Press Release: 1 July, 2009 - Speed camera Expert laughs off previous testimony
Speed camera Expert laughs off previous testimony
Taped conversation suggests potential ‘GatsoGate’
1 July, 2009
Scientific measurement expert Dr Iain Fielden will take his case against
his wife’s speed camera prosecution to the High Court on Friday 3 July,
presenting new evidence in which the Crown Prosecution Service expert
witness appears to have changed his story about evidence crucial to the
case.
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). As a result,
the Judge found that the camera instructions had not been followed, but
that this did not matter. He dismissed Mrs Fielden’s appeal, ordering her
to pay £15,000 of the prosecution’s £27,000 costs applied for – and
within six months.
Dr Fielden, a research scientist at Sheffield Hallam University, knew that
radar beams travel in a straight line, so using radar to measure the speed
of a car on a curve is like trying to measure a curved line with a straight
ruler – the answer can never be accurate and gets worse as the curve gets
tighter. He knew that if the instructions said “a curve no tighter than 1,200
metres” then there must be very good reason for it. Dr. Fielden 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.
Counsel has advised that “Dr. Fielden’s evidence was obtained by a legitimate
ruse de guerre and to date, no-one has disputed the authenticity of the recording
or the contents of his statement”. Counsel advises that Friday’s hearing – theoretically
an application for permission to hold a full review, will probably determine the final outcome.
Last month, the stretch of road beside the speed camera in question was dug up and
re-laid, with the road markings and kerbs significantly altered.
[end]
PREVIOUS COVERAGE OF CASE:
Print media:
Television (Look North, BBC):
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON:
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO):
Road Safety Support (RSS) Ltd.:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
UK speed camera revenues:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
Gatsometer BV:
A Dutch company that manufactures more than half of the UK’s speed cameras and claims to be the world leader.
http://www.gatsometer.com/
http://www.gatsometer.com/
Mr Trevor Hall:
Retired PC, formerly in charge of Essex central ticket office;
RSS Managing Director; ACPO employee;
Secretary of ACPO Road Policing Group;
Secretary of ACPO Traffic Enforcement Technology committee;
National Safety Camera Co-ordinator.
Mr Theodorus Janssen:
Technical Director of Gatsometer BV (above)
Dr Iain Fielden:
http://www.xproexperts.co.uk/
Dr Fielden’s National Measurement Award:
http://www.newmaterials.com/
Comments
gatsogate
There is a good clip on YOUTUBE called `gatsogate`, worth seeing and rating.
Speed detection devices
Calibration has not been accepted as verified by the US Supreme Courts when the company who markets the device is the one who has to verify the annual or regular calibration and sign off the certificate. This is on the basis that there exists no impartiality and any "answer" to a calibration query could be manipulated.
I guess we all know what this manipulation looks like already when the Technical Director of Gatso in Holland is prepared to lie under oath in order to gain a guilty verdict in support of his companies devices.
The US Supreme Court topic can be found here.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2854.asp
gatsogate
clip called gatsogate now on youtube.