Caught Speeding ?

[CB1300]

The legality of every speed camera introduced on British roads since 1992 is being challenged in court.

Aitken Brotherston is challenging a speeding conviction in a legal test case

Lawyers in a test case are arguing the law has been wrongly implemented by successive home secretaries and all devices authorised in the last 17 years are illegal.

A ruling on the case is expected to be made on Wednesday by a panel of one judge and two lay magistrates at Manchester Crown Court.

It could pave the way for an avalanche of challenges to speed camera convictions from millions of motorists, in which an estimated £600 million was collected in revenue.

Retired computer engineer Aitken Brotherston, 61, of Lymm, Cheshire, has brought the hearing on appeal after he was convicted of driving 52mph in a 40mph zone.

Mr Brotherston said he "firmly believed" the LTI 20/20 Speedscope laser gun which captured his speed provided an inaccurate reading.

Defence barrister Michael Shrimpton said each home secretary since Michael Howard had effectively set up their own scheme of ministerial approval and were wrong to pass such devices as the LTI 20/20 without parliamentary scrutiny.

Previously they approved the technical evaluation of a named speed camera but now were rubber-stamping equipment which was not identified before Parliament, he said.

But Andrew Perry, prosecuting, told the court that the change in the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act in 1991 had not left Parliament out of the loop.

Judge Jonathan Gibson said the appeal panel members would make their decision only on the facts put before them and not on any mooted implications.

[Saraj]

yeah heard about that, but the government is going to win, but worth a try

[MacRS200]

Nice "cut and paste" and your personal opinion is?

The whole legality of cameras has been questioned for years, accept the fact that speeders have been knicked from the days of coppers hiding behind trees with stop watches, though radar dishes on the side of the road to radar "guns" and now cameras all over the place.

Remember when the white stripes appeared on the road in front of cameras, after the "where is the corroborative evidence" shout went up. In short this is a big juggernaut with a few minor leaks that WILL ALL get plugged as she ploughs on. If you speed accept the the fact gracefully when you get caught.

Would you want a mass murderer to get off on a technicality like the copper didn't caution the arrested correctly? Minor points off law.

By the way, I hate speed cameras and the safety argument in a lot of cases is totally invalid but they are a fact of life and we have to live with it.

[CB1300]

Nice "cut and paste" and your personal opinion is?

Well thank you.. It wasn't really that hard but your acumen is very much appreciated.

Personal opinion ? We should all abide by the law.

[MacRS200]

Well thank you.. It wasn't really that hard but your acumen is very much appreciated.

And likewise you erudite spotting of sarcasm.

Personal opinion ? We should all abide by the law.

Of course we should just don't winge if you get caught.

It's all been tried and no doubt Mr Brotherson was speeding, the gun was calibrated and he tried the "well you can clock a block of flats at 100 with one of them" and is now trying the "well it's not legal anyway" defence. The avalanche of overturned convictions will be no more than the drip of melting snow off my roof.

[dave1]

Nice "cut and paste" and your personal opinion is?

Would you want a mass murderer to get off on a technicality like the copper didn't caution the arrested correctly? Minor points off law.

By the way, I hate speed cameras and the safety argument in a lot of cases is totally invalid but they are a fact of life and we have to live with it.

Another "cut & paste" here too, but illustrates against your argument about being a minor point of law. My opinion is that there really is more than just the issue of the legality of the cameras. The point is that if the govnt has not followed the law in the case of cameras and you just accept it, then where would you draw the line?

Mr Shrimpton said a change in the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act in 1991 had not been properly implemented.

Until then the law that merely required the Home Secretary to approve the technical evaluation of the speed cameras. But since then additional Parliamentary approval has also been required for the devices.

Successive Home Secretaries, starting with Michael Howard in 1992, had failed to do so.

"But this was not done," Mr Shrimpton said. "It is an insult to Parliament in general that it had not identified a single device. This is a very important constitutional point.

"Since 1992 there have been hundreds of thousands of cases which we think are invalid.

