Quick question re scamera van staff
Discussion
I seem to recall people saying that only police officers are "able" to form an opinion of speeding and then use their camera to back up their opinion. Therefore, a civilian is not authorised to form that opinion and so cannot staff a camera van.
But I also recall many people mentioning that camera vans are staffed by civilians.
So:
1. can a civilian legitimately staff a camera van?
2. if not, do the courts take account of this?
Thank you.
But I also recall many people mentioning that camera vans are staffed by civilians.
So:
1. can a civilian legitimately staff a camera van?
2. if not, do the courts take account of this?
Thank you.
Peter, there's a thread at the mo called "let the fun begin" by gilbertd, this is a quote from there:
Surely if the operator was a civilian then the Speeding charge falls down on the "qualified person" defence. This is where a "qualified person" which Judges always take to be a "POLICE OFFICER" must make a judgement that the speed needs to be checked. If the civilian was by themselves then a Judge will not accept their Judgement as evidence.
I've seen this suggested a number of times, but it doesn't ring true with me. There may be case law somewhere that does cover it, but none that I have found. The operator was a 'Safety Camera Operator' employed by Bedfordshire Police. As such, I would expect to find that he is a suitably authorised officer, with equivalent powers to a police office but only in a limited field. In much the same way as Traffic Wardens, Police Community Support Officers, Special Constables, Highways Agency Traffic officers, etc, all have authority to carry out certain limited duties on behalf of the Chief Constable.
My guess is gilbertd is correct. If you challenged it in court I think they would come up with that answer. Of course in reality the civilian scamera operators film anything that moves, they don't form a prior opinion and that's for sure. But how can you prove that? Get hold of one of their continuous videos?
gilbertd said:
telecat said:
Surely if the operator was a civilian then the Speeding charge falls down on the "qualified person" defence. This is where a "qualified person" which Judges always take to be a "POLICE OFFICER" must make a judgement that the speed needs to be checked. If the civilian was by themselves then a Judge will not accept their Judgement as evidence.
I've seen this suggested a number of times, but it doesn't ring true with me. There may be case law somewhere that does cover it, but none that I have found. The operator was a 'Safety Camera Operator' employed by Bedfordshire Police. As such, I would expect to find that he is a suitably authorised officer, with equivalent powers to a police office but only in a limited field. In much the same way as Traffic Wardens, Police Community Support Officers, Special Constables, Highways Agency Traffic officers, etc, all have authority to carry out certain limited duties on behalf of the Chief Constable.
My guess is gilbertd is correct. If you challenged it in court I think they would come up with that answer. Of course in reality the civilian scamera operators film anything that moves, they don't form a prior opinion and that's for sure. But how can you prove that? Get hold of one of their continuous videos?
Edited by deeps on Saturday 16th September 02:05
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff