional to the distance to the target. Consequently, by firing two pulses a known time apart, two distances can be calculated. The change in distance, divided by the known time interval between the two pulses, gives the speed of the target. In sharp contrast to the roadside Automatic Unattended Operated Devices, the LTI: 20.20 TS/M Laser Speedscope, which is classified as an Attended Actively Operated Device, provides no Secondary Check against which the reading for speed can be assessed for accuracy. Consequently, any challenge in Court can be exceptionally difficult for a defendant, because the onus is on the defendant to prove that the camera provided inaccurate readings of speed. However, it is not impossible. The approach to a challenge is twofold: 1. This publication considers the best and cheapest option is to overcome the speeding allegation outside the Courtroom. This usually requires a dedicated and dogged approach, using The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology as the basis for the challenge 2. The alternative approach is to challenge the speeding allegation in the Courtroom, using the flaws in the evidential photograph. The flaws will be outlined in the following text and shown how they should be presented. The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology as the basis for the challenge This is the Code of Practice that the police must use whenever a speeding allegation is made where Technology has been used to detect the alleged offence". Every defendant is entitled to request whatever information is necessary to satisfy themselves that the police scrupulously followed the correct procedures. Disclosure of evidence will not and is not provided. This is not a problem because the only evidence required to obtain a conviction is the photograph and this information is sanctioned to be provided within the Code of Practice.

88

It is imperative that the procedures set out in the ACPO manual are applied scrupulously because upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service. The Police (PSDB) and the Home Office have laid down operational standards that should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity. It follows that formal prosecutions launched as a result of the application of this Code of Practice may interact with a defendants Article 6 (Fair Trial) rights. Failure to follow the code scrupulously could affect a defendants rights to a fair trial. It is quite obvious that the difficulties for the police can be immense if they dont scrupulously follow the Code of Practice the requests for information are all provided in the letters. The police will move heaven and earth to avoid answering the requests for information you will be informed that you are requesting evidence YOU ARE NOT these are legitimate requests for information based upon the requirements of the ACPO Code of Practice. The police do not always scrupulously follow their own Code of Practice. Refer to the letters and the Step by Step guidance Section for additional information. The Courtroom Challenge: This represents a whole new field for many people, mainly because of the intimidating surroundings which the majority of us are wholly unfamiliar. Regrettably, some will have no option about an appearance in Court, due mainly to the circumstances of allegedly driving above certain speed thresholds. Although, use of the strategies outlined in the previous chapter has resulted in successful challenges. Do you use a solicitor or are you confident enough to provide your own challenge. If you have purchased this book, the strategies provided in a challenge to the speeding allegation, can be relatively easily followed and for a lot less money than a solicitor will charge. In the Courtroom you task will not be to prove the camera definitely provided incorrect readings of speed this will be almost impossible but to provide enough doubt that a mistake could have occurred. The greatest opportunity for the likelihood of a potential error where laser technology is used is the potential for positional laser slippage. This is subject to covered in Section 13.5. You will have an equal understanding of this issue as any solicitor very little is written on this subject. Your understanding of this subject is likely to be greater than the Courts, consequently you will be leading the show there is no need to be intimidated.

89

13.5 Positional Laser Slippage

Author: -THE ULTIMATE SPEED CAMERA CHALLENGE - Michael L Alford. C.Eng. Member of Energy Institute This report has been produced to assist every motorist to successfully challenge an allegation of speeding. The phenomenon known as Positional Laser Slippage is associated with the use of all laser speed cameras and can best be described as the potential for the target of the laser to substantially alter, thus providing disproportionate readings resulting in inaccurate calculations of speed. Understanding this phenomenon will enable every motorist the opportunity to successfully challenge a speeding allegation. There is a misconception that only qualified and laser literate personal are entitled to present or use this phenomena. No specialised knowledge is required. All the information required to understand this phenomenon is available in the Handbooks provided by the manufacturers, the Police and the Home Office. Understanding Laser as presented in the Operations Manual The simplistic understanding of laser is that it is a beam of light. The speed of light is a known constant 186,000 miles per second. 1. The light emitted by a laser is no different from that emitted by any other source, but a laser has a unique method of generating light. 2. The word LASER is an acronym that stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. 3. The type of Laser used in the LTI 20.20 TS/M Speedscope is an infrared semiconductor laser diode. The laser diode emits a narrow cone of radiation; this allows the light to be collimated into a very narrow beam of light that gives the LTI 20.20 TS/M Speedscope pinpoint targeting. 4. Like All Lasers the laser diode emits only on a very narrow band of frequencies. This allows the detector to be tuned to the exact wavelength of the laser diode. This information forms part of the Operations Manual for the LTI 20.20 Speedscope and, represents part of the information that is required to challenge the accuracy of the camera. Principles of Operation as presented in the Operations Manual The LTI 20.20 TS/M Speedscope determines speed by measuring the time of flight of very short pulses of infrared light. The theory is based upon scientific fact Since the speed of light is a constant, the time it takes the LASER pulse to travel to the target and back, is directly proportional to the distance to the target. By firing two pulses a known time apart, two distances can be calculated. The change of distance divided by the time interval between the two pulses gives the speed of the target. This explanation basically means that each laser pulse emitted by the Speedscope measures a distance. The distance measured by the laser beam is a direct straight line between the camera and the target. If more than one distance is measured the change of each measured distance is used to calculate the speed, in which each measurement of time is known and constant.

