RE: Landmark speeding case goes to court
Wednesday 25th October 2006
If the cops don't nab you speeding, then -- increasingly -- a local 'speedwatch' civilian will. But maybe that's about to change -- and it could cost the Government a lot of money in returned fines.
Landmark speeding case goes to court
Is the use of civilians with scameras illegal?
A businessman is challenging a speeding penalty charge on the basis that the civilian wielding the speed camera on which the charge is based was unqualified to take an initial view on whether or not he was speeding. He argues that a police officer is both trained and is empowered in law to do that, while civilians are not.
The case is based on a loophole in the Police Reform Act 2002 which allowed police chiefs to employ civilians. But it didn't give them the legal right to catch speeding drivers, according to Web site pepipoo.co.uk, which is backing the accused.
Pipipoo's originator Mike Morgan will speak for the accused at Devizes Magistrates' Court. He said that there was no doubt in his mind that the law was being broken by using civilians.
He told the Mail on Sunday: "Police constables are considered to be officers of the Crown and, as such, are deemed to be able to form what is known as a prior opinion of excess speed. The camera or other device provides the secondary opinion - but one is not valid without the other. We have sought top legal advice and they agree that there is no Act of Parliament that gives the civilian camera operators the empowerment to give primary evidence -- only a police officer can do that."
The deployment of civilians with speed guns is patchy, with the Met and Thames Valley eschewing their use but 11 of them, including Cambridgeshire, Hampshire, and Dorset, do so.
The police and Home Office didn't comment on the forthcoming case.
Picture by www.speedcam.co.uk
Discussion
That would be a sensible view if the Scamera Partnerships were playing by sensible rules.
The A614, near me, has limits of 60mph, 30mph and 40mph. It's a wide dual carriageway.
Within 51 yards, all 3 of these signs appear. All facing the same way.
In the immediate area sits a Humberside scamera van.
Road safety or highway robbery?
The A614, near me, has limits of 60mph, 30mph and 40mph. It's a wide dual carriageway.
Within 51 yards, all 3 of these signs appear. All facing the same way.
In the immediate area sits a Humberside scamera van.
Road safety or highway robbery?
Round here the King 
s just send you an unfriendly letter, it's not a fine. We've been going for the highest score!
Of course they hide in blind spots, so that chucks the 'safety' aspect straight out the window.
They're only out when the weather isn't bad too, so probably seen the last of em til the spring.
s just send you an unfriendly letter, it's not a fine. We've been going for the highest score! Of course they hide in blind spots, so that chucks the 'safety' aspect straight out the window.
They're only out when the weather isn't bad too, so probably seen the last of em til the spring.
Stupid isn't it? When it is wet, icy or dark they don't go out and catch you but as long as it is dry and clear they will. Stupid is as stupid does!sjwright944 said:
Primary opinion, Secondary opinion - bollox!
If you are speeding, you are speeding, no matter who is holding the F*cking camera.
If you are speeding, you are speeding, no matter who is holding the F*cking camera.
I disagree, the civvy has a vested interest in nicking people so will happily ignore errors if he wants to. You may not be speeding in the first place.
Boosted.
Let me get this straight:
If a policeman is manning a speed trap, he has to first formulate an initial opinion that you are speeding, and only then can he use the speed gun/camera to actually gather evidence that you are indeed speeding.
If a civvie is manning the speed trap, he is not qualified/empowered to formulate the initial opinion, so should not use the speed gun/camera to check your speed. If he does use the speed gun/camera, the evidence may not be legitimate.
If a Gatso is "manning" the speed trap, it does not formulate an initial opinion at all, it skips straight to the speed measurement.
No wonder lawyers charge so much, the law is so over-complicated they have a licence to print money.
If a policeman is manning a speed trap, he has to first formulate an initial opinion that you are speeding, and only then can he use the speed gun/camera to actually gather evidence that you are indeed speeding.
If a civvie is manning the speed trap, he is not qualified/empowered to formulate the initial opinion, so should not use the speed gun/camera to check your speed. If he does use the speed gun/camera, the evidence may not be legitimate.
