I am one of the unfortunate who fell foul of thsi mob. An expert witness report from Trevor Hall of this hit squad stated that in his opinion a mobile Gatso would only be used in compliance to type approval if it had been used according to the Speedmeter Handbook, the Manufacturers Manual and the ACPO Code of Practice. Since the Gatso was used mounted in a vehicle this is clearly against the ACPO Code of Practice which states, "Must not be used in a vehicle". Problem is that when this highlybiased expert took the stand, despite my not being informed that he would be appearing in person, he said that he was of the opiion that the device had been used correctly.
The Home Office FOI answer which I produced saying "No type approved speedmeter has been tested or approved for use affixed within a vehicle" was conveniently overidden by the opinion of Trevor Hall who had played no part in the testig of the device and could produce no contrary statement to say that the device could be used from inside a van.
Result......
3 points, £100 fine and £2427 costs.
I am adamant that the hit squad will be brought to heal. There can be no impartiality from an expert witness when the Memorandum of Association of the company he works for states the aim "to assist safety camera partnerships and suppliers in defending legal challenges and test cases."
Given the write up on Merydydd Hughes saying he will slap those who dare defend such cases, and the fact several SCP's have signed partenrship agreements with NRSS Ltd and make payments of hundreds of thousands of pounds collectively then there can be no impatiality or independance of an expert witness from this company.
This is British Justice at its very worst.

As you will have deduced, my article was published in response to the Police complaining about, in essence, losing prosecutions in the face of competently prepared and vigorously argued defences. These cases were lost because the defendant was not guilty, a concept that some Police officers still do not seem to understand. I have a strong prejudice that our criminal justice system is still the best in the world notwithstanding meddling by various Governments during the course of the past twenty years or more.

I note that your comment is a synopsis of the argument you put before the Court at first instance, the case that you propose to present before the Crown Court on appeal and indeed the written argument you have filed or propose to file requiring the trial Court to “state a case” for consideration by the High Court.

Defendants wealthy enough to have afforded legal representation would have called their own equally qualified expert who would have been entirely convinced of the mobile Gatso’s tendency in certain circumstances to produce completely inaccurate and rogue readings. It was ever thus, so that one man’s “highly biased expert” is another’s paragon of virtue.

On that basis, as I see it, the issue in your is one of “inequality of arms”, that is to say, whilst the State is able to spare no expense in funding its prosecutions, the defendant cannot and so is left at a considerable disadvantage. Unrepresented defendants are at a greater disadvantage still by falling foul of the rules of evidence (which are there for a good reason), such that unless information useful to the defence is placed before the Court in a certain way it is “inadmissible” and the Court cannot take any notice of it. Any defendant convicted in this manner will be possessed of a genuine sense of grievance that they have been denied justice. For an unrepresented defendant of modest means to have to face a specially funded prosecution “hit squad” just rubs salt into the wound.

I am not convinced that there can be a fair trial if there is not true equality of arms, but the only way to achieve that, namely by ensuring the properly, publicly funded legal representation of all defendants involved in criminal proceedings, would be prohibitively, impossibly expensive.

On a more general point, if as you believe the Crown’s “crack team” rely upon experts who appear too closely associated with the equipment under challenge, sooner or later when facing a determined, professionally conducted defence, they are “going to get beat” - and badly.