Monday 10th July 2006

Legal challenge for scameras

All speeding prosecutions to be overturned?

---

Ce n'est pas un Gatso...

Could all previous prosecutions resulting from speed cameras be deemed invalid?

It boils down to whether the cameras have had device-specific statutory instruments passed through the legislature -- and if not, whether any prosecutions based on the use of those devices is legal. It appears that the cameras may not legally exist -- and could mean that all speeding prosecutions based on their use have been illegally obtained.

In what founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign Paul Smith described as "an interesting new challenge to speed camera evidence", Robbie the Pict has revealed an apparent flaw in the authorisation procedure for certain speed cameras. Robbie the Pict is the campaigner who overturned the Skye Bridge Tolls.

The flaw concerns the procedure that must be used to authorise devices. It appears that certain cameras have never been correctly authorised. On initial examination, according to Smith, it does appear that the flaw suggested exists, and may render unsafe convictions stretching as far back as 1992.

Smith said: "This flaw could force camera partnerships to repay literally millions of fines. The total bill could be hundreds of millions.

"Having spent thousands of hours examining the overall road safety effects of speed cameras, I am absolutely certain that they make the roads more dangerous.

It's long overdue that this failed policy was abandoned and if this flaw brings matters to a head we'll all be better off.

"We have had 13 years of speed cameras on UK roads, and have suffered by far the worst decade in the history of motoring in terms of road safety improvements. I am certain that 'bad policy' based on speed cameras is to blame. Department for Transport is in abject denial about the failure of its policies."

Links

• www.safespeed.org.uk
• Related story: Robbie the Pict goes to war against speed-camera laws

[mondeoman]

Squirming Government Lacky said:

No one was available for comment at the Cabinet Office. A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: "Speed cameras are there for a reason. Cameras have been shown independently to save lives. If Mr Pict wants to liaise with this department then I am sure we would answer any queries that he raised."

And thats the best defence they can come up with??

An Intelligent bloke said:

Mr Hingston added: "If Robbie the Pict is right, it places politicians in a difficult position. While the lawyers can argue over who was, or was not, wrongfully convicted, and whether or not they are time-barred from appealing their convictions, the politicians would have to take a clear stance on the issue. There is also a wider question: much of the legal system is based on trust, and if the prosecution service says in court that someone is being prosecuted on sound legal grounds, it is usually accepted. If Robbie the Pict is right, that could raise questions about the reliability of other parts of the law."

Says it all to me really - reading the article it does indeed look like they have "bent" the law to suit themselves

If its true, what a bunch of tossers!!

[splatspeed]

i have my last 3 points waiting to come off

so been paying a premium on insurance for having 6 points

would love him to win this case

but does he realise how many english he will be helping????

[southpaw]

Surely people could also claim compensation due to higher insurance premiums from getting points and loss of earnings etc for people who were banned on the evidence of speed cameras?

[havoc]

southpaw said:

Surely people could also claim compensation due to higher insurance premiums from getting points and loss of earnings etc for people who were banned on the evidence of speed cameras?

Which is why he'll never be allowed to win his case - one court of appeal or another will find for the government...essentially whoever wants a peerage the most!

[zumbruk]

havoc said:

southpaw said:

Surely people could also claim compensation due to higher insurance premiums from getting points and loss of earnings etc for people who were banned on the evidence of speed cameras?

Which is why he'll never be allowed to win his case - one court of appeal or another will find for the government...essentially whoever wants a peerage the most!

Either that or the law will be changed retrospectively.

[gooby]

zumbruk said:

havoc said:

southpaw said:

Surely people could also claim compensation due to higher insurance premiums from getting points and loss of earnings etc for people who were banned on the evidence of speed cameras?

Which is why he'll never be allowed to win his case - one court of appeal or another will find for the government...essentially whoever wants a peerage the most!

Either that or the law will be changed retrospectively.

With this amount of money at stake - the "people" will not win. There is no way justice will be served when it comes to speed cameras.

[tyre_tread]

zumbruk said:

Either that or the law will be changed retrospectively.

[Horse_Apple]

I think that winning this case will be an absolute disaster.

The Government is 100% commited to punishing speeding drivers (this is probably correct). However, at present they are happy to mostly rely on Gatsos.

It is exceedingly easy to ensure that you are not caught by a Gatso. If you are caught then I would tend to argue that generally speaking you were not paying sufficient attention to the task at hand and so were driving at a reckless pace. (cue the abuse)

If Gatsos are rendered useless then rest assured that the Government will simply roll out a far more effective answer that will lead to almost all of us being done even when the roads are empty and it is perfectly safe to drive above the limit.

I am a huge fan of Gatsos as the alternatives are unthinkable and will ultimate destroy driving in this country.

Think average speed cameras(excellent for road works and built up areas, but terrible for normal roads) and even worse, think Gallileo!!!!!!

[unobtainum]

You seem to think that the government will NOT bring in more "efficent" systems. Why? They will earn more money, so of course they will bring them in when they can.

As has been said, We will not win this, one way or another.

Maybe a few more thousand geting burt will help. The governemet are voted in to do our bidding, sort of, but they dont listen. So maybe now is the time for the revolution. Not that I am in favour of that action.

