Recent NIP? Read this....
Discussion
Recent NIP? Read this and pass it on.....
Divisional Court Appeal on Statutory Instrument Approval of Speed Cameras.
Judgement was reserved in the January 25/26 Divisional Court hearing of an appeal against a speeding charge based on the speed measuring equipment used never having been formally approved by Statutory Instrument as the law has required since 1993.
Both sides have indicated that they will wish to take this to the Appeal Court if they lose. This, and perhaps a certificate that it is a point of law of general application and public importance is likely to leave the law uncertain for some time to come.
In my personal view, this makes it improper for the authorities to continue to issue Notices of Intended Prosecution based on equipment which might never have been properly authorised for use, and on its evidence which might not be admissible in court - or at least not without at the same time advising recipients that why the law is uncertain.
Again in my view, it would be even more improper to pursue court prosecutions, or to seek to introduce evidence which might well be inadmissible.
It would be helpful if this information could be circulated to drivers' organisations and in particular to any drivers currently involved in such cases. However I will circulate shortly more detailed notes by one of the defendants.
It seems that there were no journalists whatever present, other than the Court Reporter - odd that they do not seem to recognise the significance of this case.
I have been told that if at the final Appeal the argument is won, only those who fought and lost on this argument will be able to get their convictions overturned, penalties repaid, points cancelled and perhaps damages paid - which seems to be to be seriously wrong, in that the cases relied all along on NIPs claiming to have photographic evidence which, of the Appeal is won, should have been inadmissible
The recent new Acpo guidance document for police forces explicitly admits that Statutory Instrument approval is necessary but claims that use of LTI 20-20 and other cameras is covered by a single "generic" SI of 1993. However - apart from the nonsense in any case of claiming that a single "generic" SI suffices for each and every model/type of speed measuring device, the 1993 SI refers to readings triggered by "interrupted light beams" which clearly do not relate to radar or laser beams that are bounced back to the transmitter!
Divisional Court Appeal on Statutory Instrument Approval of Speed Cameras.
Judgement was reserved in the January 25/26 Divisional Court hearing of an appeal against a speeding charge based on the speed measuring equipment used never having been formally approved by Statutory Instrument as the law has required since 1993.
Both sides have indicated that they will wish to take this to the Appeal Court if they lose. This, and perhaps a certificate that it is a point of law of general application and public importance is likely to leave the law uncertain for some time to come.
In my personal view, this makes it improper for the authorities to continue to issue Notices of Intended Prosecution based on equipment which might never have been properly authorised for use, and on its evidence which might not be admissible in court - or at least not without at the same time advising recipients that why the law is uncertain.
Again in my view, it would be even more improper to pursue court prosecutions, or to seek to introduce evidence which might well be inadmissible.
It would be helpful if this information could be circulated to drivers' organisations and in particular to any drivers currently involved in such cases. However I will circulate shortly more detailed notes by one of the defendants.
It seems that there were no journalists whatever present, other than the Court Reporter - odd that they do not seem to recognise the significance of this case.
I have been told that if at the final Appeal the argument is won, only those who fought and lost on this argument will be able to get their convictions overturned, penalties repaid, points cancelled and perhaps damages paid - which seems to be to be seriously wrong, in that the cases relied all along on NIPs claiming to have photographic evidence which, of the Appeal is won, should have been inadmissible
The recent new Acpo guidance document for police forces explicitly admits that Statutory Instrument approval is necessary but claims that use of LTI 20-20 and other cameras is covered by a single "generic" SI of 1993. However - apart from the nonsense in any case of claiming that a single "generic" SI suffices for each and every model/type of speed measuring device, the 1993 SI refers to readings triggered by "interrupted light beams" which clearly do not relate to radar or laser beams that are bounced back to the transmitter!
A bit of history on this.... http://neilherron.blogspot.com/2008/07/are-speed-c...
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff