Back Next Statment's
followed.”((Where they have failed to meet the standards prescribed
by the manufacturers (not necessarily APCO as those recommendations
are good practice
only it would be relatively easy under cross-examination, to cast doubt
on the prosecution evidence thereby forcing the bench to return a not
guilty verdict)).
Mr. Freeman did not specify the exact conditions which the police were unable
to prove they followed.
Mr. Yorke was not present at court for the verdict but Mr. Freeman said: "I
am sure he will be very pleased."
The onus is on the police proving that the speed gun was officially authorized
for use. He asked them to produce a certificate for the device outlining the
Home Office's conditions of use. I may not be rich or famous but the law is
for all to obey.
Police have filed copious documents but have not provided the Court with the
Home Secretaries conditions for approval, for how the camera must be used.
The relevant Highways authority will not be able to produce any mandatory
authority sufficient to put into abeyance my private right to charge a fee
for suffering the environmental pollution of safety/traffic/speed cameras whenever
I see one. In fact there may be no mandatory authority on Highways authorities
to provide anything not even parking meters. A lack of mandatory authority
with a lack of a financial provision for enforcement leaves local authorities
liable to prosecution for theft, amongst others things, by deception of authority.
ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) clearly states under article 1
of protocol 1 that individuals have the right to enjoy their possessions. I
have been charged with a driving offence which carries a summary penalty. The
Police and or in the alternative other Authorities that are responsible have
not provided any documentation in support of their arguments that:-
1). I allegedly exceeded the speed limit.
2). That their recording camera was maintained as per requirement and
the police and/ or Authorities that are responsible have
failed to provide the
Court with the Home Secretaries conditions for approval,
for how the camera must be used.
3). they did not supply any test certificates.
4). Police did not offer any guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate
doubt in this matter and acted with lack of independence
or impartiality.
5). The Crown Prosecution Service failed in their duty to advise
me of anything that undermines the Crowns’ case
against me by failing to advise me of what is
judicially noticed
above under
my heading 'Proscribed
device'.
Back Next Statment's
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
