GatsoGate tape may prove expert witness changed evidence

[Darren]

We have covered this case before here.

The original offence took place in 2006 when Mrs Fielden was photographed by a speed camera driving at 36mph in a 30mph limit. A fixed penalty of £60 with the mandatory 3 penalty points was issued.

During hearings at Bradford Crown Court last June, expert witness Mr Theodorus Janssen, from Gatso, testified that being on a curve tighter than 1,200 metres would not affect the accuracy of the camera’s measurements and that the 1,200-metre-limit had been selected 'arbitrarily' by the Netherlands Measurement Institute (NMI). Despite the camera instructions not having been followed the Judge dismissed Mrs Fielden’s appeal.

Now evidence has arisen that suggests the expert witness changed his evidence.


Dr Fielden, a research scientist at Sheffield Hallam University, suspected that there must be very good reason for the instructions specifying 'a curve no tighter than 1,200 metres'. So he telephoned Mr Janssen, pretending to be a CPS lawyer and asked to double-check the technical details of the case. Fielden recorded the phone call, in which Mr Janssen laughingly says that the limit of 1,200 metres, far from being 'arbitrary', was 'scientifically calculated' by Janssen himself, on the basis that the camera’s accuracy would be unacceptably poor on any tighter curve. He added that NMI had only checked and approved his calculations.

The recording has been submitted to the High Court as part of a Judicial Review. The file also contained information that Janssen’s services were effectively supplied on a no-win, no-fee basis – a breach of Criminal Procedure Rules, which require Expert Witnesses to be independent. Moreover, Janssen was instructed by RSS Ltd, a firm set up by ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers), with help from the CPS, to co-ordinate the “independent evidence” and the prosecution of motorists who challenge speed camera technology.

We will be following this story with interest. It demonstrates yet again that the law is far from all fair and that unless you are willing to risk a great deal in defending yourself it is often easier to accept blame even though you may be innocent.
_________________
Darren Griffin

[culzean]

The whole of our legal system is based on the fact that it is easier for most people to accept the penalty than challenge it. Last year my wifes ex-boss was caught by a gatso doing 47mph in a 30 limit and he was also using his phone. He was already on 9 points, but he 'got away with it' because he was rich enough to employ a solicitor.

In the UK we have plenty of law, but very little Justice.

[MickyFinn]

Those who read about speedcameras may remember a website called notsoaccurrate where a chap devised a device that measured the timing of the flashes on the speedcamera to check they were operating within Home Office guidelines and therefore within the law.

David Edgar proved that the tests he conducted showed the Gatsos to be inaccurate and operating outside guidelines.

He was also an expert witness on a number of cases where councils tarmaced over lines to hide evidence etc.

Unfortunately this doesn't suprise me

The device and inaccuracy he identified:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/notso.html

What happened to him...
http://www.properpolicing.org.uk/articles/David%20Edgar%20arrested!.pdf

Micky

[MickyFinn]

I think they were police, but the whole situation is very suspect - if 80% of speed cameras are inaccurate there would have been an absolute outrage.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions. I cannot find what happened to David Edgar I think he was being kept at her majesty's pleasure in the article I read, unfortunately I cannot find it.

I exchanged some emails with him then all went quiet...

Micky

[mostdom]

At the end of that pdf it reads "We believe that, sadly, David Edgar is
deceased and this event may well have contributed to his eventual death."[/i]
_________________
Dom

HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot

[MickyFinn]

What a shame. That would explain why I drew a blank. Unless someone else puts together a laser aligned, optically triggered digital timer that is capable of measuring the time lapse between the two flashes which are produced by a Gatsometer speed camera to within 1/100th of a second we'll never know.

His website can still be viewed on www.notsoaccurate.com by viewing the archive, just type the URL into the wayback archive viewing tool found here: http://www.archive.org/

Micky

[PaulB2005]

Direct link to it is here

The notsoaccurate domain name has expired and could become anything in the future!

[royl666]

Seems to me the judge needs a kick up the backside. ALL speed measuring devices have to be licensed by the Home Office and the license lays down how they should be used. In the case of GATSO units they MUST be on a straight stretch of road of at least 400 metres as they can react to reflections from vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.

In Hertfordshire the Police do not defend cases where this issue is raised on prosecutions using evidence from cameras on the A1057 between Hatfield and St Albans. A friends neighbour used to maintain the cameras and I got this snippett from him - it's not heresay.

To put it simply, if the camera is not installed in accordance with the license conditions then any evidence obtained from it is inadmissable! This was the case with the microwave cameras installed on the M25 some years back as they were only licensed for single installations - not multiple units as used in the vaiable speed zone.

Just as an aside. if a mobile speed unit is parked on the pavement then unless the officer operating the device has a pavement closure order he is obtaining evidence illegally and that's inadmissible as well!

If you want chapter and verse on all things speed camera then go to http://www.acpo.police.uk and click on policies - my spies teel me the document is being reviewed at the monent, but it'll be back there soon - so keep watching

[REDDISCO]

Lines have been repainted on the road at a angle to before, (interesting)

[Darren]

[M8TJT]

[royl666]

I meant to say rumour in respect of Hertfordshire.

I also did a little more research and found the following:

[M8TJT]

[andrewdwork]

I tried to question the accuracy of the hand-held cameras when I was nabbed at 68 MPH on the A66, just me and a few twigs in the picture, on a bend, camera off to the right (looked to be in a field from the view).

The LTI20-20 camera's certificate of conformity (which they claim incorrectly to be a calibration cert) was nearly expired, and there was no evidence that the unit had been checked before or after the shift concerned against a calibrated speedo as required.

It will only read to + - 1MPH and is calibrated against a +-1MPH source over a verry limited (120 foot) distance. I was clocked at about 300 feet.

As calibration engineer I am required to calibrate to a standard better by a factor of 10 than the unit being calibrated, and the instrument should then only be used to measure a value by a factor of 10 less, so to read +-1MPH, I would have to calibrate it to +-0.1 MPH against a +-.01MPH standard. As it is, the unit realistically should only be used (according to Britsh or ISO standards) to measure to the nearest 100MPH! So therefore I would have been doing 100MPH if the weights and measures act applied to these things.

When I pointed this out, the Cumbria police effcetively told me to pay up and shut up as it was home office approved equipment and that the officer was trained in its use. They would not tell me the exact location of the unit ot offer any details of when the unit was last checked againt a known source.

In the end, as said above, it was easier to cough up the £60 and take the points. In the letter of the law I was exceeding the 60MPH limit, but in the spirit of the law there was no other traffic about and conditions were good. I was at the bottom of a hill about to climb the other side. A police car driver may have given me an ear-wigging, but not the cash-camera!

It certainly did little to improve my opinion of that police authority, especially as they sent me someone else's evidence pictures with my returned license.

Some questions about the laser gun concerned are here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/09_september/12/inside.shtml.

Even three years on it still wrankeles me, so keep up the good work chaps and lets put the camera men out of business.

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!