90

The Calibration Certificate (copy attached) provides the information confirming the frequency of the laser used by the Speedscope. This is called the Pulse Repetition Frequency Test, which is calibrated at 125 pulses per second. The Output Period Specification in this application is between 7.9968-8.0000 milliseconds, the measured output being 7.9982 milliseconds. This is the known time of each pulse. New cameras have been introduced with a Pulse Repetition Frequency Test calibrated at100 pulses/sec In theory it is possible to make a speed measurement using only two pulses as described above. In practice this would be prone to errors, such as a shift of the aiming point between pulses. To eliminate the possibility of such errors independent tests are applied to the pulse data and failure of any one of the tests results in an error being displayed. The target speed is derived using the entire data set, recorded over a period of 0.3 seconds, which equates to 42 laser pulses. The entire data set comprises of 42 readings of distance to the target from the Speedscope, a change of distance between each laser pulse and, the known time interval between each laser pulse, resulting in a calculation of speed for each pulse. The resultant target speed is derived by using the method of least squares for the entire 42 readings. How Laser is used for Speed Detection as described in the Operations Manual 1. 2. 3. 4. Aim the Laser at the Registration Plate area of the vehicle. Pull the trigger. Keep the Laser sighted on the target vehicle for approximately 0.3 of a second. It is very important that the aiming point remains constant for the entire 0.3 second measurement period. 5. If the laser moves off the target during this time, the instrument will produce an error reading. Try to aim the beam at as nearly a vertical surface on the target as possible and avoid glass surfaces. 6. The best area to aim for is in the vicinity of the registration plate, this is because it is usually nearly vertical. 7. The further from the vertical the more probable an error reading is likely to be generated.

The basis of the challenge to the accuracy of the speed camera is the application of the device. The camera is allegedly used for a period of approximately 0.3 seconds to record the speed of a vehicle. This does appear to be an extremely short period of time. However, the table below indicates the distance travelled at three different speeds. Speed mph 40 60 80 Speed ft/sec 58.67 88.00 117.33 Distance-feet travelled in 0.3sec 19.56 29.33 39.11

If we use the example of a vehicle travelling at 60mph, this vehicle will travel 88 feet in one second or 29.33 feet in 0.3 of a second. During this brief period of time, 42 laser pulses will record the change of distance of this vehicle. The accuracy of these measurements is dependant upon the operator ensuring that the pinpoint targeting of the laser beam is aimed at the registration plate and remains constant for the entire 0.3 seconds.

91

The objective is to pinpoint the target area as near as possible to a vertical surface, which in most cases is the registration plate. These are the recommended instructions. It is alleged that if the laser moves off the target during this time, the instrument will produce an error reading. The manufacturer confirms that the camera is prone to errors, such as a shift in the aiming point between pulses. Obviously, any shift of the aiming point has the potential to provide an incorrect reading of distance or change of distance. It is equally obvious that the target position will change, simply because the vehicle is moving. In theory, every laser pulse should produce identical change of distance measurements, thus providing identical speed calculations. In practice however, it is extremely unlikely that any two measurements of change of distance or speed will be identical. It would be extremely rare if the objective of ensuring the pinpoint targeting of the laser beam on the vertical registration plate remained constant over a distance of 30 feet or any chosen distance. Just the forward movement of the vehicle over the distance of 30 feet would be sufficient to alter the aiming point, in which a potential error could occur. The reason for this is that the photograph provided as evidence will very rarely show the vehicle driving directly towards or away from the camera, consequently the pinpoint laser beam on the registration plate target, will move across the target. It is quite possible for the pinpoint targeting, to shift off the registration plate and strike the curvature of the bodywork, or the grill behind the registration plate, thus providing inconsistent change of distance readings, thereby providing wide ranging variations in the 42 calculations of speed. The overriding objective is to ensure that all laser pulse readings are taken from a vertical section of the vehicle, normally the registration plate. This is the ideal pinpoint target position but it cannot be guaranteed. The registration plate is the foremost point of the vehicle and, will generally be the nearest point to the Speedscope. If a number of laser pulse measurements of distance were taken from the curvature or indented sections of the vehicle, these would obviously provide incorrect measurements of distance and thus calculations of speed. Unfortunately, only a single photograph is provided from the 42 laser pulse measurements. This single photograph indicates the crosshairs for the vertical and horizontal alignment positions. These alignment marks will give an indication of whether one single laser pulse was actually pinpoint targeted on the recommended vertical registration plate. The table below indicates the percentage error that would occur in the calculated speed, if the pinpoint laser beam shifted from the vertical target (the registration plate) to an alternative position increasing the target distance position by an additional one inch and two inch errors respectively. Larger discrepancies of changing distance would obviously provide larger percentage errors of speed.

92

Speed mph

Speed ft/s

40 50 60 70 80

58.67 73.33 88.00 102.67 117.11

Distance ft Distance in % error of a in 0.3 secs inches one inch travelled target shift per pulse 5.59 15.17 19.56 6.98 12.53 24.44 8.37 10.67 29.30 9.78 9.28 34.22 11.17 8.22 39.11

% error of a two inch target shift 30.35 25.06 21.34 18.55 16.43

Target shift of the moving vehicle is unavoidable; the potential for percentage error is shown in the above table. Using the 70 mph example from the table, a target shift of 2 inches will produce an error of 18.55%. It should be noted that the vertical and horizontal alignments cross hairs, should both be positioned on the vertical registration plate. If they fail to show this alignment then it is questionable whether the speeding allegation is valid. The CPS or the police should respond to the question of how many pulses gave correct readings. Failure to respond should invalidate the speeding allegation. The speed calculation using the method of least squares necessitates the entire set of data to derive the speed of the vehicle, however, the method of least squares is a mathematical statistical estimation procedure for finding the best fitting curve or straight line to a given set of points by minimizing the squares of the offsets (the residuals) of the points from the curves. The sum of the squares of the offsets is used instead of the offset absolute. However, because squares of the offsets are used, outlying points can have a disproportionate effect on the fit. Disproportionate offsets would be undesirable in this particular application. Disproportionate offsets would represent the large percentage errors that could occur with target shift. The resultant graph drawn from the data provided by the LTI 20.20 TS/M Speedscope, is intended to be the most accurate line fitted between the data provided, thus ensuring that any error that could occur is minimised, dependent upon sufficient data being available. The more data that is provided the more likelihood the error will be reduced but never eliminated, simply because the method is a mathematical statistical estimation. As only one photograph of the 42 measurements is provided, it is difficult to assess the number of measurements that could be disproportionate to the number of correct measurements produced from the vertical registration plate. The sensible approach would be to provide the 42 measurements for inspection. The interesting aspect of this camera is to clarify what independent tests are applied to the pulse data that would eliminate the possibility of a shift of the aiming point between pulses, or disregarding disproportionate readings etc. Manufacturers are not obliged to respond to questions raised by the general public.

