Speed camera error man is sacked
04 July 2008, 09:49 AM
#1
Speed camera error man is sacked
A Lancashire Police speed camera worker has been sacked for an error which led to 545 unsafe convictions and £35,000 in fines being refunded.
On various occasions between starting work in September 2006 and May 2007 he failed to ensure the cameras' distance measurement and alignment were correct. But he signed court papers saying they were correct, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) uncovered. On top of the refunded fines, about 1,500 penalty points were rescinded.
When the civilian employee, who worked in the force's Central Processing Unit, had 435 tapes of his work checked, it was found that 41 tapes were found to have faults through his failure to calibrate the cameras correctly.
Training review
He was the highest performing camera technician in the force in terms of offences captured. A file was prepared for the Crown Prosecution Service who determined there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges
However, the IPCC investigation has recommended the police force reviews its training of speed camera technicians and ensures regular checks are made of their work. It would appear he pursued quantity at the expense of quality - and at the expense of hundreds of motorists
Naseem Malik, IPCC Commissioner
Two other members of staff from the Central Processing Unit are due to face disciplinary hearings by the force over inconsistencies to do with the processing of court paper work.
Naseem Malik, IPCC Commissioner for the North West, said: "This speed camera technician failed to undertake basic checks of the systems he was operating and as a result he undermined the integrity of hundreds of prosecutions.
Lessons learnt
"It would appear he was proud of his position as the top performing camera technician, but it would appear he pursued quantity at the expense of quality - and at the expense of hundreds of motorists.
"I applaud the fact that Lancashire Constabulary tackled this issue vigorously and it is worth noting that during the investigation the work of every other camera technician was checked and found to be in order."
Supt Martyn Leveridge of Lancashire Constabulary's Professional Standards Department added: "There have been lessons learnt from this investigation and the Constabulary will seek to progress areas of development so as to provide the highest quality of service to the communities of Lancashire.
"A full review of the training programme has taken place, as well as the supervision and processes involved in the work of the technicians.
"There are additional provisions now in place to regularly monitor the work of camera technicians in order to prevent this happening again in the future."
On various occasions between starting work in September 2006 and May 2007 he failed to ensure the cameras' distance measurement and alignment were correct. But he signed court papers saying they were correct, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) uncovered. On top of the refunded fines, about 1,500 penalty points were rescinded.
When the civilian employee, who worked in the force's Central Processing Unit, had 435 tapes of his work checked, it was found that 41 tapes were found to have faults through his failure to calibrate the cameras correctly.
Training review
He was the highest performing camera technician in the force in terms of offences captured. A file was prepared for the Crown Prosecution Service who determined there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges
However, the IPCC investigation has recommended the police force reviews its training of speed camera technicians and ensures regular checks are made of their work. It would appear he pursued quantity at the expense of quality - and at the expense of hundreds of motorists
Naseem Malik, IPCC Commissioner
Two other members of staff from the Central Processing Unit are due to face disciplinary hearings by the force over inconsistencies to do with the processing of court paper work.
Naseem Malik, IPCC Commissioner for the North West, said: "This speed camera technician failed to undertake basic checks of the systems he was operating and as a result he undermined the integrity of hundreds of prosecutions.
Lessons learnt
"It would appear he was proud of his position as the top performing camera technician, but it would appear he pursued quantity at the expense of quality - and at the expense of hundreds of motorists.
"I applaud the fact that Lancashire Constabulary tackled this issue vigorously and it is worth noting that during the investigation the work of every other camera technician was checked and found to be in order."
Supt Martyn Leveridge of Lancashire Constabulary's Professional Standards Department added: "There have been lessons learnt from this investigation and the Constabulary will seek to progress areas of development so as to provide the highest quality of service to the communities of Lancashire.
"A full review of the training programme has taken place, as well as the supervision and processes involved in the work of the technicians.
"There are additional provisions now in place to regularly monitor the work of camera technicians in order to prevent this happening again in the future."
04 July 2008, 11:51 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ascended to the next level
Posts: 7,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is the person resposnsible to detect offences also the one who calibrates the camera? 
And if that person is evaluated on the number of "successfull detections", (proven by the report stating that he was a top performing camera technician) then surely that is a conflict of interests in the sakes that person is more intent on serving convictions than checking the equipment's accruacy. I wonder if he was on performance related pay?
Calibration of equipment should be done by someone else, separate to the person checking "detected" speeders.
And if that person is evaluated on the number of "successfull detections", (proven by the report stating that he was a top performing camera technician) then surely that is a conflict of interests in the sakes that person is more intent on serving convictions than checking the equipment's accruacy. I wonder if he was on performance related pay?
Calibration of equipment should be done by someone else, separate to the person checking "detected" speeders.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sam Witwicky
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
17
13 November 2015 10:49 AM
Sub-Subaru
General Technical
1
28 September 2015 12:47 PM