New threat to speed cameras
Discussion
it seem there may be chance that employing civilian operators on 'safety cameras' may actually be illegal......
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0
imbecile said:
Even if he's right, the lower courts will surely find against him. Are mags even allowed to decide things like this? Certainly any decision they make cannot be used as precedent.
If there is no law to support the position then the mags would in theory be forced to throw the prosecution out, as having no basis in law. Once that happens, every other case will follow precedent and all prosecuted drivers will be clogging up the system to get their money back. Suspect the Govt would introduce a new law and make it retrospective, contrary to the rule of law, but in line with the rule of making as much money as possible from drivers.
This loophole has always been there and was commented upon by me here at least three years ago. However those with no knowledge of what I said dismissed it and the resident Plods at that time who were happy to hand out advice to all and sundry, suddenly went quiet when challenged to quote the specific piece of Road Traffic Legislation to which I refered.
Also at that time I informed Pepipoo.
The problem with loopholes is that when they become common knowlege they are often then closed, and so I have kept this information to myself just in case I needed it.
There are also other 'loopholes' in relation to the legality of imposed speed limits which are local.
I suspect that the number of people being illegally prosecuted in this country for one reason or another for motoring offences, on a daily basis is quite enormous.
For example people are sometimes prosecuted for speeding on motorways by use of radar from bridges where there is no continuity of evidence, which makes the prosecution illegal, but if policemen choose to do this, what chance has a member of the public got of challengin it?
Also at that time I informed Pepipoo.
The problem with loopholes is that when they become common knowlege they are often then closed, and so I have kept this information to myself just in case I needed it.
There are also other 'loopholes' in relation to the legality of imposed speed limits which are local.
I suspect that the number of people being illegally prosecuted in this country for one reason or another for motoring offences, on a daily basis is quite enormous.
For example people are sometimes prosecuted for speeding on motorways by use of radar from bridges where there is no continuity of evidence, which makes the prosecution illegal, but if policemen choose to do this, what chance has a member of the public got of challengin it?
Edited by MutiMuti on Tuesday 24th October 19:02
Hmm, be interesting to know exactly what his defence was.
This speed camera thing is a huge bone of contention, all the rights that your common thieves and burglars are accorded are thrown out the window when it comes to speeding/camera prosecution. The authorities daren't administer the law as it should be administered because the basic truth is that it would then be very difficult indeed to prosecute motorists for these offence, and we couldn't have that could we.
The people who are being persecuted are not burglars etc they're genuine Joe Public and it really is a disgrace. Many Plod even will voice this opinion privately because unlike in the old days there are no favours given to their own now (which must be a good thing)
This speed camera thing is a huge bone of contention, all the rights that your common thieves and burglars are accorded are thrown out the window when it comes to speeding/camera prosecution.
The authorities daren't administer the law as it should be administered because the basic truth is that it would then be very difficult indeed to prosecute motorists for these offence, and we couldn't have that could we. The people who are being persecuted are not burglars etc they're genuine Joe Public and it really is a disgrace.
Many Plod even will voice this opinion privately because unlike in the old days there are no favours given to their own now (which must be a good thing)Lets not forget that for speeding cases the magistrates cannot be seen as impartial observers of the law - they are founding members of the 'safety partnerships', and as such have a vested interest in not finding this defendant as innocent.
For this case to get anywhere it must proceed to higher places
For this case to get anywhere it must proceed to higher places
Bit more explanation, and news of an appeal 
www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk
I would assume as a golf course manager that some of his clients could help with costs
www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk
thisiswiltshire said:
Landmark speeding case thrown out
By Lewis Cowen
Golf course manager Richard Hussey is to appeal to the High Court in London after he was saddled with fines and costs of over £1,300 for speeding.
Mr Hussey's case is being seen as a test as to whether civilian police workers can operate speed cameras legally or whether they have to be manned by police officers.
Mr Hussey was caught on camera travelling at 48mph on the A361 at Southwick, near Trowbridge, on the afternoon of July 8 last year.
continued...
His case was taken up by Mike Morgan from Corsham, who has a website www.pepipoo.com which seeks justice for drivers caught speeding on static cameras.
Mr Morgan's main case is that the evidence of Peter Cowdray, the civilian police camera operator who caught Mr Hussey speeding, was not admissible in court because only a warrant-holding police officer was legally allowed to decide whether a motorist was speeding before sighting the speed camera on his vehicle.
Presiding magistrate Stephen Brazier said he and his two colleagues took the Crown's opinion that the law only required a witness and corroboration to be proved and that there never had been a statutory provision where this power was reserved to police officers alone.
Mr Hussey's appeal is successful, it will have major implications for road policing and could result in many cases of motorists claiming back fines and costs.
By Lewis Cowen
Golf course manager Richard Hussey is to appeal to the High Court in London after he was saddled with fines and costs of over £1,300 for speeding.