93

14 APPENDIX.1 LTI 20:20 PHOTOGRAPHS

Correct Application of the Technology

94

14 APPENDIX.2 - LTI 20:20 PHOTOGRAPHS 2

95

Incorrect Application of the Technology

96

14 APPENDIX.3 GATSO PHOTOGRAPHS

Incorrect Application of the Technology

97

14 APPENDIX.4 TRUVELO PHOTOGRAPHS

98

99

14 APPENDIX.5 TRIGONOMETRIC PRINCIPLES OF COSINE

A Hypotenuse

Opposite
g

C Adjacent

Figure 15.1 - Trigonometric Principles of Cosine.

The Cosine Principle is a trigonometric function in which the angles of a right angled triangle can be determined if two sides of the triangle are known measurements. Equally, if one angle and one side are known, the remaining side can be calculated, using specially prepared trigonometrical tables. The Cosine of the angle g= adjacent side VC hypotenuse VA The calculation of the angle g will always be less than 1.00 because the hypotenuse will always be a large number than the adjacent side. Examples from the tables. Angle Degree 0 10 20 30 Cosine 1.000 0.9848 0.9397 0.8660

If we now apply this principle to the calculation of the true speed of a vehicle, C will represent the camera, V will represent the vehicle. The camera C is pointing at the vehicle V, but the vehicle is at an angle to the camera because the off side or the near side is partially visible. The distance measurement VC is made by the camera, from which the speed is calculated. However, the true speed that the vehicle is actually travelling at is along the hypotenuse VA. As the true speed VA will always be greater than the calculated speed VC, simply because vector VA is longer than VC, the True Speed will be the Calculated Speed divided by the cosine of the angle g. True Speed = Calculated Speed Cosine angle g Remember: - The camera cannot measure the angle g; therefore the true speed cannot be calculated. The Recorded Speed is an assessment of the True Speed.

100

14 APPENDIX.6 EXAMPLE COPY OF CALIBRATION CERTIFICATE

101

102

15 ADDITIONAL LETTERS
Regrettably, experience has shown that the police appear to be in denial at their responsibility towards The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, a review of the Definition can be seen - Chapter 12.7. Consequently, this publication has decided to provide additional assistance to the beleaguered motorist. The majority of Speed Cameras come under the umbrella of: a. -"Attended Actively Operated Device" - Laser Technology Cameras or b. - "Automatic Unattended Operated Device" Fixed Roadside - Overhead Cameras Average Speed The police attitude to the ACPO Code of Practice is that it is only a guideline and it is not legally binding. Both are correct, as the Crown Prosecution Service will be quick to remind you if you have made a plea of Not Guilty and attempt to use the ACPO Code as a defence mechanism. It will have very little impact in the attempt to overcome a speeding allegation. However, although the police may like to take this stance, they have a huge responsibility towards the ACPO Code of Practice Chapter 12.7. The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology is in layman terms, the Bible that ensures the Police adhere to all the recommendations within this Code of Practice and do their job correctly. Failure to do the job properly and adhere to the recommendations within the Code of Practice, compromises both the integrity of the evidence and the Police Force. It also compromises the right to a Fair Trial and possibly the Human Rights of a defendant. So if the police deliberately refuse to respond, dont stand back in dismay, immediately respond with a letter to the IPCC and the Freedom of Information Commissioner. Your Driving Licence is under threat letters are provided. The police will continue relentlessly to avoid the issues, which will generally succeed, however, if you follow the strategy outlined below, your chances of success will be greatly improved.

The Laymans Defence Strategy

1. Never make a plea Why? -the reason is, you have no idea what speed you were actually travelling at when the detection was made consequently you will need additional information to verify the accuracy of the camera, which will enable you to make an informed plea to the speeding allegation See Chapter 5 2. Write the two letters requesting information the police never respond fully to either or both of the legitimate letters requesting information. This failure or refusal to provide the information is a contravention of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, which compromises both the integrity of the evidence and the Police Force. 3. The police need to be reminded of their deliberate refusal to adhere to the recommendations of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, by failing to respond to legitimate requests for information.

103

Select the relevant letter from those in Section 15 and send it to the Constabulary whilst at the same time sending letters of complaint to the IPCC & The information Commissioner. These letters are provided. 4. The IPCC will acknowledge your complaint and request your permission to release your letter of complaint to the Constabulary, who are obliged to investigate the complaint on behalf of the IPCC. This apparently is the format bizarre springs to mind. If you are dissatisfied with the result of the police investigation you can then ask the IPCC to undertake an independent inquiry. This is highly recommended. The Information Commissioners Office will request the police to respond to your requests for information and will contact you accordingly. 5. You have now made every attempt to obtain from the police, the legitimate information required under The ACPO Code of Practice, which in theory, should have ultimately satisfied you that the police followed the correct procedures required when technology has been used to detect an alleged speeding offence. If the police have failed to respond or only partially responded, then they have failed to satisfy these procedures. 6. The police now have a decision to make, whether or not to continue with a prosecution, knowing that they have deliberately withheld legitimate information, which you will or could request be discussed and exposed in Court You havent made an informed plea as yet 7. The System requires that every alleged offender enters a plea entering a plea of Not Guilty commits you (the motorist) to the immediate challenge of defending the speeding allegation in Court. This Not Guilty plea removes the pressure from the police to provide any further information under The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, allowing the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to proceed with a prosecution for the speeding allegation. Any reference to The ACPO Code of Practice will have no influence on the outcome of the trial, as The ACPO Code of Practice is only considered a guide. 8. Whereas not entering or being unable to enter an informed plea due to the police deliberately refusing to provide the legitimate information that you have requested, retains the onus on the police to eventually provide the information that will ultimately allow you to make an informed plea the police will claim that the information requested is evidence it is not the only evidence required to gain a conviction is the photograph and/or the officers statement nothing else this is provided. Refusal to provide this information compromises the integrity of the evidence and the Police Force, which could result in an unfair trial. In layman terms, the police have failed to do their job properly according to the terms of engagement of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Failure to do their job properly not only compromises the integrity of both the evidence and the police force, but threatens thousands of innocent motorists with potentially unjust speeding convictions. 9. If the police decide to proceed with a prosecution without a plea being entered, the first issue to overcome is the plea that you will be requested to make. Your response will be simply that you are unable to make an informed plea due to the police withholding legitimate information that you are entitled to receive, under The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. It is extremely difficult to proceed without a plea being entered JUSTICE MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE!! You will probably be asked whether you require more time to gather the information required.

104

10. The Dilemma How to respond: - You have made every effort to obtain the information to allow you to make an informed plea. The only source of information is the police, who have continually refused to provide this legitimate information. You have or should have in your possession the following: - All the correspondence between yourself and the police, the IPCC & the Information Commissioner. It is suggested that you arm yourself with a copy of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, downloaded from the Internet, highlighting the relevant sections/pages that state the responsibilities of the police to The ACPO Code of Practice integrity etc. 11. You now have choice of answers. You could obviously say yes you do require more time to gather the information, the case will be adjourned for another day but will this be any more productive than your previous efforts in attempting to obtain the legitimate information from the police. It would indicate to the Court your willingness to try, but that is about all it will achieve. The only people who can provide answers related to your requests for the legitimate information that you require, are the police. Your previous letters have clearly stated that the only source of information related to this speeding allegation is through the police and the manufacturer. You will no doubt be aware that manufacturers are not obliged to respond to external enquiries from the public on technical, commercial or other sensitive matters. In accepting the Court offer of additional time to obtain the information, you can only retrace your previous steps and again request the same information from the police. This could provide the police with the opportunity to cobble together a response of sorts, which could diminish your case considerably. It could also provide the police the opportunity to opt out of the prosecution, without the possibly uncomfortable position of explaining why they have discharged their responsibility towards The ACPO Code of Practice. This action would naturally be acceptable to the accused. Either way, you are allowing the prosecution to dictate the outcome. We would suggest if possible, that you take the opportunity to establish a precedent. Politely thank the Court for their offer of additional time to obtain the information, requesting permission to outline the ongoing issues and reasons for your desperately difficult position in attempting to obtain the legitimate information from the police to enable you to make a plea. Guide the Court to all your correspondence in which you continuously and clearly inform the police of their duty towards The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Quoting from the Code the essential issues of the correct procedures and, adherence to the recommendations within the Code being followed when technology has been used to detect an alleged offence. The Code of Practice, which is a manual prepared as a combined effort between The Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) and the Home Office also states that the operational standards laid down should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity. The Code also states that it is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual are applied scrupulously each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service. Throughout this entire issue the police have deliberately ignored every request for information, what guarantees are there that anything will change. Is it likely that I will be in a better position to make an informed plea? I suspect not. They have continuously discharged their responsibilities towards the Code compromising the integrity of the evidence and the Police Force. This will result in an unfair trial.

105

The police have shown no intention of providing any information that would remotely satisfy me that they had followed any of the procedures laid down in the Code. Confirm that in your humble opinion, based upon the evidence of the police response it is extremely doubtful whether additional time to gather the information will help. Unless the police can provide the information, I will be unable to make an informed plea or possibly even consider making a plea; consequently, it would be extremely unlikely that I will receive a fair trial, due to both the lack of integrity of the compromised evidence and the police force. The police have had ample time and notification of my position with this Technology based prosecution and the requirements of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, to prepare themselves properly. The police have displayed a devastating lack of respect towards myself but also more importantly in the interest of Justice, towards their own Code of Practice which has been prepared by The Home Office and the Police (PSDB) with the welfare of the defendant and the integrity of the evidence and the Police of paramount importance. Based upon this devastating display of irresponsible arrogance towards the ACPO Code of Practice, in continually failing to do their job properly, I would respectfully request the Court to dismiss this prosecution. 12. Alternatively, you could accept the offer of additional time and write to the police with similar letters requesting the same legitimate information. When you eventually arrive back in Court, you can follow the same strategy as shown above, indicating the failure of the police to provide the legitimate information originally requested that would enable you to make an informed plea. Failure to provide this information will result in an unfair trial, which in layman terms is as a result of the police failing to do their job properly 13. Finally, a challenge to the actual speeding allegation irrespective of whether the plea is informed or otherwise. If the Court insists that you enter a plea, inform the Court that you consider any such plea to be based upon unreliable evidence provided by the police in their deliberate contravention of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, which you consider will result in an unfair trial, simply because of the failure of the police to scrupulously adhere to the recommendations of the Code. Justification of this statement is provided by the police in deliberately denying me access to legitimate information, whilst discharging their responsibilities towards The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, compromising the integrity of the evidence and the Police Force. a. Mobile/Laser Speed Detection Device: - Concentrate on The Positional Laser Slippage aspect of the allegation. This issue is covered in the book. The crosshairs should be on the vertical registration plate nowhere else. If crosshairs are in any other position it is prone to error according the manufacturer. The crosshairs are often shown on the radiator grill, the bumper curvature, the bonnet and the wheels, all are prone to error. The table shows percentage error for minuscule deviations read the chapter and, always challenge the allegation, using the information provided. Check the illustrations in chapter 14 and read and use the individual report.

106

b. Gatso/Truvelo/RedSpeed/Specs Devices: - The major issue with these type of devices is the lack of Secondary Check information and in particular the totally independent secondary check timing device always ask for conclusive proof of this mechanism as far as this publication is concerned, there is no proof that this mechanism exists for any of the cameras used in the United Kingdom unless this item can be provided and is shown to be completely different to the mechanism used for the Primary Speed calculation then the speeding allegation should be dismissed. Both explanations are brief with more detailed information in the book and the individual reports. These are the two areas that every defendant should focus on in a direct challenge in Court. Everything else could be hit and miss.

