Radar Detectors
06 September 2002, 06:41 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
No, they're legal (for the moment, anyway)
Print this out and keep a copy in your car.
------------------------------------------------------------
Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, Ex parte Foot
Before Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Mance
[Judgment January 29]
Microwave radio emissions from police radar speed guns did not
constitute a "message" for the purposes of section 5(b)(i) of the
Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, even within the extended meaning of
"message" given by section 19(6).
Accordingly, the use by a motorist of an electrical field meter
to detect the presence of such emissions was not an offence under
section 5(b)(i) since the device was not used "to obtain information
as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message".
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held, granting David Adrian
Foot's amended application for judicial review to quash the
dismissal by Knightsbridge Crown Court on January 8, 1997, of his
appeal against conviction by Marylebone Justices on July 23, 1996 of
an offence contrary to section 5(b)(i).
Section 5 of the 1949 Act, as amended by section 3 of the Post
Office Act 1969, provides: "Any person who - . . . (b) otherwise
than under authority of the [Minister of Posts and
Telecommunications] or in the course of his duty as a servant of the
Crown, . . . (i) uses any wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent
to obtain information as the contents, sender or addressee of any
message . . . shall be guilty of an offence. . ."
Section 19 provides: "(6) Any reference in this Act to the
sending or the conveying of messages includes a reference to the
making of any signal or the sending or conveying of any warning or
information, and any reference to the reception of messages shall be
construed accordingly."
Mr Anthony Calloway for the applicant; Mr John McGuinness for the
prosecution.
LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN said that the applicant was using an
electrical field meter to detect radio transmissions from radar
speed guns. The device was not able to decode the transmissions. Mr
Calloway submitted that the police radar gun did not send or receive
messages, even within the extended meaning of that term given in
section 19(6).
In *Invicta Plastics Ltd v Clare* ([1976] RTR 251), the
Divisional Court had held that those advertising such devices as the
applicant's were guilty of incitement to motorists to contravene
section 1(1), which required a licence for the use of such devices.
However, those devices were now exempted from the need for such a
licence by the Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus (Receivers) (Exemption)
Regulations (SI 1989 No 123).
Mr McGuinness submitted that a radar beam emitted towards a
vehicle was equivalent to making a signal within the meaning of
section 19(6).
His Lordship disagreed. No doubt it was a signal or sign which
conveyed something of meaning to another person, but Mr McGuinness
did not say that it amounted to sending or conveying a "warning or
information" within that subsection. His Lordship also rejected the
submission that the operator was the addressee of a message, that is
of information, sent back by the passing motor vehicle.
A police officer beaming emissions to and receiving information
from an inanimate moving object was not exchanging messages with the
motor car. There could be no reception of a message save between two
human operators.
Tempting though it was to outlaw the anti-social use of such
devices, now that they were no longer banned under section 1(1) of
the Act, to do so would be to stretch the language of section
5(b)(i) to breaking point.
If, as was probable, the 1989 Regulations had been brought into
force without recognising the present lacuna, the matter had to be
put right by a further such instrument.
Mr Justice Mance delivered a concurring judgment.
Solicitors: Moss Beachley & Mullem; Crown Prosecution Service,
Victoria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Print this out and keep a copy in your car.
------------------------------------------------------------
Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, Ex parte Foot
Before Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Mance
[Judgment January 29]
Microwave radio emissions from police radar speed guns did not
constitute a "message" for the purposes of section 5(b)(i) of the
Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, even within the extended meaning of
"message" given by section 19(6).
Accordingly, the use by a motorist of an electrical field meter
to detect the presence of such emissions was not an offence under
section 5(b)(i) since the device was not used "to obtain information
as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message".
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held, granting David Adrian
Foot's amended application for judicial review to quash the
dismissal by Knightsbridge Crown Court on January 8, 1997, of his
appeal against conviction by Marylebone Justices on July 23, 1996 of
an offence contrary to section 5(b)(i).
Section 5 of the 1949 Act, as amended by section 3 of the Post
Office Act 1969, provides: "Any person who - . . . (b) otherwise
than under authority of the [Minister of Posts and
Telecommunications] or in the course of his duty as a servant of the
Crown, . . . (i) uses any wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent
to obtain information as the contents, sender or addressee of any
message . . . shall be guilty of an offence. . ."
Section 19 provides: "(6) Any reference in this Act to the
sending or the conveying of messages includes a reference to the
making of any signal or the sending or conveying of any warning or
information, and any reference to the reception of messages shall be
construed accordingly."
Mr Anthony Calloway for the applicant; Mr John McGuinness for the
prosecution.
LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN said that the applicant was using an
electrical field meter to detect radio transmissions from radar
speed guns. The device was not able to decode the transmissions. Mr
Calloway submitted that the police radar gun did not send or receive
messages, even within the extended meaning of that term given in
section 19(6).
In *Invicta Plastics Ltd v Clare* ([1976] RTR 251), the
Divisional Court had held that those advertising such devices as the
applicant's were guilty of incitement to motorists to contravene
section 1(1), which required a licence for the use of such devices.
However, those devices were now exempted from the need for such a
licence by the Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus (Receivers) (Exemption)
Regulations (SI 1989 No 123).
Mr McGuinness submitted that a radar beam emitted towards a
vehicle was equivalent to making a signal within the meaning of
section 19(6).
His Lordship disagreed. No doubt it was a signal or sign which
conveyed something of meaning to another person, but Mr McGuinness
did not say that it amounted to sending or conveying a "warning or
information" within that subsection. His Lordship also rejected the
submission that the operator was the addressee of a message, that is
of information, sent back by the passing motor vehicle.
A police officer beaming emissions to and receiving information
from an inanimate moving object was not exchanging messages with the
motor car. There could be no reception of a message save between two
human operators.
Tempting though it was to outlaw the anti-social use of such
devices, now that they were no longer banned under section 1(1) of
the Act, to do so would be to stretch the language of section
5(b)(i) to breaking point.
If, as was probable, the 1989 Regulations had been brought into
force without recognising the present lacuna, the matter had to be
put right by a further such instrument.
Mr Justice Mance delivered a concurring judgment.
Solicitors: Moss Beachley & Mullem; Crown Prosecution Service,
Victoria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post