Could all previous prosecutions resulting from speed cameras be deemed invalid?
It boils down to whether the cameras have had device-specific statutory instruments passed through the legislature -- and if not, whether any prosecutions based on the use of those devices is legal. It appears that the cameras may not legally exist -- and could mean that all speeding prosecutions based on their use have been illegally obtained.
In what founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign Paul Smith described as "an interesting new challenge to speed camera evidence", Robbie the Pict has revealed an apparent flaw in the authorisation procedure for certain speed cameras. Robbie the Pict is the campaigner who overturned the Skye Bridge Tolls.
The flaw concerns the procedure that must be used to authorise devices. It appears that certain cameras have never been correctly authorised. On initial examination, according to Smith, it does appear that the flaw suggested exists, and may render unsafe convictions stretching as far back as 1992.
Smith said: "This flaw could force camera partnerships to repay literally millions of fines. The total bill could be hundreds of millions.
"Having spent thousands of hours examining the overall road safety effects of speed cameras, I am absolutely certain that they make the roads more dangerous.
It's long overdue that this failed policy was abandoned and if this flaw brings matters to a head we'll all be better off.
"We have had 13 years of speed cameras on UK roads, and have suffered by far the worst decade in the history of motoring in terms of road safety improvements. I am certain that 'bad policy' based on speed cameras is to blame. Department for Transport is in abject denial about the failure of its policies."
Links
![](data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 4 3"%3E%3C/svg%3E)
![](data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 1 1"%3E%3C/svg%3E)