107

15.1 Mobile Response

All References etc Dear Sir, Re: - "Attended Actively Operated Device" Thank you for your letter dated the ---- which is not only disappointing but incorrect. All my requests are for ACPO Code of Practice procedural information, not requests for Disclosure of evidence as suggested by the Constabulary. I would suggest that the Constabulary in deliberately discharging and refusing to recognise their responsibilities towards The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, are fully aware that this deliberate act, encourages all members of staff to also discharge their responsibilities towards the Code, compromising the integrity of both the evidence and the Police Force. The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology is very clear in its objectives when technology is used to detect an alleged offence The objectives and responsibilities are factual and unquestionable. 1. The Code is not a legal document, it is claimed by the CPS to be only a guideline. 2. The Code is a joint venture document produced by the Home Office & the Police (PSDB), laying down Operational Standards that should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity. 3. The Code has been produced with specific objectives. The Policies and Procedures of this Code of practice are to be used specifically for evidence gathering when technology has been used to detect an alleged speeding offence. 4. The Code is provided for the benefit of the following: a. The police This Code has been produced primarily for the police in which the Policy Code is very clear in its objectives. The Introduction and Foreword Statements provide very clear statements regarding the responsibilities and the scrupulous application by the police of the procedures in the manual. Adherence to the procedures and correct use of the recommendations provided within the Code are extremely important, ensuring that the integrity of both the evidence and the police is beyond reproach. b. The accused - for the information of those accused of Alleged Offences who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed. c. Protection of the evidential Integrity Operational Standards laid down by the Home Office & the Police (PSDB), it is essential that these Standards are to be scrupulously followed by the police, if the evidential integrity is to be protected. Summary: Acceptance of the Code as only a guideline and not a legal document should not detract from the extremely important message provided by this guide, that the provision of justice should be paramount for all concerned.

108

Magistrates: - The important role played by Magistrates in ensuring that Justice must be seen to be done cannot be overstated. An appearance in court by the accused is extremely intimidating, but at this stage it is only for an Allegation, not every motorist is guilty of the allegation of speeding and should be accorded that respect. The ACPO Code of Practice should play a major role in decision making by Magistrates not just dismissed as a guide. The accused has every right to ask and expect the police to confirm whether they have scrupulously followed the ACPO Code and expect the Magistrates to insist upon a response from the police. A Magistrate in accepting police compliance of the ACPO Code without query is accepting that the Code is merely a guide without responsibilities, which encourages the police to discharge their responsibilities towards the Code, resulting in an unfair trial, due to both the compromised integrity of the evidence and the police. The Police: - should remember that deliberate contraventions or refusal to scrupulously adhere to the recommendations and the Operational Standards of the ACPO Code, compromises the integrity of both the evidence and the Police Force, due to the police refusal to respond to requests for information, which could result in an unfair trial. The accused: - should remember that they are legitimately entitled to request procedural information if accused of an alleged offence if they wish to satisfy themselves that the correct procedures have been followed. The difference between evidence and requests for information is: Evidence: - The Camera gathers and provides the only evidence required to obtain a conviction namely the photograph whereas Requests for Information relate to the ACPO Code upon whether the Procedures used to gather the evidence were followed correctly. If they werent followed correctly then the evidence is compromised. Currently, your response provides no information that will satisfy me that the correct procedures have been followed. Consequently, with the integrity of the evidence and the Police Force compromised, it is unreasonable to expect an informed plea to be entered as any potential prosecution will be unsound, because a Fair Trial will not be possible. The Code clearly recognises the difficulty for a defendant in making an informed plea to a speeding allegation without being provided specific information. However the police response clearly ignores the requirements of the Code by deliberately withholding information which not only obstructs my ability to make an informed plea, but also denies me the opportunity to satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed. These deliberate and discriminatory acts of refusing to acknowledge the Code, immediately compromises the integrity of the police force and impacts upon my Human Rights Page 11 of The ACPO Code of Practice. This request is for legitimate information has been assigned to me by Mr Brunstrom. The device used in this particular incident was an "Attended Actively Operated Device", where operators have a responsibility to note additional factors such as the presence of other vehicles in the vicinity. Where two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measurement field, the reading has to be disregarded Page 77 Section 16 of The ACPO Code of Practice. Trained Operators must use the camera in such a manner as to provide photographs that clearly show the crosshairs in the photograph aligning with the vertical registration plate as described on page 65 of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology.

109

This is also a manufacturers requirement otherwise, the manufacturer confirms that any reading of speed not conforming to this requirement is prone to error. Equally, only under exceptional operational circumstances, devices should normally be operated from positions where they will be clearly visible to the public. Deliberate concealment of a vehicle, clearly does not conform to the requirement of being clearly visible to the public, or exceptional circumstances. The Disguised Location of the Site raised serious issues related to the Health & Safety Policy of the Police Force and the Risk Assessments undertaken. The Code of Practice is very specific over the issue of site selection especially if it could present a potential hazard and, compromise the safety of other road users. It is inexcusable to ignore Health and Safety enquiries. All Sites require consideration to Health & Safety. Risk Assessments must be completed for all enforcement activity and where the advent of new technology or changes in the working environment dictates such a need Page 27 Section 3 The Office procedures of the Code are very clear: 1. All staff that view films for evidential purposes must be suitably trained, with the Chief Officer's authority to carry out this task. 2. All photographic images must clearly comply with the requirements of the Code. If the camera image clearly indicates that the target is missed, namely the vertical surface of the registration plate, indicated by the "crosshairs" in the photograph, then this viewing should be recognised by the responsible staff member as a non compliance with the ACPO Code and rejected as unsound. 3. Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measured field, the reading must be disregarded. This would represent another non compliance viewing to be considered by the Constabulary. 4. In the event of circumstances whereby the detection of an offence may be unsound, officers are prohibited from making detections or pursuing prosecutions. Item.2 Where an image indicates the crosshairs are centred on a curved/angled, open section (radiator grill) this should be identified as an unsound image by the trained member of the office staff responsible for viewing images for prosecution purposes. Acceptance of this image for prosecution would represent an unsound potential prosecution. Item.3 Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measured field, the reading must be disregarded. This should be identified as an unsound image by the trained member of the office staff responsible for viewing images for prosecution purposes. Acceptance of this image for prosecution would represent an unsound potential prosecution. Item.4 The trained operator of the device and the trained member of the office staff trained in viewing images for evidential purposes are both aware that where the photographic image identifies a contravention of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, the image must be disregarded due to the unsound nature of the intended prosecution. None of these issues have been addressed. Contravention of these issues will deny the motorist the right to legitimate and crucial information and will infringe on the right to a fair trial. The really regrettable issue is that all trained members of staff were clearly aware of these issues, as was their Senior Officer, yet a decision to proceed towards a prosecution has been made, ignoring the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, which clearly compromises the integrity of the Police Force.

