Court rules speed cameras legal

[ukaviator]

All speed cameras introduced on UK roads since 1992 were lawfully implemented by the government, a court has ruled in a test case.

 

Aitken Brotherston, of Lymm, Cheshire, had argued that home secretaries had been approving the devices without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

But lawyers said Parliament had 40 days to object to specifications of new devices before they were signed off.

 

A panel at Manchester Crown Court ruled the devices were legally valid.

Mr Brotherston, 61, brought the case on appeal, claiming a laser gun wrongly clocked him driving at 52mph in a 40mph zone on Princess Parkway, Manchester.

 

He had hoped the court would rule that the evidence of the LTI 20/20 Speedscope laser gun was inadmissible because of its illegality. Lawyers for Mr Brotherston argued the 1991 Road Traffic Act meant parliamentary backing was required for all new devices.

 

More:

BBC NEWS | England | Manchester | Court rules speed cameras legal

[adamna]

Bummer. He's a CAG member too.

[MrShed]

Am I missing something, or is it just me who thinks that the basis for defence is laughable here? What a stupid defence to a speeding offence!

[68904]

I remember a LCJ said in a famous crimminal appeal;

" It inconcievable that the police would lie. "

 

Some years later 6 men were released from prison because the police had lied to secure thier conviction.

 

Seems to me 30 years on and nowts changed.

[green_and_mean]

All speed cameras introduced on UK roads since 1992 were lawfully implemented by the government, a court has ruled in a test case.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/153531-interesting-read-about-legalities.html

 

Does this case mean that I was correct?

[patdavies]

I think that the case is worthy of a further appeal.

 

From G&M's referenced thread

ROAD TRAFFIC

The Light Beam Speed Measuring Device Approval (No. 2) 2005

The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 20(4) and (5) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (a) (Speeding offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence) and having prescribed for the purposes of section 20 of that Act a device designed or adapted for recording a measurement of the speed of motor vehicles activated by means of a light beam or beams (b), hereby approves as from 15th September 2005 for the purpose of detection of offences specified in section 20(2)(a), (b), © or (d) of that Act the type of device set out in the Schedule hereto. This Approval is subject to the condition set out in that Schedule.

Secretary of State

Home Office

September 2005

____________

________

SCHEDULE

The LASTEC Local Video System, manufactured by Laser Technology Inc. of Colorado USA and Tele-Traffic (UK) Ltd, when used in conjunction with the LTI 20.20 Ultralyte 100

 

 

Clauses a and b are contrary.

 

Clause b cannot be true for the device listed in the schedule as the Local Video System doe not at any time measure speed. It is the camera system alongside the Lasertec 20.20 laser measuring device.

 

Furthermore, the Lasertec 20.20 does not fall within the definition of a prescribed device either as it is not activated by a light beam. It uses a light beam (laser) to do the measuring, but it is activated by the officer

[patdavies]

Am I missing something, or is it just me who thinks that the basis for defence is laughable here? What a stupid defence to a speeding offence!

 

It is a perfectly germane defence - that the device used to measure the speed was not type approved and therefore any measurement made by it cannot be automatically admitted as evidence under s.20.

 

Similarly, 20 mph speed limits cannot be enforced by automatic camera as none has been type approved for use below 30 mph

[sameagle]

Of course the Court found in favour of the Government.

 

There is a saying, something about "Not biting the hand that feeds you", I think.

 

Sam the Eagle

[green_and_mean]

Of course the Court found in favour of the Government.

 

There is a saying, something about "Not biting the hand that feeds you", I think.

 

Sam the Eagle

 

Yes just like when they ruled single date PCNs invalid! Using that logic every case bought by the CPS would result in a conviction or do they just let a few off to make it look fair?