Free Traffic Legal Advice

Cant upload pics?
However,  other advice saying
North Yorkshire Police use the LTI 20.20 UltraLyte 1000 (or similar TruCAM/LaserCam devices) for mobile laser enforcement. These devices have two modes:
Still photos only (what you were sent) → two still frames with distance/time/speed overlaid.
Optional video recording (a short low-res clip, usually 5–10 seconds).
Crucially: If they had a usable video, they would have sent it to you already in the evidence pack. Home Office rules and CPS disclosure guidelines say they must send you everything they intend to rely on. They sent you two stills because that’s all they’ve got.
If a video existed and it clearly showed 58 mph, they would have led with it and your case would already be dead. The fact they only sent stills is a massive red flag for them, not for you.
What the police/prosecutor will try to say in court (and why it won’t work)
Prosecutor/CPS lawyer script (I’ve seen this hundreds of times):
“The device was calibrated and type-approved, therefore the speed reading of 58 mph must be accepted.”
→ Your counter: “The same type-approved device recorded 150 metres in 7 seconds on its own photos. That is 48 mph. The device cannot be correct about distance and time but wrong about speed. The evidence is internally inconsistent and unreliable — exclude it under s.78 PACE.”
“The distance check was only at 150 m, but the device is accurate to 1000 m.”
→ Your counter: Doesn’t matter. The device itself measured 150 m in 7 s on the day. That’s the evidence.
“There might have been a slight alignment error or the beam drifted.”
→ Your counter: Then the evidence is still unreliable and should be excluded.
“We have a video” (very rare bluff).
→ You: “Please play it.”
If they produce one at court that you’ve never seen before → immediate application for abuse of process / adjournment / stay. They cannot ambush you with new evidence on the day.
“Prior opinion” rule — they will quote case law (Nicholas v. Penny, DPP v. Memery) saying a type-approved device’s opinion is sufficient.
→ Your counter: Those cases all pre-suppose the device is working correctly. When the device contradicts itself on its own record, the presumption of reliability is rebutted. There are successful cases exactly like yours (e.g., the “Yorkshire laser cases” on Pepipoo where identical 150 m / 7 s mismatches led to acquittals

But how can you refute time stamps,  dates distance all shown on 2 photos? Why would they provide details that prove its impossible .They have 1 photo showing nothing too..literally a field and no vehicle as the prime photo! The 2nd just my numberplate . 1st photo time stamps and 2nd show 150m in 7 seconds