Civilians in camera vans?
Discussion
I got zapped recently by a scamera van - "West Wilts Partnership" or similar on the side.
Very irritating as I was only overtaking and genuinely didn't believe I was breaking any laws, although I imagine that's no defence.
My question is - "partnership" implies police and civilians. Do civilians operate camera vans? How would I find out whether or not this was the case?
If so, the van was parked illegally, so IMHO evidence shouldn't be admissible if it was a civilian, as they don't have the same rights to ignore traffic law in the course of duty.
Anyone got any thoughts pr personal experience on any of those points?
>>> Edited by superstoater on Saturday 12th March 12:33
Very irritating as I was only overtaking and genuinely didn't believe I was breaking any laws, although I imagine that's no defence.
My question is - "partnership" implies police and civilians. Do civilians operate camera vans? How would I find out whether or not this was the case?
If so, the van was parked illegally, so IMHO evidence shouldn't be admissible if it was a civilian, as they don't have the same rights to ignore traffic law in the course of duty.
Anyone got any thoughts pr personal experience on any of those points?
>>> Edited by superstoater on Saturday 12th March 12:33
www.pepipoo.com is the best place if you want to put up a fight 
I have tried to raise the legality question concerning the Vastern Road Talivan in Reading (parked on chevrons behind solid white line, also on double yellows). It appears that the council provide exemption for the vehicle in question - thus making the parking 'legal'. I did however ask the council to send a warden to attend to the vehicle 
The question of civilian operators though is another issue. The BiB on here (especiall StreetCop!) will tell you that a civilian is empowered by the Chief Constable to carry out speed enforcement. However, I believe the law is clear in stating that a policeman can use equipment to back up his professional, prior judgement that a vehicle is speeding. I believe this debate is taking place at pepipoo - so get over there and research it!
The question of civilian operators though is another issue. The BiB on here (especiall StreetCop!) will tell you that a civilian is empowered by the Chief Constable to carry out speed enforcement. However, I believe the law is clear in stating that a policeman can use equipment to back up his professional, prior judgement that a vehicle is speeding. I believe this debate is taking place at pepipoo - so get over there and research it!
puggit said:puggit's spot on here; the local Council usually provide exemptions ofr the camera vans, but even if they were not legally parked (despite the obvious "moral" double standard), I am not sure a challenge against an alleged speeding offence would be successful on this basis. Any locally agreed guidelines about parking/siting are just that, and are not legally binding.
I have tried to raise the legality question ... It appears that the council provide exemption for the vehicle in question - thus making the parking 'legal'...
puggit said:I'll have to agree with puggit on his second sentence here, but disagree with him on the rest of it. The power/authority to operate speed detection equipment comes from s89 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which clearly states:
The question of civilian operators though is another issue. The BiB on here (especiall StreetCop!) will tell you that a civilian is empowered by the Chief Constable to carry out speed enforcement. However, I believe the law is clear in stating that a policeman can use equipment to back up his professional, prior judgement that a vehicle is speeding. I believe this debate is taking place at pepipoo - so get over there and research it!
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides traffic authorities with the authority to regulate traffic within their area. Section 89 of the Act creates an offence of speeding in a motor vehicle. It states:-
89(1) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.
89(2) A person prosecuted for speeding shall not be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the witness's opinion, the person prosecuted was driving at a speed exceeding a specified limit.
Nowhere does it state that the operator has to be a Constable (my italics and bold).
I accept that the use of civilian operators is being challenged, and have even been provided with the name of a case by other PHers where it is claimed this challenge was successful - I think it was at Neath Magistrates' Court. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any details of the case, so can't say whether or not what the findings of the Court were, and what they were based on (ie the offence may have been not proven/overturned, but on other grounds).
If puggit, or anyone else, can provide concrete evidence/judgements on the civilian/PC operator, I'd be happy to consider changing my mond; until then, I'll stick with what I've said above. If you want to challenge this on the civilian operator basis, I'd advise you to consider some professional, specialist, legal advice, not just what you read on here or other web sites.
WRT to Neath:
"Some notes on what was a very interesting day out at Neath Magistrates’ Court.
Firstly, well done to Nigel for having the nerve to ‘have a go’ – most people would have accepted the deal that was offered in the corridor - more on that later.
It was puzzling at the time, why the Crown were so intent on dropping the speeding charge, even though the officer (accompanied by his traffic video) were sitting in the courtroom.
The prosecutor insisted that the Crown would be relying on the case of Mawdesley for the unsigned Form/S 172 prosecution – she had never heard of Jones or of Francis.
I was asked to go into the courtroom for a discussion with the clerk and the prosecutor and then briefed Nigel; who decided not to accept their kind offer of the deal, and to contest the charges.
