The alleged offence took place on x. After completing the NIP, I requested details about the camera (Gatso), it’s calibration, the training received by the person viewing the photos and a copy of the photos among other information.
I currently have an upheld complaint by the IPCC that the police failed to provide the information I requested. I was summoned to court and at my first appearance, I explained that I had insufficient information (as the police had failed to provide it) to enter a plea.
The case was adjourned pending the production of the information. A police officer provided a letter confirming that the Gatso has only 1 timing device which therefore confirms that it contravenes the ACPO code of practice regarding the secondary check being “totally independent of the mechanism by which the primary speed reading was calculated”.
With this evidence, I wrote to the CPS to ask for the case to be classified as invalid and dismissed, but I have received confirmation that I am expected in court next week. Can I still defend this case or should I just enter a plea and take the points, the fine and pay court costs?
Did you name yourself as the driver? Is this simply a summons for the speeding matter or for failing to provide information as well?
I am surprised that you have got anywhere with the IPCC. The police are under no duty to disclose their evidence until court proceedings have been issued and you have entered a not guilty plea – this is covered by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act.
If there is no method of conducting a secondary check then you have a very strong case and it should be possible to get the proceedings withdrawn without the need for a trial. Were there markings on the road?
Are you just suggesting that the secondary check argument simply relates to the fact that there was only one timing device for both the radar and the time between the two photos being measured (the secondary check)? Is that your argument?
If that is your only argument then you are going to have to work hard at court to persuade them that the clock in the GATSO should not be used for the primary and secondary readings – but I do take your point and it’s an interesting one.
The problem you have is that the argument you raise would potentially open the floodgates for the court stating that all previous GATSO convictions are unsafe. Therefore the court are unlikely to want to do that – but that does not affect the validity of the argument.
Whilst I take your point the Court and the CPS are unlikely to agree without the need for a trial.