"Speeding fines and convictions effect the very fabric of our society. Businesses and people's lives are severely affected when there is a ban from driving or fines.

"There are considerable economic considerations to take into account."

Mr Shrimpton added: "What the Department of Public Prosecutions is saying is that a Minister for example could decide to bring back hanging and he could do so without going to Parliament.

"He could draw up an order without Parliament seeing it and it would then become law."

[MacRS200]

Nice "cut and paste" and your personal opinion is?

Would you want a mass murderer to get off on a technicality like the copper didn't caution the arrested correctly? Minor points off law.

By the way, I hate speed cameras and the safety argument in a lot of cases is totally invalid but they are a fact of life and we have to live with it.

Another "cut & paste" here too, but illustrates against your argument about being a minor point of law. My opinion is that there really is more than just the issue of the legality of the cameras. The point is that if the govnt has not followed the law in the case of cameras and you just accept it, then where would you draw the line?

All my own words actually.

I would not draw the line a speed cameras, facts are that speeding is an offence, you get caught tough. As I said before the holes will get plugged and and the law will stand.

And yes the law can be made by a minister or the govt but it is not actually law until it comes before court and a Judge convicts someone under the new law. So in short the govt cannot cannot just pass any law they feel like at the time.

[dave1]

If you actually look into this in more depth Mac, you can see that any law should be passed by Parliament and this is the real argument in this case. The contention is that each new type of device needs to be authorised by Parliament under the revisions to the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act which were made (and authorised by Parliament) in 1991.

Until then the law that merely required the Home Secretary to approve the technical evaluation of the speed cameras. But since then additional Parliamentary approval has also been required for the devices.

If this Parliamentary approval has not been given then the evidence from these unauthorised devices should not be allowed. I agree that if you are caught speeding you take the consequences but ONLY if the method in which you are caught is legal. Whether Mr Brotherstone was speeding is not, to me anyway, the core issue here.

[Chris Skelton]

....and then we can move on to the concept of whether there should be a CHANGE in 'speeding' laws?

No argument that 20/30 is adequate for built-up/residential areas?

But cars have moved on since the 50s (Thank g**!) and doing 30 is slow on many roads.

as is 70 which most folk (?) seem to exceed on M-ways.

But, as we all know, all those OTHER drivers (except us!) are mad lunatics who need training properly!

But.......Looking forwards to getting my £60 (plus interest) back from 5 years ago speeding fine!

[TommyH]

I notice Mr Brotherston never said he wasn't speeding. Pay up pal and stop trying to weasel out of your responsibilities.

Like Mac says, do we want murderers to walk because the coppers tie wasn't straight

[michaelH]

Interesting issues here. One thing is clear: the case will not be resolved by a decision of the Crown Court. That court's ruling (whatever it is) will almost certainly be challenged by way of an appeal to the High Court. It is possible that the High Court's ruling would then be the subject of a further appeal to the House of Lords, but only if either the High Court or the House of Lords gives leave for such an appeal to be heard. So this could drag on for months.

There are too many loophole defences out there, but this may be something more than that.

[dave1]

I notice Mr Brotherston never said he wasn't speeding. Pay up pal and stop trying to weasel out of your responsibilities.

Like Mac says, do we want murderers to walk because the coppers tie wasn't straight

Sorry fella but as far as I am concerned, if the coppers "tie wasn't straight" doesn't cut it with me. If "law" turns out to be "not the law" because of the issues being raised then how can any convictions be valid?

If the "coppers tie wasn't straight" then the further question may apply.........WHY WASN'T IT STRAIGHT?

[dave1]

I notice Mr Brotherston never said he wasn't speeding.

The issue here is NOT whether he was or was not exceeding the speed limit. It is whether the evidence gathered to get the conviction was valid in law!

When I got "done" for speeding I accepted it and "paid up" but whilst I won't be trying to get my conviction rescinded if this case succeeeds, I am very interested to see how the various legal implications will pan out.