M4 Speeding Fines All Illegal
Discussion
www.redwhitecooper.co.uk/images/M4Cameras.jpg
Richard Bentley (who is well known) and Barry Culshaw (barrister) both agree that speeding fines issued from these vans are illegal due to the fact that the vans are illegally parked on pavments.
"You cannot break the law to enforce it"
Richard Bentley (who is well known) and Barry Culshaw (barrister) both agree that speeding fines issued from these vans are illegal due to the fact that the vans are illegally parked on pavments.
"You cannot break the law to enforce it"
There is a 'public interest' test that has been used to allow the hearing of evidence even though it has been obtained 'illegally'.
In Kuruma v R [1955], the (then) Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard stated:
"The test to be implied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the Court is not concerned with how evidence was obtained".
However, more recently the Court of Appeal (in Jones v University of Warwick [2003] - a civil action) illustrated that the Courts may rule that evidence gathered through illegal means may be struck out altogether. The appeal was based on Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR (HRA 1998).
The statement made in the newspaper article is moot and might require recourse to appeal on HRA grounds. Interestingly, the statement by the W&SSCP regarding their having "checked out the footpaths" suggests that they are aware of a potential illegality.
Streaky
(IANAL)
In Kuruma v R [1955], the (then) Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard stated:
"The test to be implied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the Court is not concerned with how evidence was obtained".
However, more recently the Court of Appeal (in Jones v University of Warwick [2003] - a civil action) illustrated that the Courts may rule that evidence gathered through illegal means may be struck out altogether. The appeal was based on Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR (HRA 1998).
The statement made in the newspaper article is moot and might require recourse to appeal on HRA grounds. Interestingly, the statement by the W&SSCP regarding their having "checked out the footpaths" suggests that they are aware of a potential illegality.
Streaky
(IANAL)
In the case of the hacker 'Kuji', much of the evidence was gathered by US Air Force investigators. I saw the evicdence and IMHO, there was a high probability that the methods used would have prevented its use in a US court, but it was later clear that the judge was prepared to allow the evidence on a public interest test. However, the case was dropped for several inter-acting reasons. (Primarily because the holding charge had been 'Conspiracy' - forcing a trial at Crown Court - whereas the other person arrested for the same hacking incidents - 'Datastream Cowboy' - had been tried under the Computer Misuse Act in a Magistrates Court ... and this opened up the issue of disparity of sentencing for the same offence.)
DVD - I believe that the 1955 ruling set the precedent for admissability of evidence regardless of any illegailty in its obtaining. The 1966 case addressed police powers and their actions (in relation to obtaining evidence).
Streaky
DVD - I believe that the 1955 ruling set the precedent for admissability of evidence regardless of any illegailty in its obtaining. The 1966 case addressed police powers and their actions (in relation to obtaining evidence).
Streaky
I'm not qualified to comment on the previous posts, but the opening statement 'Do not break the law to enforce it ' puzzles me. Surely the Police have to do this alot of the time when trying to apprehend? Breaking speed limits, running red lights etc. I dont wish to hi-jack the thread, but now I'm curious.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Tabs
Items you mention are covered at law by an exemption.
What that has been stated does not, as yet, appear to be covered, other than a decision by High Court that it is illegal.
DVD
a grey area methinks, entrapment is clearly a nono but running red lights is ok for eg
Dwight VanDriver said:DVD - sadly no. But are SCPs "public authorities"? The only recent reference I could find that provided a list was FoIA and there are no inclusions (in a long list) for any SCP (that I could see) - Streaky
Streaky
Is it possible amongst your bits and peices you have access to Section 49 Public Health Act 1961.
I do not have that act and section but do have a reference that public authority vehicles are exempt in relation to not going on the footpath.
DVD
I think a consideration also has to be made here that there are civilian operators inside many of these vans and they are not police officers so are not privy to the same exemptions.
I have been involved in three cases in the past couple of months, two of which had civilian operators in and have been dropped.
I have been involved in three cases in the past couple of months, two of which had civilian operators in and have been dropped.
i got a speeding ticket by a van parked near a hospital, on white hatchings.
now im no road expert but if i had to brake suddenly to the left thats where i would have wanted to go, but if i did i would crash into said van
surely where he parked can't be legal?
was a dual carrigeway going over a bridge, which just before the bridge changed from NSL to 40mph. said camera van couldnt have been any closer to where it changed
now im no road expert but if i had to brake suddenly to the left thats where i would have wanted to go, but if i did i would crash into said van
surely where he parked can't be legal?
was a dual carrigeway going over a bridge, which just before the bridge changed from NSL to 40mph. said camera van couldnt have been any closer to where it changed
streaky said:
DVD - sadly no. But are SCPs "public authorities"? The only recent reference I could find that provided a list was FoIA and there are no inclusions (in a long list) for any SCP (that I could see) - Streaky
An interesting point and one Safety Camera Partnerships may be willing to consider when receiving questions under the said act!
Unfortunately, Safety Camera Partnership partners are mostly public authorities so come under the act.
Perhaps I'll pass on the argument to a solicitor for consideration.
As far as the civilian operator is concerned, they usually drive Police vehicles and are operating that particular law enforcement function with the CC's authority to do so. It would be an interesting test to put before a court and I think that is where the matter would have to be decided.
It's all a matter of interpretation really. We all do it for what we feel is just.
D.M.
>>>>>"You cannot break the law to enforce it"<<<<<
Just musing on that piece of wisdom.
Ben Doone and Phil McAvity, notorious Wiltshire housebreakers and circulated as wanted in every Police publication imagineable were stood on the top of a Motorway bridge footpath awaiting pickup with several pieces of very hot gear at their feet.
Along comes Inspector Del Hegator in his pimpmobile, recognises both men as wanted having committed offences so he pulls onto said footpath, stops and arrests them.
At the High Court the Judge throws the case out. This being on the grounds that the arrest was unlawful as Plod drove on the pavement ---- an offence under Highways Act without exemption.
Weird eh? OK I know but it is Sunday.
DVD
>>>>>"You cannot break the law to enforce it"<<<<<
Just musing on that piece of wisdom.
Ben Doone and Phil McAvity, notorious Wiltshire housebreakers and circulated as wanted in every Police publication imagineable were stood on the top of a Motorway bridge footpath awaiting pickup with several pieces of very hot gear at their feet.
Along comes Inspector Del Hegator in his pimpmobile, recognises both men as wanted having committed offences so he pulls onto said footpath, stops and arrests them.
At the High Court the Judge throws the case out. This being on the grounds that the arrest was unlawful as Plod drove on the pavement ---- an offence under Highways Act without exemption.
Weird eh? OK I know but it is Sunday.
DVD
destroyer said:
Unfortunately, Safety Camera Partnership partners are mostly public authorities so come under the act.
Perhaps I'll pass on the argument to a solicitor for consideration.
Are SCPs public bodies, or are they formed from a partnership between members who are public bodies?
destroyer said:
As far as the civilian operator is concerned, they usually drive Police vehicles and are operating that particular law enforcement function with the CC's authority to do so. It would be an interesting test to put before a court and I think that is where the matter would have to be decided.
We have had this conversation many times on your own forum before it was closed down.
I have still not come across a single case that has made it to court where the defence has queried the use of civilian operators. ALL cases I have heard of have been dropped by the CPS.
Whereabouts in law does it permit a CC to permit a civilian to do a police constable's job?
Dwight VanDriver said:
One a bit later than that Streaky:
Rice v Connolly [1966]
Held no exhaustive list of Police powers and they are entitled to take action that is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing and detecting crime ?
DVD
If I recall correctly, the police lost that case (stopping a man late at night and requiring him to identify himself). A great deal of the case is obiter dictum and of doubtful authority. US Chief Justice Hamburger once spoke of 'the fruit of the poison tree' when rejecting evidence obtained in breach of the law.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff