In truck and driver magazine this month, a story about a driver being done for speeding,he gets the tacho analysed for court , this shows he was not speeding but the police replied the tacho was not a legal document and he was convicted. Could this case be used in future cases where we are convicted by vosa for hours offences.
yep, they’re legal for use in prosecuting drivers for hours or speeding offences but not legal for defending speeding cases 
Denis F:
yep, they’re legal for use in prosecuting drivers for hours or speeding offences but not legal for defending speeding cases
Ahhh the British legal system - designed by lawyers for lawyers!
Stan
Denis F:
yep, they’re legal for use in prosecuting drivers for hours or speeding offences but not legal for defending speeding cases
I’ve just e-mailed my MP with that question and asked WHY
willie_mac:
In truck and driver magazine this month, a story about a driver being done for speeding,he gets the tacho analysed for court , this shows he was not speeding but the police replied the tacho was not a legal document and he was convicted. Could this case be used in future cases where we are convicted by vosa for hours offences.
Are you quoting correctly? As far as i know the Police don’t make or decide the laws, the court decides this?
willie_mac:
Could this case be used in future cases where we are convicted by vosa for hours offences.
Yes it can be quoted in court, and used as a reference if appearing on charges relating to speeding based on a Tacho Chart.
Regardless what the legal system says, if a past case successfully shows the opposite of what the authorities are saying then you have the right to bring that to the attention of the court, but it is the court who ultimately decides whether it is accepted or not.
Personally if I were awaiting prosecution I would forward a copy of the case to the CPS if they were the prosecuting authority and point out that they cant have their cake and eat it, either its a legal document or its not, there is no in between.
The Driver in this case should appeal the decision on the grounds that a Legal document was provided as evidence and the authorities refused its acceptance in defence, thereby making his case an insecure prosecution.
I am trying to get an appointment with the Transport Minister of Scotland, will keep you informed. I feel at times we dont stick together enough I am only one voice but will have a go at it
willie_mac:
I am trying to get an appointment with the Transport Minister of Scotland, will keep you informed. I feel at times we dont stick together enough I am only one voice but will have a go at it
This is OLD news.
The reason it can’t be used as defence evidence is that a tacho head can be set to the wrong time, or a disc can be wrongly dated, intentionally or not.
Unless you can prove that this was the tacho disc, in the head, on that day and that the time it was set to was correct, then there is no chance of winning an appeal. Your word isn’t sufficient.
Even I can figure out that I can put a disc in the head, after writing the date of the day in question on it, driving to the letter of the law all day and presenting that disc as my evidence that I didn’t commit the offence on the day in question…
This is clearly falsifying a legal document and is an offence in itself.
You don’t have to actually do this, but as it’s so easy to do, you can’t just produce a disc to prove you didn’t commit the alleged offence.
If he can get CCTV footage, and/or dated/timed delivery or collection notes, (or a dated/timed signature on the disc from a road-side check or similar) which backs up his disc, there is a possibility that an appeal might be allowed.
So how about digital tachos Simon?
I confess I don’t use one yet so i’ve no idea if the date/time can be manipulated by the driver.
If it can’t, then maybe we should be careful what we wish for because the police could very easily use the readout to prove cases of speeding on single-carriageway roads.
The time on digital tachos can only be adjusted by plus / minus one minute per week unless a workshop card (only given to approved tacho centres in the UK) is used. However, it is quite possible that the clock could be incorrectly set by the workshop. If the clock is found to be more than 20 minutes adrift from UTC (Universal Time Coordinated, effectively GMT) then the vehicle has to go to a tacho centre for a Periodic Inspection.
The speed data file contained in a VU only has sufficient storage capacity for the last 24 hours of vehicle movement, before it overwrites and the original data is lost. As a NOIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) only has to be posted within 14 days of the offence, the chances of the speed data for the day in question, still being in the VU are virtually non existent.
The question relates to speeding, and in the UK a tacho trace has never been admissable evidence of speeding, meaning you cannot use it as a defence but equally you cannot be prosecuted from it either. As I recall when the tacho was first introduced in 1980 it was left upto each member country to make this decision; here the Home Office together with ACPO decided that they would rather go without the option of prosecuting on tacho evidence alone rather than give the possibilty of a defence to a speeding charge. In France for instance it is different, there you can be prosecuted from the tacho trace, but equally you can use it as a defence.
I used tachos as evidence in defence of my court case in Daventry when a civil servant claimed that I had side swiped his car on the M1 at 5pm.
I had finished driving that day et 3pm.
A tacho expert was in court and confirmed that the tacho was correct as the previous weeks and the week after, all matched up with the trace marks. The expert was able to determine if a ‘false’ tacho had been substituted - he looked at certain start and finish marks on it - beyond me 
The expert said that to fool him, I would have had to falsify at least 2 weeks worth of tachos. I suppose I was lucky that I had the same lorry for those 2 weeks as it would not have been possible for him to use the tacho evidence otherwise.
acd1202:
The question relates to speeding, and in the UK a tacho trace has never been admissable evidence of speeding, meaning you cannot use it as a defence but equally you cannot be prosecuted from it either. As I recall when the tacho was first introduced in 1980 it was left upto each member country to make this decision; here the Home Office together with ACPO decided that they would rather go without the option of prosecuting on tacho evidence alone rather than give the possibilty of a defence to a speeding charge. In France for instance it is different, there you can be prosecuted from the tacho trace, but equally you can use it as a defence.
That is also my understanding of this too.
I know it is true in France because I was fined in Dijon 15 years ago for a speeding offence using previous days tacho and CMR as evidence.
I must remember to pay that fine 
i remember a driver telling me many moons ago that the good old gendarmes fined him for a speeding offence committed in the uk…and used the tacho as evidence.
In relation to my offence…i was caught speeding…the police sent me the camera evidence…the photo of the rear of my trailer…the calibration charts for the camera…but warwick police got too cocky…after i told them i couldnt produce my licence, because it was with the DVLA for renewal…the court decided to teach them a lesson…fined me £60…+ £15 costs ( they wanted £45), and that was all…Nil Points…result !!
A tachograph chart can be used as evidence in court for the purpose of prosecution.
However it may only be presented as secondary evidence not primary.
In other words it can be used to back up the speed camera evidence, But may not be used alone.
…
When the CPS and coppers say “it’s not a legal document”.
Then does that mean we can stop using them?
With a statement like that in court and then agreed to by a judge. Then it should render them useless.