Acknowledgement Jurat

Prolaser III, Prolaser IV, Prolite+
Rudiger
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:46 am

Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Rudiger » Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:51 am

Hi.

Been booked by police using a Prolaser III.

My question is with regard the acknowledgement jurat at the bottom of the informants statment.

I have elected to go before a magistrate and I have a copy of the brief of evidence.

At the time of intercept he told me he had me on lock for 3 seconds. That conversation is in his statement and also as part of his evidence. He also listed the last distance as recoded on the device.

Problem is, given that distance and how far I would have travelled in the 3 secons even at the speed limit of 100 Ks. the rod dips away so low that my vehicle would be totally out of view within those 3 seconds.

In other words his evidence is total fabrication.

I have spoken to the prosecutoir and explained this but they wish to continue with th ematter despite me explaining that the informat will have to commit perjury.

My question is how important is the Acknowledgement? He has basicaly said his statement is true and correct yet if he gives that evidence I can prove he is lying. But he will no doubt wish to alter his evidence in the box. This does not seem fair.

rustyone
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:04 pm

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby rustyone » Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:34 pm

i had a simalar case at ringwood. the officers clame was that he wittnessed my car traveling at a fast rate (his guess was 83) for 5 seconds and then use a prolaser 3 to check my speed and pull me over. in court i asked the officer while under oath "how far did my car travel in that 5 seconds" and he could not give an answer. i then pointed out to the court that at the speed perdicted over that time my car would have been still over the hill out of sight. the magistrate then told me that i was not an expert on speed and would not except my statement. i then stupidly said "any year 4 student with half a brain can see that the officer is lying in his statement which is his evidence". Yes i lost even though i had him twice. the second thing was that the officer had a ticket to use a laser gun dated 1998 and i pointed out to the court that the prolaser 3 unit used entered the market in 2007, the prosicutor said it was not nessasary for officers to retrain for simple model upgrades of the unit (i have since found out that the changes since 1998 had been sigificant to warrant his ticket invalid). At that time mine was the only case in the room, and after i left, all i could hear from out side was the judge ripping into the cops about how shit there case was prepared. no joy for me but. :(

Boki
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Boki » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:02 pm

Rusty,

LOL they all say crap like that on the summons. I remember seeing one like; "The speed estimated was 100 - 105km/h. The speed was on checked on a laser to be 104km/h."

Yes because the Police Officers are like the Prolasers' themselves, they can estimate the speed to a variance of +/- 5kms*.

Idiots.



*Estimation is made only after the checking of the speed with the PL3.

Rudiger
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Rudiger » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:03 pm

Boki. The reason that is done is beacue its in the legislation. They have to assess a vehicle is in excess of the speed limit and the device is used to back it up. It has always been that way when using speed measuring devices.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8239
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Hardy » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:11 pm

He won't need to change his statement. As a result of you pointing out the weaknesses in his case, he will go back to the scene and take measurements and photos to show that the spot he was in when he layered you is capable of holding a 3 second track. You would have been far better telling them absolutely nothing at the case conference and disclosing your case only after he has given evidence on oath in court.

Rudiger
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Rudiger » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:14 pm

He can measure the scene. I have a photo of his location and I surveyed the site with GPS, and I also took a Prolaser III to the site and tried it out. The road drops about 40 or so metres. Its in the mouantains. So if he goes and measures it, he will only prove me right.

By disclosing it I have shown I am up front. I will use this to augment my my good chracter when I give evidence.

Well thats my view anyway.

Boki
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Boki » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:22 pm

Rudiger wrote:By disclosing it I have shown I am up front. I will use this to augment my my good chracter when I give evidence.


O God, NO.

Listen up Mr. Traffic Enginnering, you actually believe that it did you more good than bad by you pouring your heart out to the prosecutor at the case conference?? I think you need some more 'hands-on' experience in court. Good character is vital in some cases when pleading guilty.

No one cares about your good character when they have evidence.