[NElmslie]

I have seen this story a number of times in the last few days and it says "certain types" have not been approved but never names which types.

Edited by NElmslie on Monday 10th July 14:36

[annodomini2]

unobtainum said:

Maybe a few more thousand geting burt will help. The governemet are voted in to do our bidding, sort of, but they dont listen. So maybe now is the time for the revolution. Not that I am in favour of that action.

Why not? The way this country is currently going it is seriously needed!

[safespeed]

NElmslie said:

I have seen this story a number of times in the last few days and it says "certain types" have not been approved but never names which types.

I suspect that it is only Gatsos. See:
www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2.htm#mdiv23

Which contains:

For section 20 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (admissibility of measurement of speed by radar) there shall be substituted

Now the only radar camera device is the Gatso. At present I'm hoping that the lawyers who have looked at it haven't found the necessary SI for the Gatso, but for nothing else.

But it'll take far more legal skill than I have to properly unravel this one.

[HUGE]

While I hope its successful,I cant see the Government "losing millions"...theyll just hike the duty on fuel or raise the car tax levels to compensate...

[ultimasimon]

Either way, if this finding is correct and the camera partnerships have to pay the money taken back, then the damage will have been done and hopefully the media will feed on it.

It would be great if just one outspoken MP with an ounce of common-sense would stand up and use this as a means to stop operation Dick Turpin once and for all. Then they could put the resources spent on erecting these piggy banks back into the real needy cause of road safety and invest in some more traffic police.

I'm not holding my breath though

[vonhosen]

HUGE said:

While I hope its successful,I cant see the Government "losing millions"...theyll just hike the duty on fuel or raise the car tax levels to compensate...

Of course they would get it from tax payers in some way. Any refunds come from "our" pockets.

[kevham]

A quick search on opsi gives the main Statutory Instruments which describe the 'Prescribed devices' made under Section 20(9) of the amended 1988 Act:

SI 1992 No. 1209
The Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1992
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19921209_en_1.htm
Covers radar measurement devices.

SI 1992 No. 2843
The Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) (No. 2) Order 1992
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19922843_en_1.htm
Covers 'red light' cameras

SI 1993 No. 1698
The Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1993
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19931698_en_1.htm
Covers detectors which use loops in the road or laser.

SI 1997 No. 384
The Road Traffic Offenders (Additional Offences and Prescribed Devices) Order 1997
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/19970384.htm
Covers bus lane cameras

SI 1999 No. 162
The Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1999
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19990162.htm
Covers the SPECS average speed system

SI 2001 No. 1814
The Road Traffic Offenders (Additional Offences and Prescribed Devices) Order 2001
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/20011814.htm
Allows cameras to be used for VED evasion

Note that different regs apply for Northern Ireland.
I suspect the question is whether GATSOS are covered by the 1992 regs? A question for legal eagles or the courts perhaps.

[Parrot of Doom]

zumbruk said:

havoc said:

southpaw said:

Surely people could also claim compensation due to higher insurance premiums from getting points and loss of earnings etc for people who were banned on the evidence of speed cameras?

Which is why he'll never be allowed to win his case - one court of appeal or another will find for the government...essentially whoever wants a peerage the most!

Either that or the law will be changed retrospectively.

I didn't know it was possible to legislate retrospectively?

[vonhosen]

Parrot of Doom said:

zumbruk said:

havoc said:

southpaw said:

Surely people could also claim compensation due to higher insurance premiums from getting points and loss of earnings etc for people who were banned on the evidence of speed cameras?

Which is why he'll never be allowed to win his case - one court of appeal or another will find for the government...essentially whoever wants a peerage the most!

Either that or the law will be changed retrospectively.

I didn't know it was possible to legislate retrospectively?

It is generally possible to legislate retrospectively for evidential provisions, but not for substantive and sentencing provisions.

[jasandjules]

vonhosen said:

It is generally possible to legislate retrospectively for evidential provisions, but not for substantive and sentencing provisions.

Parliament can, constitutionally speaking, legislate for absolutely anything it likes.

[jezzaaa]

Horse_Apple said:

I think that winning this case will be an absolute disaster.

The Government is 100% commited to punishing speeding drivers (this is probably correct). However, at present they are happy to mostly rely on Gatsos.

It is exceedingly easy to ensure that you are not caught by a Gatso. If you are caught then I would tend to argue that generally speaking you were not paying sufficient attention to the task at hand and so were driving at a reckless pace. (cue the abuse)

If Gatsos are rendered useless then rest assured that the Government will simply roll out a far more effective answer that will lead to almost all of us being done even when the roads are empty and it is perfectly safe to drive above the limit.

I am a huge fan of Gatsos as the alternatives are unthinkable and will ultimate destroy driving in this country.

Think average speed cameras(excellent for road works and built up areas, but terrible for normal roads) and even worse, think Gallileo!!!!!!

I agree entirely...all that would happen is the legislation would be shored up and they would be forced to roll out smarter technology to save political face. I rarely obey the speed limits (with the exception of 30s and 40s) preferring to set my own appropriate speed. I haven't been caught for speeding since 1998. That's largely because there aren't any trafpol on the roads and my Origin B2 tells me where all the fixed cameras are. I think this case should be dropped now before we end up alot worse than we started.

J.