110

Clearly failing to act impartially and deliberately withholding information, both acts of discrimination, confirms the unsound nature of a proposed prosecution. The integrity of the Police Force would be clearly compromised and could also be considered a breach of the Ethical Oath of the Police Force. In conclusion, the police in failing to adhere to the recommendations within the Code of Practice are not only denying the right to a fair trial, but are proceeding along a discriminatory route that will impact on an individuals Human Rights. Page 11 Section Human Rights. It is extremely regrettably that the (name of the) Constabulary condones the practice of encouraging individuals to discharge their obligation to the recommendations of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Please provide the following individual names related to this alleged speeding incident a. b. c. d. e. The signatory to the letters of response The Camera Operator(s) The officer viewing the images The officer responsible for all office staff viewing images The Senior Officer with overall responsibility for all staff.

Yours faithfully

111

15.2 Gatso/Truvelo/RedSpeed/Specs Response

All References etc Dear Sir, Re: - "Automatic Unattended Operated Device" Thank you for your letter dated the ---- which is not only disappointing but incorrect. All my requests are for ACPO Code of Practice procedural information, not requests for Disclosure of evidence as suggested by the Constabulary. I would suggest that the Constabulary in deliberately discharging and refusing to recognise their responsibilities towards The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, are fully aware that this deliberate act, encourages all members of staff to also discharge their responsibilities towards the Code, compromising the integrity of both the evidence and the Police Force. The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology is very clear in its objectives when technology is used to detect an alleged offence The objectives and responsibilities are factual and unquestionable. 1. The Code is not a legal document, it is claimed by the CPS to be only a guideline. 2. The Code is a joint venture document produced by the Home Office & the Police (PSDB), laying down Operational Standards that should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity. 3. The Code has been produced with specific objectives. The Policies and Procedures of this Code of practice are to be used specifically for evidence gathering when technology has been used to detect an alleged speeding offence. 4. The Code is provided for the benefit of the following: a. The police This Code has been produced primarily for the police in which the Policy Code is very clear in its objectives. The Introduction and Foreword Statements provide very clear statements regarding the responsibilities and the scrupulous application by the police of the procedures in the manual. Adherence to the procedures and correct use of the recommendations provided within the Code are extremely important, ensuring that the integrity of both the evidence and the police is beyond reproach. b. The accused - for the information of those accused of Alleged Offences who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed. c. Protection of the evidential Integrity Operational Standards laid down by the Home Office & the Police (PSDB), it is essential that these Standards are to be scrupulously followed by the police, if the evidential integrity is to be protected. Summary: Acceptance of the Code as only a guideline and not a legal document should not detract from the extremely important message provided by this guide, that the provision of justice should be paramount for all concerned.
112

Magistrates: - The important role played by Magistrates in ensuring that Justice must be seen to be done cannot be overstated. An appearance in court by the accused is extremely intimidating, but at this stage it is only for an Allegation, not every motorist is guilty of the allegation of speeding and should be accorded that respect. The ACPO Code of Practice should play a major role in decision making by Magistrates not just dismissed as a guide. The accused has every right to ask and expect the police to confirm whether they have scrupulously followed the ACPO Code and expect the Magistrates to insist upon a response from the police. A Magistrate in accepting police compliance of the ACPO Code without query is accepting that the Code is merely a guide without responsibilities, which encourages the police to discharge their responsibilities towards the Code, resulting in an unfair trial, due to both the compromised integrity of the evidence and the police. The Police: - should remember that deliberate contraventions or refusal to scrupulously adhere to the recommendations and the Operational Standards of the ACPO Code, compromises the integrity of both the evidence and the Police Force, due to the police refusal to respond to requests for information, which could result in an unfair trial. The accused: - should remember that they are legitimately entitled to request procedural information if accused of an alleged offence if they wish to satisfy themselves that the correct procedures have been followed. The difference between evidence and requests for information is: Evidence: - The Camera gathers and provides the only evidence required to obtain a conviction namely the photograph whereas Requests for Information relate to the ACPO Code upon whether the Procedures used to gather the evidence were followed correctly. If they werent followed correctly then the evidence is compromised. Currently, your response provides no information that will satisfy me that the correct procedures have been followed. Consequently, with the integrity of the evidence and the Police Force compromised, it is unreasonable to expect an informed plea to be entered as any potential prosecution will be unsound, because a Fair Trial will not be possible. The Code clearly recognises the difficulty for a defendant in making an informed plea to a speeding allegation without being provided specific information. However the police response clearly ignores the requirements of the Code by deliberately withholding information which not only obstructs my ability to make an informed plea, but also denies me the opportunity to satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed. These deliberate and discriminatory acts of refusing to acknowledge the Code, immediately compromises the integrity of the police force and impacts upon my Human Rights Page 11 of The ACPO Code of Practice. This request is for legitimate information has been assigned to me by Mr Brunstrom. The device used in this particular incident was an "Automatic Unattended Operated Device", in which Section 15.1 of the ACPO Code of Practice clearly states: - A device, Type approved for Unattended Automatic use, with an approved second independent method of speed recording, is required to provide the secondary check information to confirm the accuracy of the device. As a system which is classified as an Automatic Unattended Operated Device, the Secondary check information MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE to a defendant as a specific requirement of the ACPO Codes of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology.