The trial commenced and the Crown immediately withdrew the speeding charge - it was getting interesting – why had they done that, after all, ‘the deal’ had not been accepted?
The prosecutor started to read out the S9 statement, referring to the officer as “Mr” and, cutting a long story short, it turned out that he was a civilian and not a police officer. The magistrates were sent out, and a protracted discussion took place between the clerk, the prosecutor and myself and here is a summary:
1) They argued for ages that the civilian operator argument was irrelevant because the speeding charge had been withdrawn – I was having none of it.
2) Then they tried to argue that none of the precedent in Wilkinson was relevant, because it was “old” and set before the Safety Camera Partnerships were formed.
3) They asked me to provide precedent that said that a civilian was not authorised, so I quoted the case of the Commander as persuasive precedent that a civilian was not authorised, and here is the interesting part: a clerk to Neath Magistrates’ Court finally admitted that he knew of the Commander’s case.
4) I then said it was not for us to provide precedent, but rather for the Crown to show the relevant amendment to statute that authorised and empowered a civilian to offer the primary evidence in a speeding prosecution? Which, of course, they were not able to do. The nearest we go to it was when I referred to the Police Reform Act 2002; saying that they forgotten to mention “Safety Camera Officers” and the clerk replied: “perhaps they are considered as ‘investigating officers’”.
5) Finally, we pointed out, and showed the clerk and prosecutor the following precedent in Wilkinson, and said that we would be relying on it.
”Wilkinson 6.81
The decision in Kent v Stamps should be compared with that in Barton v Gilbert [1984] R.T.R. 162. The court held that the mere opinion of a driver as to this speed provided no evidential basis to cast doubt on the reading provided by the speed testing equipment. The decision is not easy to follow in that the court apparently accepted a similar opinion by the police officer as to the speed and regarded the radar machine as corroborating it.”
"
"Some notes on what was a very interesting day out at Neath Magistrates’ Court.
Firstly, well done to Nigel for having the nerve to ‘have a go’ – most people would have accepted the deal that was offered in the corridor - more on that later.
It was puzzling at the time, why the Crown were so intent on dropping the speeding charge, even though the officer (accompanied by his traffic video) were sitting in the courtroom.
The prosecutor insisted that the Crown would be relying on the case of Mawdesley for the unsigned Form/S 172 prosecution – she had never heard of Jones or of Francis.
I was asked to go into the courtroom for a discussion with the clerk and the prosecutor and then briefed Nigel; who decided not to accept their kind offer of the deal, and to contest the charges.
The trial commenced and the Crown immediately withdrew the speeding charge - it was getting interesting – why had they done that, after all, ‘the deal’ had not been accepted?
The prosecutor started to read out the S9 statement, referring to the officer as “Mr” and, cutting a long story short, it turned out that he was a civilian and not a police officer. The magistrates were sent out, and a protracted discussion took place between the clerk, the prosecutor and myself and here is a summary:
1) They argued for ages that the civilian operator argument was irrelevant because the speeding charge had been withdrawn – I was having none of it.
2) Then they tried to argue that none of the precedent in Wilkinson was relevant, because it was “old” and set before the Safety Camera Partnerships were formed.
3) They asked me to provide precedent that said that a civilian was not authorised, so I quoted the case of the Commander as persuasive precedent that a civilian was not authorised, and here is the interesting part: a clerk to Neath Magistrates’ Court finally admitted that he knew of the Commander’s case.
4) I then said it was not for us to provide precedent, but rather for the Crown to show the relevant amendment to statute that authorised and empowered a civilian to offer the primary evidence in a speeding prosecution? Which, of course, they were not able to do. The nearest we go to it was when I referred to the Police Reform Act 2002; saying that they forgotten to mention “Safety Camera Officers” and the clerk replied: “perhaps they are considered as ‘investigating officers’”.
5) Finally, we pointed out, and showed the clerk and prosecutor the following precedent in Wilkinson, and said that we would be relying on it.
”Wilkinson 6.81
The decision in Kent v Stamps should be compared with that in Barton v Gilbert [1984] R.T.R. 162. The court held that the mere opinion of a driver as to this speed provided no evidential basis to cast doubt on the reading provided by the speed testing equipment. The decision is not easy to follow in that the court apparently accepted a similar opinion by the police officer as to the speed and regarded the radar machine as corroborating it.”
"
dont forget magistrates decisions are not legally binding, i.e in terms of precedent. Would obviously be persuasive, but its decision would not be binding.
same goes for crown court (but would be unusual for a speeding or any trivial motoring charge to be heard here). Only exception in the Crown Court where solid precedent can be created is when a "High Court" judge is sitting.
same goes for crown court (but would be unusual for a speeding or any trivial motoring charge to be heard here). Only exception in the Crown Court where solid precedent can be created is when a "High Court" judge is sitting.