If a Gatso is "manning" the speed trap, it does not formulate an initial opinion at all, it skips straight to the speed measurement.
No wonder lawyers charge so much, the law is so over-complicated they have a licence to print money.
Edited by stenniso on Wednesday 25th October 16:10
As an American I cannot comment on British law, but here in the States we have artificially low speed limits which are almost universally disregarded. The limits are low for three reasons, none of which has to do with public safety.
First, it gets government off the hook, legally, if anyone should claim, for example, that relying on the posted limit he entered a curve too fast and suffered injury.
Second, it provides government with a steady stream of income from fines, a source for which retribution at the ballot box is not available.
Third, it permits politicians to strut and swagger as guardians of the public welfare.
It is interesting that in Germany, some highways have no limit at all; it would seem that their authorities trust the citizen-motorist more do ours.
First, it gets government off the hook, legally, if anyone should claim, for example, that relying on the posted limit he entered a curve too fast and suffered injury.
Second, it provides government with a steady stream of income from fines, a source for which retribution at the ballot box is not available.
Third, it permits politicians to strut and swagger as guardians of the public welfare.
It is interesting that in Germany, some highways have no limit at all; it would seem that their authorities trust the citizen-motorist more do ours.
stenniso said:
Let me get this straight:
If a policeman is manning a speed trap, he has to first formulate an initial opinion that you are speeding, and only then can he use the speed gun/camera to actually gather evidence that you are indeed speeding.
If a policeman is manning a speed trap, he has to first formulate an initial opinion that you are speeding, and only then can he use the speed gun/camera to actually gather evidence that you are indeed speeding.
Correct
stenniso said:
If a civvie is manning the speed trap, he is not qualified/empowered to formulate the initial opinion, so should not use the speed gun/camera to check your speed. If he does use the speed gun/camera, the evidence may not be legitimate.
That's what the defence alleged, the court didn't agree.
stenniso said:
If a Gatso is "manning" the speed trap, it does not formulate an initial opinion at all, it skips straight to the speed measurement.
No wonder lawyers charge so much, the law is so over-complicated they have a licence to print money.
With the GATSO it firstly measures the speed & takes your photo to provide primary evidence. The white lines on the road show how far you have traveled between the two photos given secondary evidence to confirm the primary evidence.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 25th October 16:41
As someone who attended Devizes magistrates court yesterday let me first explain that, we expected the result given yesterday. This is the only way we could go to the High Court by means of case stated. Furthermore, we expect a simular result here however, it will be a different story at The House of Lords.
In answer to a statement made in an earlier post. Yes if someone is speeding then he is speeding hook, line and sinker. However, that was not the point of law that was being argued. The defendant admitted driving the vehicle.
The question posed to the prosecution remembering, the question was posed in May at an earlier hearing for which, the bench ordered the Prosecution to answer. A skeleton argument was given to the Crown which was not responded to. The clerk made an issue of this at the start of proceedings.
We still await an answer from the Prosecution and, if the Crown did not respond to the Skeleton argument then, they had technically no argument in court yesterday and should not have been allowed to give any evidence. There is legislation and case law to back up the statement.
The case was handled by the clerk somewhat awkwardly asking the defence on numerous occasions to rephrase the questions so they could be understood. The rest of the court understood the black and white print so, well, make up your own mind.
If a Chief Constable has the power to send out a civilian with a camera to detect speeding drivers then, can a Chief Constable send out a civilian to the local airport with a gun to detect the likes of Terrorists? Whats the difference? Where in statute does it say the a Chief Constable has this power of enforcement?
In answer to a statement made in an earlier post. Yes if someone is speeding then he is speeding hook, line and sinker. However, that was not the point of law that was being argued. The defendant admitted driving the vehicle.
The question posed to the prosecution remembering, the question was posed in May at an earlier hearing for which, the bench ordered the Prosecution to answer. A skeleton argument was given to the Crown which was not responded to. The clerk made an issue of this at the start of proceedings.
