GatsoGate tape may prove expert witness changed evidence


pocketgpsworld.comWe 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.
Comments
Posted by culzean on Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:33 pm Reply with quote

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.


Posted by MickyFinn on Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:40 pm Reply with quote

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... Shocked
http://www.properpolicing.org.uk/articles/David%20Edgar%20arrested!.pdf