Direct Communications Unit

2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF

Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035 4742

E-mail: [Home Office request email] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Mr Dennis Fallon

174 Cateswell RoadSparkhillBirminghamB11 3DY

Reference: T3139.9, T259.9, T2561.9 & T9905.0

[FOI #5821 email]

Mr Dennis Fallon

26 June 2009

Dear Mr Fallon

I write further to my letters of 19 February and 6 March 2009 regarding your repeat and follow-up letters of 6, 10, 22 January and 10 and 18 February and a further repeat letter of 15 June 2009 respectively. My apologies for the length of time it has taken for the clearance of this response to be forwarded to you. My letter will provide you with a response to your request for information as set out below and will also answer the other queries contained in your follow-up letters dated above not covered by FoI. In your letter of 18 February 2009 I have identified your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) 2000 as follows:

“….,under FOI please provide a hard copy of ALL Information PROVIDED TO the Home Office, regarding dummy cameras and cameras never being triggered by vehicles travelling in the opposite direction(especially identifying the source of this information),and please supply any correspondence where the fact that camera radar can be tripped from over 100 metres in the wrong direction has been discussed. If it has not been discussed it means the type approval process has been negligent…..”

In response to your question, I can say that the Home Office is not in possession of any documents pertaining to Dummy devices as they are not subject to type approval; we do not hold any information on them and there no correspondence relating to a camera being tripped from over 100m in the "wrong" direction. Any camera device that does not produce recorded evidence of speed readings for prosecutions would be a Dummy device. Such devices do not require type approval and as such are not subject to testing under the Home Office type approval process. It follows therefore that for such devices there are no records, test data and / or information held by the Home Office.

If you are dissatisfied with this response as set out above in relation to your question you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting your complaint quoting reference: 11156 to the address below within 2 months of this letter:

Information Policy Team
Information and Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Email: [email address]

During the independent review the department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.

In keeping with the spirit and effect of the Freedom of Information Act, all information is assumed to be releasable to the public unless exempt. The department therefore, will be simultaneously releasing to the public the information you requested together with any related information that will provide a key to its wider context.

Various issues not covered by FoI in your correspondence

I will now address the points of your correspondence not covered by FoIA. Firstly, I should make it clear that I and other Home Office staff are unable to comment directly on the particular aspects of your court case as you have related in your letters and correspondence; the matter has already been the subject of court proceedings. However, I can explain that if you were flashed by a live and / or type approved Gatso Speedmeter device relating to a camera being tripped from over 100m in the "wrong" direction and, designated to monitor receding traffic, then, as I have stated in previous correspondence to you, the particular device was either malfunctioning at the time (activated outside of its type approval) or it would have been a dummy device and in which case you should not have been prosecuted. In either case we do not believe in such circumstances that a court would have convicted and fined you for such an incident. If in the event a court has convicted you, then you have the option to appeal your case to a higher court with the relevant evidence that can support your claim. You may also have the right to request an explanation from the chief officer of police of the force area concerned where you say you were recorded in violation of the speed limit as there may be a case to answer for operating a defective device at the time of your case.

I have covered all the points of your letters and I have nothing further to add on this subject.

Yours sincerely

Sammy Jegede