In short, EVIDENCE > CHARACTER.

Rudiger
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Rudiger » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:26 pm

Boki mate, seriously. I think I have a tad more experience than ya give me credit for.

Good character is needed not just for guilty please. How can you prove good character if your pleading guilty to some serious offences?

But good character is vital if you are giving any sort of evidence. Under oath, if a person is seen to be of good character, either the prosecution prove otherwise or the court accepts your evidence. If it is corroborated, which mine will be, and I state under oath that I was not travelling at the alleged speed, I'm not saying I will win, but I have been beaten in the past by just that.

Boki
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Boki » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:37 pm

Rudiger, I don't want to be the one to disappoint you. So we'll wait until someone that is more qualified and that has had experience in that area to post about our contradicting views.

Rudiger
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Rudiger » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:44 pm

I like your style boki. Nothing I hate worse than a half decent forum being spoilt by some knob who stoops to abuse and other cr@p. So thank you for not doing that. I'd have a beer and discuss it any day with yourself.

You may be right, I hope your not. I just always beleived in honesty and integrity. Maybe I was one of the few. If I made a mistake in the box I would admit it and move on. I had a very good name in many of the courts I gave evidence in and also with the OPP. Maybe I'm old school and things have changed. We shall see.

The thing is about this forum, and it's great that it exists. I appreciate Mr. Hardys opinions, I really do. He has a wealth of experience within the court system and obviously knows the laws and the judiciary.

But when it comes to actually pulling the rigger on a laser/radar, and seeing how its done as opposed to how it is supposed to be done, unless you held a Speed measuring device ticket, you have no idea. This is what irritates me.

In my matter, the site was wrong, the use was incorrect and his evidence has holes so big I could set up a clothing store inside. As a qualified laser user I know this to be fact. There are some things I would steer my students away from during courses.

Anyway, I will get off my soap box and go back to sleep.

Cheers mate.

Boki
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Boki » Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:10 pm

Rudiger wrote:So thank you for not doing that. I'd have a beer and discuss it any day with yourself.


There are some nobs on here that do derseve abuse, your definitely not one of them. Come down anytime, the beer is on me.

Rudiger wrote: I just always beleived in honesty and integrity.


I have too, but its important to also know where your honesty and intergrity counts - Unfortunately, the majority of the time it doesn't mean much to the members of the police force.

I have never seen or heard of a person representing themselves prepared to give 'expert' advice supporting the defence of his own case. You may just be the first, I wish you the best of luck.

Rudiger
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Rudiger » Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:24 pm

To be honest, I dont think it will get that far. His evidence is such that he physically could not have obtained 3 seconds of clear lock. He has listed the last distance and 100 metres further back cars drop out of site. So regardless of whether he needs 3 seconds of lock or not, he couldn't have.

He told me that on interceptiion, it is listed in his statement as he told me, he lists it in his evidence and then requalifies it at the end. 3 seconds of clear lock.

Unless he changes his acknowledge statement or changes his evidence in the box, he will commit perjury if he gives that evidence. No ifs or buts or questions here. It is what he wrote and I have revisted the site and can prove the cars drop out of site. In fact its absolutely laughable.

So I hope to not have to rely on ay expert evidence other than physical fact.

In fact so blatant is it that I would like to refer it to the OIC Prosecutions for them to reveiw their pro formas which is obvious what he has used. I am disgusted that a brief so flawed could actually be authorised and I am disgusted as a former VicPol member that this is even proceeding, regardless of the fact it is against me. It seriously brings into question a lot of things.

I know in my day a fair booking was a fair booking and I rarely had any contested because they were fair. I did lose a few but hey, what ya gunna do.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8239
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Hardy » Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:41 pm

If you were going the speed limit he had at least 3 seconds to track you over 100 meters.
So are you saying it was impossible for him to track you for 3 seconds in 100 meters because you can't track a car in that spot for 3 seconds when it is doing 126kmh??

Anyway, even if you satisfy the court that he tracked you for only 2 seconds, what does that mean to the case? How do you convince a magistrate that it matters whether it was 2 secs or 3 secs or whether he is correct or incorrect in his statement? There is no law that requires 3 seconds of tracking.

Rudiger
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:46 am

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Rudiger » Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:57 pm

What I am saying is this.

At 100 kmh a vehicle travels about 28 metres per second. Thats fine.

At 150 for example a vehicle travels about 41.5 mps.

If he got me for 3 seconds at 100, no problem. Why are we hear?

In any case, his last measured distance was 300 metres. At a point 370 metres from his location the road has dipped away so that approaching vehicles are not visible. So the 3 seconds of lock at any speed over 100 kmh or just above is not possible.

Matters not what the law says or doesnt say. It is police policy that there must be 3 seconds of lock. Did you not know that? Regardless, police policy means little.

What does matter is that he said he had 3 seconds directly to me. He states so in his acknowledged statement. He gives it in the main body of his staement and then again at the end. 3 times he states it and then signs an acknowledgement jurat.

So what you are saying to me, as a barrister, is that you would not hack crap out of me in the witness box as informant if I then tried to change my evidence?? Are you saying you would let that slip?

Sean, give me a break mate. Seriously. It is an acknowledged statement that would be relied upon if evidence was not called. It serves as the informants version of events. If he seeks to change his evidence he loses credibility. I would and you know you would have me on toast. How the hell could I possibly take and oath, sign a statement and then say in evidence that, "Oh, yeah I got it wrong" or "thats actually not right. This is what really happened". What world am I living in?

rustyone
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:04 pm

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby rustyone » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:02 am

How the hell could a policeman possibly take and oath, sign a statement and then say in evidence that, "Oh, yeah I got it wrong" or "thats actually not right. This is what really happened". What world am I living in? THE ONE WITH LESS JUSTICE, HONESTY AND NO MORALS. That's why the good cops get out. I remember getting done for speeding as a kid and the old sarg at epping took my keys and said "you can pick them up in the morning at the station" had to walk home for hours in the rain, in winter. Never went near epping again. :lol: what was his name?
Last edited by rustyone on Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

rustyone
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:04 pm

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby rustyone » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:23 am

Rudiger wrote:To be honest, I dont think it will get that far. His evidence is such that he physically could not have obtained 3 seconds of clear lock. He has listed the last distance and 100 metres further back cars drop out of site. So regardless of whether he needs 3 seconds of lock or not, he couldn't have.

you just watch, in court he will just say that he had a clear lock and will not say at what range, and that's all the judge wants to hear. So many of these cases go before the courts that they have gotten complacent about them and if the facts are either a little or a lot wrong, the fact that your there seems to just mean your guilty.
Rudiger i applaud you on your quest for justice, but she seems to be not only blind but deaf as well.
please keep us up dated.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8239
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Acknowledgement Jurat

Postby Hardy » Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:06 am

We are having this discussion only because the police know what your defence is. Now you are left trying to convince a magistrate that he did not make a mistake when he made his statement. The magistrate will have to decide whether his evidence in court is correct or not. When it comes to time, he will say about 3 seconds. When you cross examine he will fudge it and also state he was more than 100m away from the dip. Unless you have a video of the incident you are going to struggle to convince the magistrate exactly where he was standing. If he deviates from his statement in his oral evidence, you need to cross examine him on his statement, get him to acknowledge it is his signature on it, then tender the statement. It is not your job to prove anything. You just need to create doubt. Unfortunately the magistrate is likely to accept the laser reading as accurate and therefore proof of the speed (as she/he is obliged to do) unless you adduce sufficient evidence (not proof) to the contrary. The magistrate will need to determine whether the police laser produced a wrong reading (in which case you win), or whether the police estimate of 3 seconds is incorrect and whether that matters, or whether the police might have lied about both the 3 secs and the speed reading.


Return to “Lasers”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest