hedgehog

I know nothing about this and so have no idea how right, wrong or otherwise it might be but it is certainly interesting and so I post it here for information until I can see if it really is the case:

http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk...=sidebarsearch

A Major flaw in speed-camera legislation could lead to prosecutions dating back 15 years being wiped, it was claimed yesterday.

Robbie the Pict, who led the successful battle to have the Skye Bridge tolls scrapped, said he had established a legal argument which could open up the Home Office to claims of compensation amounting to millions of pounds for wrongful convictions of drivers and, in many cases, loss of earnings. The law surrounding the detection equipment used to catch speeding motorists was very specific, but some of the provisions appeared to have been ignored. He said that under the Road Traffic Act 1991, a "prescribed device" such as a camera or radar had to be used before evidence from it was admissible in court, and the act must have a specific description of the device that was being used.

"The specific description must be the subject of an order made by the secretary of state for transport," he said. "In other words, the secretary of state has to place an order known as a 'statutory instrument' before parliament, detailing the equipment that has been approved to monitor motorists' speed.

"The statutory instrument is like a mini act of parliament. Every time a new machine is introduced to catch speeders, a statutory instrument should be set out for it and laid before parliament. If no one objects, the machine comes into force two weeks later. The order should name each new device and describe it specifically."

Mr Pict said he had checked with the statutory instrument registrar for the UK, based in the Cabinet Office, who had conceded that statutory instruments had not been raised for these specific devices.

Solicitor David Hingston, a former procurator fiscal in the Highlands, said that, based on Robbie the Pict's research, there appeared to be a case for the Government to answer.

He said: "You would have to examine each statutory instrument to see that they conform to the act, but the act says very clearly that you need a statutory instrument that specifies the device that is to be used. There cannot be a cover-all statutory instrument because the act does not allow that. All the Government has to do to prove that Robbie is wrong is to produce the statutory instruments."

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."

Mr Hingston said people could then start pleading not guilty and challenge every part of the law, leaving the entire court "to collapse".

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."

cw42

iTrader: (1)

I see they're still spouting the same bollocks!

Daryl

Chelspeed

Scottish law is very different from UK law in some areas so those south of the border don't raise your hopes too high.

hedgehog

The RTA applies UK wide with some very subtle differences relating to burden of proof etc. in Scotland. While I am not 100% sure as yet I suspect that if this problem exists in Scotland then it will also exist in the rest of the UK.

Leslie

Well I wish him the very best of luck for his success. I have been saying for some that I do not believe that radar or laser devices are accurate enough to be acceptable as evidence for prosecuting a driver and putting points on, fining or taking his licence away!

Les

hedgehog

I now believe that it is likely that the SIs do indeed exist, it is just that they may not be called what they might be expected to be called and so may have been overlooked.

It is not clear if they exist for all the camera equipment and so further investigation is certainly worthwhile but in the mean time it is looking unlikely that this will allow everyone to claim back all their camera fines.

CharlesW

I looked at this on Monday.

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528909

I noticed it on Pistonheads. If the statutory instruments for the "presribed devices" were not presented to and passed by parliament then the evidence from those "prescribed devices" - i.e Gatso, Truvelo, Specs, etc - is inadmissable in a British court. Any appeal against conviction dependent on such evidence is liable to be successful.

I,ve no doubt it will be tested in due course.

hedgehog

It looks unlikely to be tested in cases where the relevant SIs actually exist and, unfortunately, it is certainly looking like SIs exist for some or all speed measuring devices. With this in mind wholesale claiming of fines back etc. will not happen.

However, in some specific cases there is always the chance that an SI doesn't exist for specific devices or that the device was in practical use before the SI was in place. So, this may not be dead as yet but it is unlikely to be as useful as might at first appear to be the case. Further investigation will continue to establish the full potential, there might still be something in it for us.

Diablo

Hedgehog,

A statutory instrument has to be called just that, a statutory instrument.

All SI's are listed here

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/stat.htm

Thousands per year. If someone wants to have a look and see if there are any for speed measuring devices, can you let us all know

Diablo

By the way, as I posted on the other thread, the question is whether or not the evidence from the device will be admissable in Court.

Accepting a fixed penalty is a voluntary act which does not by definition require a Court conviction.

So no relevance to all those millions of fixed penalty notices most of us will have signed from time to time.

hedgehog

Ah, sorry, perhaps I wasn't entirely clear.

The chap who came upon this concept must have spent his time looking for SIs called something like "SI for that dodgy laser gun thing" while in fact some of the SIs he needed were called things like:

The Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1993 (SI 1993 No. 1698)
The Road Traffic Offenders (Additional Offences and Prescribed Devices) Order 1997 (SI 1997 No. 384).


So, I suspect that the reason he thought the SIs didn't exist was because they were not called exactly what he expected.

hedgehog

While your reasoning makes sense and may, potentially, be shown to be correct I believe it is fundamentally flawed. You may care to consider, for example, the literally hundreds of thousands of motorists who were done by cameras where the signage was shown to be illegal. Although these motorists had signed the FPN, NIP etc. and so, in effect, admitted guilt without recourse to a court, they are entitled to their money back and to have the points removed. Some examples:

http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/new...t_loophole.asp

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/lon...ing%20Standard

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/53

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005081166,00.html