Just called the helpline and they say that the camera vans are run by a combination of police officers and civilians. Although they do have the information on file, they are not prepared to tell me either over the phone or in writing which one it was - hiding behind the Data Protection Act here (this is surely cobblers). To find this information I will need to go to court. The question is, by doing so am I potentially letting myself in for a more severe points penalty or is it just a matter of cost? The other question is - can I now use the above case as precedent if it turns out that it was a civilian?
EDIT - scrub precedent question, posting overlapped with previous post - thanks for the info.
>> Edited by superstoater on Friday 11th March 14:09
EDIT - scrub precedent question, posting overlapped with previous post - thanks for the info.
>> Edited by superstoater on Friday 11th March 14:09
was under the impression requests under the data protection act were only pertinant about information "concerning" yourself. I cant see why it would be "exempt under this act".
Request the info under FOI 2000, or at the least ask them to confirm or deny if the information you are seeking is held under this statute. if they dont dislose and quote an exemption, find out if the exemption stated is qualified (public interest test MUST HAVE BEEN DONE, and in this case I would personally go for the jugular here and find this out asap) or "absolute" (in which case you wont get it).
Request the info under FOI 2000, or at the least ask them to confirm or deny if the information you are seeking is held under this statute. if they dont dislose and quote an exemption, find out if the exemption stated is qualified (public interest test MUST HAVE BEEN DONE, and in this case I would personally go for the jugular here and find this out asap) or "absolute" (in which case you wont get it).
cuneus said:
WRT to Neath:
"Some notes on what was a very interesting day out at Neath Magistrates’ Court.
Firstly, well done to Nigel for having the nerve to ‘have a go’ – most people would have accepted the deal that was offered in the corridor - more on that later.
It was puzzling at the time, why the Crown were so intent on dropping the speeding charge, even though the officer (accompanied by his traffic video) were sitting in the courtroom.
The prosecutor insisted that the Crown would be relying on the case of Mawdesley for the unsigned Form/S 172 prosecution – she had never heard of Jones or of Francis.
I was asked to go into the courtroom for a discussion with the clerk and the prosecutor and then briefed Nigel; who decided not to accept their kind offer of the deal, and to contest the charges.
The trial commenced and the Crown immediately withdrew the speeding charge - it was getting interesting – why had they done that, after all, ‘the deal’ had not been accepted?
The prosecutor started to read out the S9 statement, referring to the officer as “Mr” and, cutting a long story short, it turned out that he was a civilian and not a police officer. The magistrates were sent out, and a protracted discussion took place between the clerk, the prosecutor and myself and here is a summary:
1) They argued for ages that the civilian operator argument was irrelevant because the speeding charge had been withdrawn – I was having none of it.
2) Then they tried to argue that none of the precedent in Wilkinson was relevant, because it was “old” and set before the Safety Camera Partnerships were formed.
3) They asked me to provide precedent that said that a civilian was not authorised, so I quoted the case of the Commander as persuasive precedent that a civilian was not authorised, and here is the interesting part: a clerk to Neath Magistrates’ Court finally admitted that he knew of the Commander’s case.
4) I then said it was not for us to provide precedent, but rather for the Crown to show the relevant amendment to statute that authorised and empowered a civilian to offer the primary evidence in a speeding prosecution? Which, of course, they were not able to do. The nearest we go to it was when I referred to the Police Reform Act 2002; saying that they forgotten to mention “Safety Camera Officers” and the clerk replied: “perhaps they are considered as ‘investigating officers’”.
5) Finally, we pointed out, and showed the clerk and prosecutor the following precedent in Wilkinson, and said that we would be relying on it.
”Wilkinson 6.81
The decision in Kent v Stamps should be compared with that in Barton v Gilbert [1984] R.T.R. 162. The court held that the mere opinion of a driver as to this speed provided no evidential basis to cast doubt on the reading provided by the speed testing equipment. The decision is not easy to follow in that the court apparently accepted a similar opinion by the police officer as to the speed and regarded the radar machine as corroborating it.”
"
C
I am somewhat confused by your post.
What was he charged with. You imply fail to name as 172 form unsigned.?
If it was unsigned then they could not go ahead with a speeding charge as they did not have evidence as to who was the driver. Signed 172 fills this gap.
Re "the Commander" case. Like Dibble I have yet to come up with a High Court precedent that authorised civilians cannot operate a camera. If it originates from a Mags Court then such a decision is not binding, but can be commented upon. Many trot out the "Hamilton defence" as to who was driving. But as far as I am aware this never reached High Court and it was a decision by Mags who accepted that the Hamiltons did not know who had been the driver, a defence which is present in the Act.
DVD
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff