LTI camera type approval corroboration
Published 22 August 2013
© Crown copyright 2013
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lti-camera-type-approval-corroboration/lti-camera-type-approval-corroboration
FOI release 26894
1.All LTI 20.20 type approval orders are in the public domain, and so this information is exempted by section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. As a service, however, we list on the attached document the names of the ministers who signed the LTI 20.20 orders and the dates on which they were signed:
| Device | Date order signed | Minister signing |
|---|---|---|
| LTI 20/20 TS/M “Speedscope” | 16/10/1993 | Michael Howard |
| LTI 20/20 Ultralyte 100 | 07/07/1999 | Paul Boateng |
| LTI 20/20 Ultralyte 1000 | 06/12/2007 | Vernon Coaker |
| LTI 20/20 TruSpeed DC Laser | 13/12/2010 | James Brokenshire |
| LTI 20/20 TruCAM | 07/02/2012 | Nick Herbert |
2.The Home Office does not require the foregoing laser speed meters to be attached to recording devices. The LTI 20.20 TruCAM has an integral video recorder.
3.The routine provision of photographic or video evidence to alleged offenders is not compulsory. The evidence as to their speeding is that of a speed measurement, not a photograph or a video.
The function of the camera within the enforcement device is to record that the vehicle whose registered keeper has been sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) was in the place alleged on the date and at the time alleged. It may also show the person driving, but is not designed for that purpose, and in that context may only perhaps be useful to help the NIP recipient recall who was driving.
The evidence relied on in court is the actual measurement taken by the speed enforcement device.
There are cost and other implications (eg data protection) to the provision of photographic or video evidence and to provide them routinely may have limited benefits. This is a matter for decision by individual chief officers of police.
4.As stated in the response to Question 3, the speed measurement itself is the evidence. These laser speedmeters are normally operated by police officers who will make a note of the speed measurement and other observations in a pocket notebook or on a fixed penalty notice pad or both. The LTI 20.20 TruCAM, however, also records a video clip onto an SD card, and this SD card may be used in place of a pocket notebook.
5.The Home Office does not explicitly prohibit use of laser devices through closed windows or from moving vehicles. Officers, however, are expected to consider the guidance offered in the ACPO document Guide for the operational use of speed and red-light offence detection technology which advises against the use of laser speedmeters through glass or plastic screens, and only describes usage from a fixed point on the side of the road.