Mr Hussey's case is being seen as a test as to whether civilian police workers can operate speed cameras legally or whether they have to be manned by police officers.
Mr Hussey was caught on camera travelling at 48mph on the A361 at Southwick, near Trowbridge, on the afternoon of July 8 last year.
continued...
His case was taken up by Mike Morgan from Corsham, who has a website www.pepipoo.com which seeks justice for drivers caught speeding on static cameras.
Mr Morgan's main case is that the evidence of Peter Cowdray, the civilian police camera operator who caught Mr Hussey speeding, was not admissible in court because only a warrant-holding police officer was legally allowed to decide whether a motorist was speeding before sighting the speed camera on his vehicle.
Presiding magistrate Stephen Brazier said he and his two colleagues took the Crown's opinion that the law only required a witness and corroboration to be proved and that there never had been a statutory provision where this power was reserved to police officers alone.
Mr Hussey's appeal is successful, it will have major implications for road policing and could result in many cases of motorists claiming back fines and costs.
I would assume as a golf course manager that some of his clients could help with costs
So, does the Law only require a witness and corroboration?
I find this hard to believe.
If I'm driving along and believe the car in front to be travelling at 35mph in the 30 limit, am I then entitled to check my speedometer and "grass him up"?.
(Hypothetical case, you understand).
Surely not. If a Policeman were driving under the same circumstances, I'd accept his report.
I find this hard to believe.
If I'm driving along and believe the car in front to be travelling at 35mph in the 30 limit, am I then entitled to check my speedometer and "grass him up"?.
(Hypothetical case, you understand).
Surely not. If a Policeman were driving under the same circumstances, I'd accept his report.
MutiMuti said:
This loophole has always been there and was commented upon by me here at least three years ago. However those with no knowledge of what I said dismissed it and the resident Plods at that time who were happy to hand out advice to all and sundry, suddenly went quiet when challenged to quote the specific piece of Road Traffic Legislation to which I refered.
Also at that time I informed Pepipoo.
The problem with loopholes is that when they become common knowlege they are often then closed, and so I have kept this information to myself just in case I needed it.
There are also other 'loopholes' in relation to the legality of imposed speed limits which are local.
I suspect that the number of people being illegally prosecuted in this country for one reason or another for motoring offences, on a daily basis is quite enormous.
For example people are sometimes prosecuted for speeding on motorways by use of radar from bridges where there is no continuity of evidence, which makes the prosecution illegal, but if policemen choose to do this, what chance has a member of the public got of challengin it?
Also at that time I informed Pepipoo.
The problem with loopholes is that when they become common knowlege they are often then closed, and so I have kept this information to myself just in case I needed it.
There are also other 'loopholes' in relation to the legality of imposed speed limits which are local.
I suspect that the number of people being illegally prosecuted in this country for one reason or another for motoring offences, on a daily basis is quite enormous.
For example people are sometimes prosecuted for speeding on motorways by use of radar from bridges where there is no continuity of evidence, which makes the prosecution illegal, but if policemen choose to do this, what chance has a member of the public got of challengin it?
Edited by MutiMuti on Tuesday 24th October 19:02
Oh MM, I am empathically tuned to your words.
I grow tired of the emotion of utter certainty born of bitter experience and legal study, being trampled and washed away by the entities within the law who are clearly incompetent and ill founded and, most importantly, politically driven and "correct".
When will it end?
puggit said:
Paul Smith said:
This bizarre ruling opens the floodgates for members of the public to accuse one another of speeding offences. The law has truly made an ass of itself. I trust that the defence will appeal.
Very true
These are not people setting up their own speed checks. They are people working for the police and trained to operate speed enforcement equipment.
herewego said:
puggit said:
Paul Smith said:
This bizarre ruling opens the floodgates for members of the public to accuse one another of speeding offences. The law has truly made an ass of itself. I trust that the defence will appeal.
Very true
These are not people setting up their own speed checks. They are people working for the police and trained to operate speed enforcement equipment.
But how are they trained and qualified to form an impression that a vehicle is breaking the speed limit before then using that speed enforcement equipment to corroborate that impression?
In a country where you're not allowed to defend yourself in your own home, but yet the state sees fit to allow citizens powers to shop people for speeding, it's nothing but selective vigilanteism driven by financially perpetuated dogma and embraced by foolish do-gooder NIMBYs.
Shocking.
Nick_F said:
herewego said:
puggit said:
Paul Smith said:
This bizarre ruling opens the floodgates for members of the public to accuse one another of speeding offences. The law has truly made an ass of itself. I trust that the defence will appeal.
Very true
These are not people setting up their own speed checks. They are people working for the police and trained to operate speed enforcement equipment.
But how are they trained and qualified to form an impression that a vehicle is breaking the speed limit before then using that speed enforcement equipment to corroborate that impression?
I don't know. How are the police themselves so trained? Hopefully a police officer will pop in and tell us.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff