Laser Devices

LASER DEVICES - Inside Tips

Listed below are our inside tips to finding fault with the evidence against you in a speeding allegation where the police have used a laser device.

Section 89(2) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states:

“A person prosecuted for [a speeding] offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit.”

The police will use the laser device as corroborative evidence. Therefore, if the police cannot prove that the laser device was working correctly it does not matter that the police officer says you were speeding. Without the back-up of a correctly used laser device you should not be convicted.

You should not be convicted solely on the evidence of the laser device. As noted in point 1 above, the laser device is only there to corroborate the evidence of the police officer. If the officer does not document his own opinion of your speed correctly then it does not matter what speed the laser recorded. The police officer should provide evidence of his ‘prior opinion’ of your speed. This means that he should have formed an opinion as to your speed before using the laser. If the officer simply aimed the laser at every passing car – panning from one car to another – then how did he form a ‘prior opinion’ that you were exceeding the speed limit before using the laser?

You should not be convicted unless the police have both ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ evidence. Primary evidence relates to the ‘prior opinion’ of the officer as to the speed of your vehicle. Secondary evidence relates to the speed and distance recorded by the laser device. One without the other is not enough.

Was the officer using an approved device? This means that the laser device has to be a prescribed device and with ‘type approval’ - Home Office approved and satisfying any conditions laid down by the Home Office. If not, the evidence should not be used.

Is the laser measuring your speed?

Were you informed that the laser recorded you exceeding the speed limit? This may be incorrect. The laser device only measures the time it takes for a laser beam to hit a target and be reflected back to the device. For this reason the police will ‘fire’ several laser pulses at your vehicle. By taking a number of measurements the device will calculate the distance travelled over a certain time, thus producing your alleged speed. This is subject to several possible problems.

How wide is the laser beam?

The police will often take great pleasure in explaining that the laser device is so accurate because it has such a narrow laser beam and therefore it only ‘hits’ your number plate before being reflected back (the police usually aim at the number plate as it is a flat surface with a reflective material). We have had a number of cases where the police have explained that the laser beam is only a few centimetres wide when hitting the car. However, laser devices are subject to beam ‘spread’. By the time the laser ‘hits’ your vehicle the width of the beam can be considerably wider than the few centimetres the police may have led you to believe. As an example, at just 400 metres the laser beam can be up to 1.2 metres wide! At 800 metres it can be up to 2.4 metres wide! Even if the laser device has been aligned correctly (and it may not have been - see below) the laser is therefore being reflected back from several different objects and angles – and possibly not even your vehicle. We have dealt with hundreds of cases over several years and yet there has only been one case where the police officer acknowledged in his initial statement that the laser beam was subject to considerable beam spread.

Was the laser aligned with the sight?

Did you ever fire an air rifle as a kid and wonder why you missed the target? You could be looking through the sight, aiming directly at the target, but miss completely. Why? Firing a laser device is, by analogy, like firing a rifle. Every laser device will have a separate aiming device mounted on the top – similar to a telescopic sight. Have you seen films on television where the assassin trains his telescopic sight onto the target – usually with cross-hairs or a red dot in the sight to assist with aiming? It all looks so simple, doesn’t it? In fact it is incredibly easy to miss and great care needs to be taken to ensure that the sight is aligned with the precise spot where the bullet, or laser beam, will hit. An added problem is that the laser beam is invisible. If you miss the target with a bullet from a gun you know immediately – because there is no bullet hole in the target and you can see the damage caused by the bullet nearby. But if the laser beam is invisible, and does not create any mark, how can the officer know it has actually ‘hit’ your vehicle? The police should follow a precise procedure for aligning the sight with the laser – ideally both before and after it is used to detect an offence. It is also recommended that this set-up is carried out at the site where it is to be used. In addition, the police should record and document this procedure and supply evidence that it has been carried out correctly. Have you been provided with such evidence? My guess is that you have not – because, in our experience, the police do not always have it. Beware being misled by wording usually inserted in police witness statements saying: “the device was aligned in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions”, or words to that effect. This is automatically generated by computerised witness statements and does not mean that it has actually been done. We have acted in numerous cases where the police officers using the laser devices did not know how to carry out a correct alignment check, even though they made statements that it had been done. Not only does the alignment check have to be carried out accurately and in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions, the police are also subject to the NPCC Guide for the use of such devices. This Guide lays down additional rules as to how the police officer should document his alignment check for use as evidence.

Did the police carry out a distance check?

The laser device will measure the distance from where the officer was stood to where you were allegedly speeding. If you have been recorded onto video then the distance is superimposed onto the video along with various other details such as your alleged speed, direction of travel, log number, frame count, etc. If you have received a Summons from the court then you should also have been provided with a statement from the police officer who operated the laser device stating your alleged speed and distance. So why is the distance important? It’s all down to a simple mathematical equation: speed equals distance divided by time. As noted above, the laser beam measures speed by calculating the time it takes for a series of laser beam pulses to hit a target and be reflected back to the device. The device will therefore need to perform a series of calculations – to assess the distance travelled over a known time – to determine your speed. By carrying out a distance check before using the device the police are able to determine whether the device is working correctly. It is recommended that a distance check is also carried out after the device has been used to detect an offence. Each manufacturer provides instructions for this check and the NPCC Guide provides more information. It is extremely important to check that the police did actually carry out a distance check properly and there is evidence to prove the distance check was accurate. This is an area where the police and / or the CPS often make mistakes – leading to cases being dropped. We often find that the police and the CPS do not even know how to prove the accuracy of the distance check and so just don’t bother. Unfortunately, if you don’t know either, and no mention is made of it, then chances are you will be convicted. The National Police Chiefs' Council's (NPCC) Guide for the Operational Use of Speed and Red-Light Offence Detection Technology states: “Note the distance and record the evidence of the range set up or measurement in a statement form for later use in court”.

Did the police complete a timing accuracy check?

For the same reason as a distance check is required, it is also recommended that the police carry out a timing accuracy check prior to using the device. This is where the police officer ‘fires’ the device against an object where the speed of that object is already known. This is an extra check to ensure that the device is making the correct calculations.

Was a video connected to the laser device?

If the laser device was operated from van parked at the roadside then it is likely that it was attached to a video recording device. This can help in the defence of your case considerably. It is important to check the accuracy not just of the laser device but also the video camera, the camera control unit and the video recorder.

The problem with movement

Have you ever taken a photograph only to find that the picture was blurred because you didn’t keep the camera steady? Now imagine you are trying to take a photograph of a moving car several hundred feet away, through a telephoto lens. Even the slightest movement is magnified. Whether the police officer was stood at the side of the road or in a van, the vibrations from passing traffic add to the problem of movement. The important point here is that if the officer moved the device a fraction as he pressed the trigger the laser may have ‘hit’ another vehicle close to yours. Even the slightest of movement on the laser device can result in a large ‘miss’ several hundred metres away. At a distance of 300 metres, just one degree of movement is equivalent to an error, or miss, of 5.2 metres. With this margin of error it is possible that the laser beam was actually reflected back from another vehicle nearby, and not yours.

Does your vehicle have any shiny, curved, reflective surfaces?

Of course it does – the curvature of the bonnet, headlights, bumpers, mirrors, etc. So how does the officer know that the laser beam, even if it ‘hit’ your vehicle, was not reflected from your vehicle onto another vehicle nearby. It is possible that the laser beam was reflected from your vehicle onto another and was then reflected back from the other vehicle. The speed shown on the device was therefore that of the other vehicle, not yours. This is especially likely to happen if the laser beam skims along the side of your vehicle. In this situation the laser beam will bounce off your vehicle without being reflected back to the device. The laser beam may then hit the vehicle behind or nearby before being reflected back. You will then get the blame for the other vehicle’s speed! It is therefore important to know whether any other vehicles were on the road at the time of the alleged offence. The officer may fail to make mention of this (although the NPCC Guide says he should). Do you recall how busy the road was? Can you remember any vehicle just in front of you, behind you, at the side? Your evidence is important, so use it.

The ‘slip’ effect

Can a brick wall be both stationary and moving at the same time? It can if a laser device has been used to measure the speed! A laser beam can be tricked into believing that an object is moving when it is not. There are reported examples of stationary vehicles and even brick walls exceeding the speed limit. How? The laser device may move slightly at the moment the trigger is pressed. As the device ‘fires’ several pulses of laser light it is possible for a ‘slip’ to occur and the device will record a speed reading where the vehicle was stationary. Perhaps more importantly, the device may record a speed of 40mph when the vehicle was only travelling at 30mph, or 100mph when actually travelling at 70mph.

Was the police officer qualified to use the laser device?

Have you seen the officer’s Certificate of Competency? All operators of laser devices should be adequately trained and will have attended a training course. Satisfactory completion of the course should be evidenced by a certificate stating that the officer is competent to use the device. I remember a case at Leeds Magistrates’ Court where the CPS continually refused to supply a copy of the police officer’s training certificate. It was only when we eventually went to court did the officer admit that he had failed to attend a training course and therefore did not have a Certificate of Competency for the particular device used. He did try to cover himself by stating that he had received ‘on the job’ training – but could not remember where, when or for how long, and neither was there any written record of it. Even if the officer has attended a training course, you may be surprised to realise how little he actually knows about the correct operation of the device. This may be down to the fact that the training course is only a few hours long! Make sure you obtain a copy of the officers Certificate of Competency and check the dates. In another recent case we discovered that the officer’s training certificate was dated 2 months after the alleged offence.