We still await an answer from the Prosecution and, if the Crown did not respond to the Skeleton argument then, they had technically no argument in court yesterday and should not have been allowed to give any evidence. There is legislation and case law to back up the statement.
The case was handled by the clerk somewhat awkwardly asking the defence on numerous occasions to rephrase the questions so they could be understood. The rest of the court understood the black and white print so, well, make up your own mind.
If a Chief Constable has the power to send out a civilian with a camera to detect speeding drivers then, can a Chief Constable send out a civilian to the local airport with a gun to detect the likes of Terrorists? Whats the difference? Where in statute does it say the a Chief Constable has this power of enforcement?
Edited by cen on Wednesday 25th October 16:55
I've found the only thing that keeps my speed down lower than what i feel is suitable
for the conditions are camera vans and other mobile speed camera's.
Hopefully someone will prove a loophole such as the one mentioned above to rid our roads
of such parasite's.
I am atleast glad that the country lanes in my surounding have no place for them to park up
so i can drive as fast as i want without prosecution
Its not all bad then..
for the conditions are camera vans and other mobile speed camera's.
Hopefully someone will prove a loophole such as the one mentioned above to rid our roads
of such parasite's.
I am atleast glad that the country lanes in my surounding have no place for them to park up
so i can drive as fast as i want without prosecution
Its not all bad then..So, I ask again.
Is this fixation with speed by the scamerati down to road safety or highway robbery?
The answer seems clear.
Where is the justification for prosecuting someone if the people detecting the infringement are not abiding by the rule of Law?
Surely this is a malicious prosecution? There are no legal grounds for the CPS to pursue the case if the Law says primary evidence must be gathered by a BiB, yet it hasn't been.
I'm sorry, if I'm being thick.
Let me pose a ridiculous scenario.
Let's say a guy was being followed by some people. He didn't know who they were. They chased him in a roughish area, followed him down a tube station and shot him in the head, multiple times. Let's call him Charles De Menesez. These "chasers" acted as they did because their chief constable decided there would be a "shoot to kill" policy. Where is his mandate to do this, please?
Brunstrom, in Wales, detests motorists. He has decided his officers will vehemently uphold motoring Law. Do 31mph in a 30 zone and he wants you done. Where is his mandate to do this please? Could Brunstrom have you shot in the head for your transgression? If not, why not, please?
If your local chief constable subscribes to the scamerati, can he get the CPS to prosecute people outside of the Law specifying the rules for gathering primary evidence? Where is the mandate, please?
Is this fixation with speed by the scamerati down to road safety or highway robbery?
The answer seems clear.
Where is the justification for prosecuting someone if the people detecting the infringement are not abiding by the rule of Law?
Surely this is a malicious prosecution? There are no legal grounds for the CPS to pursue the case if the Law says primary evidence must be gathered by a BiB, yet it hasn't been.
I'm sorry, if I'm being thick.
Let me pose a ridiculous scenario.
Let's say a guy was being followed by some people. He didn't know who they were. They chased him in a roughish area, followed him down a tube station and shot him in the head, multiple times. Let's call him Charles De Menesez. These "chasers" acted as they did because their chief constable decided there would be a "shoot to kill" policy. Where is his mandate to do this, please?
Brunstrom, in Wales, detests motorists. He has decided his officers will vehemently uphold motoring Law. Do 31mph in a 30 zone and he wants you done. Where is his mandate to do this please? Could Brunstrom have you shot in the head for your transgression? If not, why not, please?
If your local chief constable subscribes to the scamerati, can he get the CPS to prosecute people outside of the Law specifying the rules for gathering primary evidence? Where is the mandate, please?
sean5302 said:
I'm sorry, if I'm being thick.
Let me pose a ridiculous scenario.
Let's say a guy was being followed by some people. He didn't know who they were. They chased him in a roughish area, followed him down a tube station and shot him in the head, multiple times. Let's call him Charles De Menesez. These "chasers" acted as they did because their chief constable decided there would be a "shoot to kill" policy. Where is his mandate to do this, please?
Common law.
Right to defend yourself & others with a pre-emptive strike.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff