"Having googled for a solicitor who had expertise in the area of my alleged offence I found your firm and I have to say it I am so glad I contacted you. From the first phone call the attitude from your office was positive and informative. Once I instructed your firm officially I immediately felt that my case was at last being handled by someone who actually had an interest and knowledge and wanted to provide an exceptional service. All in all a positive experience. My thanks to all who had dealings with my case and especially to Louise Prout for the expediency with which she dealt with the case saving me many sleepless nights."

Mar 8, 2010

We have just won an important victory at Truro crown Court in relation to an allegation of speeding.

The Judge found that the speed trap at A30 Temple Junction - was potentially unreliable and the conviction in the Magistrates Court was unsafe....read more

Category: General

Posted by: patterson

The case was run by Jemma Hurrel, Senior Team Leader under Emma Patterson's supervision.

 

Date of offence - (Friday!) 13th March 2009. Speed check conducted at

Temple junction on the A30. Officer parked on hardstanding designed for

that purpose. Operating a Provida device carrying out a pre-fed check.

 

The reference points used for the check were the tip of directional

arrowheads for Colliford Lake and a painted square on the carriageway.

Raised concerns over Officer's ability to accurately see the first reference

point, which was 0.5miles away (about 8 full sized football pitches away).

 

From Officer's position, three large road signs formed

a barrier to a complete view of the road. Our client was adamant that the

officer began the speed check on a different car, which then braked

suddenly, and captured our client's car emerging from behind the screens,

giving a false reading of the client's speed.

 

 

In the Crown Court proceedings our client re-enacted scene, using video footage

from both Officer's position and overhead bridge, giving a different angle.

The Crown Court Judge stated that the only question to be considered was whether

or not he could be sure that the same car emerged from behind the barrier as

that which the Officer had begun the speed check on. He found that he could

NOT be sure, therefore the appeal was allowed.

 

To support our argument, we raised various points in ACPO which state that

the Officer carrying out the speed check must have constant and unobstructed

view of the vehicle in question throughout the duration of the speed check.

In this case, when measuring the time the cars were hidden behind the

screens on the video footage, it could be seen that the barrier is formed

for approximately 30% of the check.

 

Print

Ask a Free Question

If you have a court hearing date call 01626 359800

Page 1 of 11  > >>