Using dashcam footage for a prosecution

[JNW1]

Saw an online article the other day in What Car? about the increased use of dashcam footage by the police to secure prosecutions for various motoring offences. All interesting stuff but one point which wasn't covered was whether there's a time limit within which a NIP has to be issued if dashcam evidence is to be used; does the same 14 day rule apply as with, say, safety cameras or is a different criteria used for dashcam footage (and if so what?).

[Durzel]

Same rules (including exceptions) apply as per safety cameras.

[JNW1]

Durzel said:

Same rules (including exceptions) apply as per safety cameras.

Thanks, makes sense! Logically if someone was seriously offended by something they'd witnessed they'd submit any available dashcam evidence as soon as they could (probably within 24 hours) and hence it's not unreasonable to think that would be reviewed - and if appropriate a NIP issued - within 14 days of the incident.

[agtlaw]

See R v R [2012] EWCA Crim 2887:

In a case where the name and address of a defendant or registered keeper cannot be ascertained with reasonable diligence then s. 2(3)(a) RTOA 1988 applies. If an offence was unknown to the police then "reasonable diligence" could not have established any name or address. In such circumstances there was no requirement to serve a notice of intended prosecution under section 1(1) RTOA 1988 within 14 days of the commission of the offence. The requirement to serve a notice was disapplied and there was also no need to serve one within 14 days of the offence being brought to the attention of the police.

Obiter:

Insofar as the respondent may be prejudiced by the delay and the lack of early notification of the impending prosecution, he remains protected via abuse of process proceedings, the fair trial provision under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the provisions of section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in relation to the prosecution seeking to adduce evidence such as the DVD evidence. As part of any such consideration the court would have to consider whether he was informed promptly of the nature and cause of the action against him and any prejudice that was caused to him by reason of any delay.

Edited by agtlaw on Monday 30th November 15:43

[Richard-D]

JNW1 said:

Durzel said:

Same rules (including exceptions) apply as per safety cameras.

Thanks, makes sense! Logically if someone was seriously offended by something they'd witnessed they'd submit any available dashcam evidence as soon as they could (probably within 24 hours) and hence it's not unreasonable to think that would be reviewed - and if appropriate a NIP issued - within 14 days of the incident.

Surely it would make more sense that any potential time limit could only be applied from when the police became aware of the incident? It's not about how 'offended' someone was, but how illegal the manoeuvre was.

It appears that AGT has given the real requirements though, which doesn't seem to align with what either of us thinks is reasonable

[JNW1]

agtlaw]See R v R [2012 said:

EWCA Crim 2887:

In a case where the name and address of a defendant or registered keeper cannot be ascertained with reasonable diligence then s. 2(3)(a) RTOA 1988 applies. If an offence was unknown to the police then "reasonable diligence" could not have established any name or address. In such circumstances there was no requirement to serve a notice of intended prosecution under section 1(1) RTOA 1988 within 14 days of the commission of the offence. The requirement to serve a notice was disapplied and there was also no need to serve one within 14 days of the offence being brought to the attention of the police.

Thanks but presumably that's again the same as with a NIP generated with evidence from a safety camera?

I suppose what I was getting at with my original question was whether someone could decide, say, a month after witnessing an incident to submit dashcam evidence and someone could then be prosecuted on the back of that; if I understand correctly it sounds like the answer's "no"?

[agtlaw]

JNW1 said:

Thanks but presumably that's again the same as with a NIP generated with evidence from a safety camera?

I suppose what I was getting at with my original question was whether someone could decide, say, a month after witnessing an incident to submit dashcam evidence and someone could then be prosecuted on the back of that; if I understand correctly it sounds like the answer's "no"?

If you mean a speed camera then no. The position is completely different with a speed camera (whether automatic or manned) as absent unusual circumstances the police prosecutor can't say the name or RK could not be ascertained within 14 days exercising reasonable diligence.

Second question - you understand incorrectly. Try reading my previous post again.

[Richard-D]

I think AGT has said that they can submit it as late as they like and the police can still prosecute.

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

I suppose what I was getting at with my original question was whether someone could decide, say, a month after witnessing an incident to submit dashcam evidence and someone could then be prosecuted on the back of that; if I understand correctly it sounds like the answer's "no"?

The answer is 'yes'.

The police can't be 'reasonably diligent' with something they don't know about.


Edit. I see it's been clarified.

[JNW1]

agtlaw said:

JNW1 said:

Thanks but presumably that's again the same as with a NIP generated with evidence from a safety camera?

I suppose what I was getting at with my original question was whether someone could decide, say, a month after witnessing an incident to submit dashcam evidence and someone could then be prosecuted on the back of that; if I understand correctly it sounds like the answer's "no"?

If you mean a speed camera then no. The position is completely different with a speed camera (whether automatic or manned) as absent unusual circumstances the police prosecutor can't say the name or RK could not be ascertained within 14 days exercising reasonable diligence.

Second question - you understand incorrectly. Try reading my previous post again.

Second question - I've read your previous post again and apologies, my mistake!

So a supplementary question, does that mean there's no time limit for submitting dashcam footage for use as evidence in a prosecution or is there a period of time from the date of an offence within which the police have to commence proceedings? If the latter presumably footage arriving after that period has elapsed is no good to them?

[anonymous-user]

Most traffic matters are 'summary only' offences, which means the information must be laid within 6 months.

More serious offences don't have a limitation.

Although with something that doesn't expire but still needs an NIP e.g. dangerous driving, I expect the part where AGT mentions 'abuse of process' become increasingly relevant as more time passes by.

[agtlaw]

As a general rule, criminal proceedings for summary-only offences (e.g. speeding and careless driving) must be instituted within 6 months of the index offence. There are, however, a few exceptions to the general rule; see section 6 and schedule 1 RTOA 1988. E.g. No insurance. 6m from knowledge subject to 3 years from offence.

'Laying an information' is not particularly relevant in 2020 as proceedings for summary-only road traffic offences are usually commenced by:

- issuing a written charge and postal requisition; or (more often)
- issuing a written charge and SJPN

There is no time limit to institute proceedings for indictable offences (e.g. dangerous driving) or indictable-only offences (e.g. causing death by dangerous driving).

[JNW1]

agtlaw said:

As a general rule, criminal proceedings for summary-only offences (e.g. speeding and careless driving) must be instituted within 6 months of the index offence. There are, however, a few exceptions to the general rule; see section 6 and schedule 1 RTOA 1988. E.g. No insurance. 6m from knowledge subject to 3 years from offence.

'Laying an information' is not particularly relevant in 2020 as proceedings for summary-only road traffic offences are usually commenced by:

- issuing a written charge and postal requisition; or (more often)
- issuing a written charge and SJPN

There is no time limit to institute proceedings for indictable offences (e.g. dangerous driving) or indictable-only offences (e.g. causing death by dangerous driving).

Thanks to you and La Liga!

In practice I guess the time limit is unlikely to become an issue in many cases as anyone motivated enough to submit dashcam footage as evidence would, I suspect, do so quite quickly after the event. I'd have thought the police would also appreciate prompt submission of evidence and their websites will therefore tend to encourage that?