Have you checked the speed limit signs?

This may sound silly but it is worth checking that the road was actually marked with the correct signage. Cases have been dropped by the CPS because a road sign was missing, knocked over, destroyed, damaged, covered by trees, not illuminated, etc, etc. If the road where you were allegedly speeding was a 30mph ‘restricted’ road, chances are that the police will claim that the speed limit is indicated by a system of street lights. You should check the distance between each street light. The law says that the street lights “should be placed not more than 200 yards apart” (s.82(1)(a) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984). If a system of street lighting is over 200 yards apart then there may be no evidence that the road was actually restricted.

Even where a ‘system of street lights’ is in place, it is still a legal requirement to have correctly placed ‘terminal’ signs to indicate the start of the 30mph limit. All terminal signs must be of a certain size, height, visibility, reflectivity, etc. The Signage Regulations and Traffic Signs Manual (all five volumes) are amazingly complex and I have not yet met a single police officer who actually understood them. Remember, unless you raise signage as an issue and query it with the CPS, nobody will check it - it is just presumed that the street lights, signage, etc, were all correct. Why not ‘put the prosecution to proof’ – make them provide evidence to prove that all the signage was in fact correct? They may have difficulty.

Was the laser device used near the start or end of a speed limit?

The police will often set up a speed trap close to where the speed limit is reduced, for example, where the speed limit on a dual carriageway is reduced from 70mph to 50mph. Can you be sure that the police did not target your vehicle whilst you were still in the 70mph zone, even though the police were situated in the 50mph zone? Have you seen any evidence from the police confirming their precise location? Have you received evidence confirming the speed limit and how far away the sign was indicating a change of speed limit? Unfortunately you cannot presume that the police will check this for you! Ask the questions – make the CPS prove its case.

Was the laser device used from an overhead bridge?

If so, have you seen any evidence of a height check? The height of the laser device from the road below must be multiplied by a factor of 10 to obtain the minimum distance for operation to comply with the NPCC Guide.

Was the laser device calibrated?

Every laser device must be calibrated by the manufacturer every 12 months and a certificate of calibration must be held by the police, along with the results of the test. Although it is usual for the device to have been calibrated (by the manufacturer), it is still important to obtain the documentation to prove it. You never know, it may have been lost. Please note, the police are usually keen to point out (in the witness statement that accompanies the Summons) that the device was calibrated correctly. In my view this may be misleading for the following reasons:

• This reference to calibration is usually only referring to the test undertaken by the manufacturer once every 12 months.

• It is separate from the checks the police carry out (distance, speed, alignment, etc) each time the device is used.

• Even if the device has been calibrated by the manufacturer, it may not have been calibrated by the officer using the laser device.

• It implies that the police officer himself operated the laser device correctly, where in fact there may be no evidence of this.

• The police often fail to point out that a certificate of calibration can be obtained for you to check.

• Did the police officer use the laser device through glass?

• If so, the speed reading may be unreliable and should not be used to obtain a conviction. As the NPCC Guide clearly states:

• “Laser speedmeters must not be used through glass or plastic screens to avoid diffraction or scattering of the laser beam.”

• “Elements within vehicle screens as well as their cleanliness makes the path of laser light less predictable”. The manufacturers of laser devices also state that the laser should not be used through glass. In a recent case of ours the police officer stated in court that he ‘fired’ the laser device through the windscreen of the police car. We won the case and we were awarded costs.

Have any alterations or changes been made to the laser device?

A laser device must only be used if it has Home Office Type Approval. However, any alteration to the laser device can invalidate the approval given. As the NPCC Guide states: Unauthorised changes should not be made to the device by the manufacturers, manufacturers’ agents or operators.” Any alteration to the following can invalidate the speed reading:

• The device hardware

• Software used

• The casing or any enclosure housing the device

• Connection to an unapproved power source

• The method of secondary check

Were the police using the correct instructions?

Manufacturers are constantly updating their instructions as to the use of laser devices. It is therefore important to check that the officer in your case was actually up to date. We have dealt with cases where the officers involved were referring to manufacturers’ instructions that were several years out of date.

In addition, once you know the type of laser device used, you then need to check the precise version. For example, the LTI 20:20 laser device is probably the most widely used throughout the UK. But which version was used? Was it the ‘Speedscope’, the Ultralyte 100 or the Ultralyte 1000? In addition, was it connected to the Lastec video system or the Concept DVD system?

We have acted in cases where the officers involved referred to the wrong version in court, and even one case where the officer presented a Prolaser instruction manual to the court despite using an LTI 20:20 device. Our client was found not guilty due to the discrepancy in the officers evidence.