113

As you are aware the definition of the Secondary Check is provided on Page 23 of The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology for Unattended Automatic Operated Devices The requirement for the Secondary Check is defined as the means of corroborating the primary speed reading which is TOTALLY independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. This definition of the Secondary Check clearly requires the following information to corroborate the TOTAL INDEPENDENCE of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated: a. The independent primary and secondary measurements of distance for this particular incident. b. The independent primary and secondary measurements of time. c. Confirmation that independent timing mechanisms were used to record the primary and secondary measurements of time d. Independent Calibration Certificates for the primary and secondary timing mechanisms. Page 11 Key Rights and legitimate Aims Failure to provide all the information related to the Secondary Check as required by the correct application of the ACPO Code, clearly compromises my right to a fair trial - Article 6 Fair Trial rights. The Office procedures of the Code are very clear: 1. All staff that view films for evidential purposes must be suitably trained, with the Chief Officer's authority to carry out this task. 2. Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measured field, the reading must be disregarded. This would represent another non compliance viewing to be considered by the Constabulary. 3. In the event of circumstances whereby the detection of an offence may be unsound, officers are prohibited from making detections or pursuing prosecutions. Section 16.1 requires that the images be scrutinized using the approved independent secondary check procedure, page 23, to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. Scrutiny of the images should indicate that the secondary check calculation was within the accepted 10% discrepancy deviation of the primary speed calculation. The Secondary check information of independent measurements of distance and time must be made available to the defendant. Failure to provide this information will deny the defendant the Right to a Fair Trial. Site calibration certificate Page 73 Section 15.4 Unattended Automatic Devices Before enforcement activity commences each installation will be the subject of a commissioning procedure at which the police will be present. The record of that commissioning will be retained for evidential purposes to ensure integrity of the site. None of these issues have been addressed. Contravention of these issues will deny me (the motorist) the right to legitimate and crucial information and will infringe on the right to a fair trial. The really regrettable issue is that all trained members of staff were clearly aware of these issues, as was their Senior Officer, yet a decision to proceed towards a prosecution has been made, ignoring the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, which clearly compromises the integrity of the Police Force. Clearly failing to act impartially and deliberately withholding information, both acts of discrimination, confirms the unsound nature of a proposed prosecution.

114

The integrity of the Police Force would be clearly compromised and could also be considered a breach of the Ethical Oath of the Police Force. In conclusion, the police in failing to adhere to the recommendations within the Code of Practice are not only denying the right to a fair trial, but are proceeding along a discriminatory route that will impact on an individuals Human Rights. Page 11 Section Human Rights. It is extremely regrettably that the (name of the) Constabulary condones the practice of encouraging individuals to discharge their obligation to the recommendations of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. Please provide the following individual names related to this alleged speeding incident a. b. c. d. The signatory to the letters of response The officer viewing the images The officer responsible for all office staff viewing images The Senior Officer with overall responsibility for all staff.

Yours faithfully

115

15.3 INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSION.

Independent Police Complaints Commission Address related to area of speeding allegation check website Reference: - Speeding Allegation Name of Police Force & References Dear Sir, I am concerned that a formal prosecution is proposed to be launched as a result of the incorrect application of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. I believe this will interact with my right for a fair trial - Article 6, as a result of the police deliberately failing to adhere to the recommendations within this Code of Practice Section: - Key Rights & Legitimate Aims Page. 11 My requests for legitimate information, that I am clearly entitled to, according to The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, has been deliberately denied to me by the police. The accepted policy of The ACPO Code of Practice very clearly states that I am entitled to satisfy myself that the correct procedures have been followed where technology was been used to detect an alleged offence. The Policy Code guideline is very clear in this aspect and in its objectives. The Introduction and Foreword Statements clearly state that: 1.The Code "is provided for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence". 2. The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this manual are applied scrupulously each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service. 3. The Police (PSDB) and the Home Office have laid down operational standards that should be scrupulously followed to protect the evidential integrity. R.Brunstrom Head of ACPO Road Policing Business Area. The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology is the standard procedure provided by the Home Office and the Police (PSDB) that every individual in the evidential chain should scrupulously apply to maintain the integrity of the evidence and the police, where technology has been used to detect an alleged offence. Although the police may claim there is no legal obligation to provide information, legality is not the issue. The police are effectively discharging their responsibility to The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology and, in doing so are compromising the integrity of the evidence. Compromised evidence will result in an unfair trial at which I will not be able to enter an informed plea to the allegation.

116

The police in their deliberate and irresponsible refusal to respond to my requests for information are condoning and encouraging every individual in the evidential chain, not to adhere to the recommendations within The ACPO Code of Practice and, deliberately obstructing my legitimate right to the information that will satisfy me that the correct procedures were followed. This deliberate act of discrimination, denies my right to a Fair Trial. Discriminatory actions by the police in discharging their responsibility and failing to act impartially are compromising the integrity of the Police Service and the evidential integrity, whilst also breaching the Ethical Oath for Police Officers. These discriminatory actions will also impact upon my Human Rights in denying my right to a fair trial - Page 11 Human Rights Statement. Continuous refusal to adhere to the recommendations within The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, potentially affects a wider audience, threatening thousands of unsuspecting innocent motorists of a conviction of motoring offences, based upon the compromised integrity of the evidence. The individuals involved in these deliberate acts of discrimination and of failing to correctly discharge their responsibilities towards a. b. c. d. e. Yours etc The procedure following a complaint to the IPCC is an acknowledgement from the IPPCC to your letter of complaint, requesting your permission to release your letter of complaint to the Constabulary, who are obliged to investigate the complaint on behalf of the IPCC. This apparently is the format bizarre springs to mind. If you are dissatisfied with the result of the police investigation you can then ask the IPCC to undertake an independent inquiry. An independent inquiry is highly recommended whoevers heard of anybody self criticising themselves especially the police!! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The following is a guide to a follow up letter to the IPCC, complaining at the unsatisfactory manner in which the police investigated your original complaint. Dear Sir, Following the recent response from (name of Constabulary), I wish to confirm my dissatisfaction at the biased and unsatisfactory manner of their investigation They failed to address any of the issues related to their failure in correctly discharging their responsibilities towards The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology or any of the issues in my original complaint. It would be greatly appreciated if you would kindly conduct an independent review of the Case. I have enclosed all correspondence related to this case. Yours etc The signatory to the letters of response The Camera Operator(s) not applicable to fixed roadside cameras etc. The officer viewing the images The officer responsible for all office staff viewing images The Senior Officer with overall responsibility for all staff.

117

15.4 Information Commissioner Unattended Automatic Operated Device

Date: Information Commissioners Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Speeding References Dear Sir, Reference: - Speeding Requests for information I have made a number of specific requests for information to (Constabulary name and address). The complaints are all related to speeding allegations and the Constabularies Practices. The requests do not contravene any regulations related to evidence. It is extremely disappointing that the Constabulary have failed to respond within the 20 day period. The requests for information are general requests related to fixed and mobile sites and their procedures for Health and Safety, Risk Assessments at all sites used for speed detection. This includes sites where mobile detection units operate as well as sites where fixed cameras are installed. This requirement is clearly laid down in The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. The guidelines in this Code of Practice are to be strictly followed to ensure that the integrity of the Police Force is not compromised. The Code of Practice and the Policy guideline is very clear in its objectives, especially Health & Safety, in which the Introduction and Foreword Statements clearly state that: The Code "is provided for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence". My letter requested the following information based upon the requirements of the Freedom of information Act.

1. Please confirm whether the practice of ensuring Risk Assessments are conducted regularly for every site used for mobile speed detection and, the use of generic Risk Assessments are completed and countersigned. 2. Where a device is classified as an "Automatic Unattended Operated Device" in which these Type approved unattended/automatic devices, has a second independent method of checking the primary speed measurement, please provide a detailed explanation related to the requirements of the independence of The secondary check.

118

This information is absolutely essential in the checking procedure and the reliability of the primary speed calculation. Failure to provide this justifiable information before the trial prejudices my ability to prepare any defence and compromises my rights to a fair trial. 4. Please confirm whether Automatic Unattended Operated devices provide totally independent timing mechanisms for the primary and secondary measurements of time. 5. Please confirm whether these independent timing mechanisms used on Automatic Unattended Operated devices, are independently calibrated to provide measurements of time. Please explain in precise detail, the secondary check method adopted that will corroborate the primary speed reading and, which is totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated. 6. If applicable, please provide an alternative explanation of the operation of the GATSO/TRUVELO/RedSpeed/SPECS system or please confirm your acceptance of the above explanation. 7. Please provide an explanation of the independent Secondary Check measurement of distance of vehicle travel that is used, to corroborate total independence from the primary speed reading. 8. Please provide an explanation of the independent Secondary Check measurement of time, that will corroborate the use of a totally independent timing mechanism to that used in the primary time measurement, ensuring total independence from the primary speed reading. My letters have clearly stated that the only source of information related to this speeding allegation is through the police and the manufacturer. You will no doubt be aware that manufacturers are not obliged to respond to external enquiries from the public on technical, commercial or other sensitive matters. Consequentially without this information being provided by the police, I will be unable to fulfil my obligations in an attempt to obtain a fair trial. Yours etc.

119

15.5 Information Commissioner - "Attended Actively Operated Device"

Date: Information Commissioners Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Speeding References Dear Sir, Reference: - Speeding Requests for information I have made a number of specific requests for information to (Constabulary name and address). The complaints are all related to speeding allegations and the Constabularies Practices. The requests do not contravene any regulations related to evidence. It is extremely disappointing that the Constabulary has failed to respond within the 20 day period. The requests for information are general requests related to fixed and mobile sites and their procedures for Health and Safety, Risk Assessments at all sites used for speed detection. This includes sites where mobile detection units operate as well as sites where fixed cameras are installed. This requirement is clearly laid down in The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology. The guidelines in this Code of Practice are to be strictly followed to ensure that the integrity of the Police Force is not compromised. The Code of Practice and the Policy guideline is very clear in its objectives, especially Health & Safety, in which the Introduction and Foreword Statements clearly state that: The Code "is provided for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of ALLEGED OFFENCES who wish to satisfy themselves, the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence". My letter requested the following information based upon the requirements of the Freedom of information Act. 1. Please provide an explanation to confirm absolute certainty that a camera allegedly registers a complete set of data, namely the set number of distance or change of distance.

2. Please confirm what recorded set of data information is collected to satisfy the requirements for compatibility with the Calibration Certificate Pulse Repetition Frequency Test. The data allegedly comprises of 30 or 42 readings dependent upon speed camera specification.

120

The manufacturer acknowledges that a shift of the aiming point, namely the registration plate, increases the likelihood of error. 3. Please confirm the minimum number of readings required by the laser aiming point on the vertical target, namely the registration plate, for a reading of speed to be valid. Please qualify any statements. 4. Please confirm whether or not readings gathered from the curvature positions of a vehicle or alternative target points other than the vertical number plate, are sufficient to invalidate a speed reading. Please qualify any statements. 5. Please confirm whether the practice of ensuring Risk Assessments are conducted regularly for every site used for mobile speed detection and, the use of generic Risk Assessments are completed and countersigned. 6. Please provide a copy of the Constabulary procedure for the use of laser 7. Please provide detailed information of the independent tests applied to the pulse data, which is claimed by the manufacturer to eliminate any error that a shift of aiming point from the registration plate could cause. 8. Please provide documented information of the method adopted to ensure that the aiming point will remain constant and fixed upon the registration plate for the entire 0.3 second measurement period, which the manufacturer stresses, is very important. This is particularly important when the Cosine Factor in the vertical and/or horizontal plane is applicable. The Cosine Factor encourages the aiming point to move away from the target in a vertical and/or horizontal plane, dependant upon the location of the camera. This represents an important issue to consider when contesting the accuracy of any speeding allegation. 9. Please provide all information related to the Testing procedures of this speed camera for Type Approval. 10. Please confirm whether a printout is provided of the collected camera data, following a speeding allegation. Compatibility of the data with the Calibration Certificate would provide conclusive proof of camera accuracy. My letters have clearly stated that the only source of information related to this speeding allegation is through the police and the manufacturer. You will no doubt be aware that manufacturers are not obliged to respond to external enquiries from the public on technical, commercial or other sensitive matters. Consequentially without this information being provided by the police, I will be unable to fulfil my obligations in an attempt to obtain a fair trial. Yours etc.

121