Speed camera loophole

[MaddMart]

Just browsing the S2Ki web site & came across this. Interesting reading..any lawyers on here?<br>
<br>
<br>
"Motoring: Speed camera loophole uncovered <br>
06 Mar 06 17:31 <br>
<br>
<br>
Speed Cameras: evidence could be inadmissible <br>
Most speed camera prosecutions can be thrown out of court because of a giant loophole in the law, according to a report in the latest issue of Motor Cycle News. <br>
<br>
Many prosecutions are based on inadmissible evidence and can therefore be thrown out. The evidence is inadmissible because defendants are not given photos from cameras at least seven days before a trial, thereby breaching the 1967 Criminal Justice Act. <br>
<br>
According to Tony Carter, news editor of Motor Cycle News, the three biggest camera partnerships in the UK told the magazine that evidence is not automatically submitted. <br>
<br>
He said: 'The problem for most people accused of speeding is they will not realise that this fact of law, which our investigation has uncovered, can render the evidence inadmissible in court. <br>
<br>
'Our investigation has shown even some solicitors are not aware of this point and the camera partnerships are hardly going to tell them or the general public about it. People need to be aware of their rights. <br>
<br>
'Some camera partnerships are having it all their own way. They say a road user cannot have the evidence but fail to tell them they are entitled to see it. <br>
<br>
Traffic lawyer Nick Freeman, who has successfully defended the likes of David Beckham, Ronnie O'Sullivan and Sir Alex Ferguson, explained: 'Most of the prosecuting authorities go to court without producing the photo, and so there is no admissible evidence as to what the speed is. <br>
<br>
'And it is not just a case of serving the photograph. It has got to be submitted at least seven days before the trial. ' <br>
<br>
The report says the evidence must be supplied even if the defendant has not asked for it - so the worst thing a defendant can do is ask for a photograph. <br>
<br>
Motor Cycle News contacted the three biggest camera partnerships - London, Thames Valley and Mid and South Wales - and each one said evidence is not automatically submitted to defendants before trials, meaning that each one has potentially been bringing prosecutions based on inadmissible evidence. <br>
<br>
It's emerged that photos issued by new RedSpeed cameras are also inadmissible as evidence in court. <br>
<br>
Defendants are sent two Gatso-style photos showing they travelled a certain distance in a certain time. But the time interval, which is necessary to calculate speed from the photos, is not included. Without it, the photos are not admissible evidence of speed. <br>
<br>
And while the authorities may produce the time interval in court, by not submitting it earlier, they render that inadmissible as well. "<br>


<p>Martin<br>
<br>
<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.dolomitesprint.com/" target="top">www.dolomitesprint.com</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--></p><i></i>

[miniman]

Given the source of the information (Nick Freeman) I would say there's a good chance it could work. <br>
<br>
Lots of good stuff: <br>
<br>
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing - see "Speed, Plod & the Law" forum (must be registered to see this forum)<br>
<br>
http://www.pepipoo.com

<p></p><i></i>

[1300dolly]

ive got off that way ,and by asking for prove that the road was a 40 limit, a photo of a sign could have been taken anywhere. The prosocutor did not know the area so could not swear that it was a 40 or 50 limit.<br>
<br>
Justyn

<p></p><i></i>

[Sprint36]

People have got off round here (leics) because the speed limit signs didn't have the right background so were not legally enforceable.<br>
<br>
David

<p></p><i></i>

[algtj]

You may also ask for a certificate of calibration (of the camera), which may take more than 14 days for the camera partnership to produce........<br>
Which I am reliably informed gets the case thrown out due to time constraints to bring a prosecution.<br>
<br>
Scott your thoughts on this?

<p></p><i></i>

[Carsreunited]

Yes, its absolutely true. You cannot be expected to defend your case without adequate disclosure. Its an abuse of process not to let you have it at least 7 days prior to the hearing.<br>
<br>
The problem is, you can get to court and find that it gets adjourned in order to give the CPS enough time to get their murde together. I'm always willing to offer advice to anyone offline about any alleged offence they may have committed BTW.<br>
<br>
You have to be a registered user to view the 'Speed, plod and the law' forum on Pistonheads but I would recommend it as their are quite a few useful threads many of which are contributed to by serving police officers.<br>
<br>
Scott

<p></p><i></i>

[SprintMWU773V]

Got a filthy letter through the door yesterday from the Cheshire Constabulary advising me that they wish to prosecute me for driving through a red light. I'm happy to admit that it was amber and got stuck behind a car turning right whilst sitting in the middle of the junction. Thing is there are no signs to warn of a traffic light camera even though I knew it was there. The fact that there was less than a second gap between amber and red is also questionable but another issue. The only signs around are after the camera going the other way warning of speed cameras for which there are none.<br>
<br>
I'm sure this principle would work on this offence too. Purely out of principle I will take it to court. I pay my taxes and most magistrates are muppets anyway. Was called to give evidence in an RTA case and even though I don't claim to be an expert the old fella said my "Expert" knowledge of vehicle dynamics under heavy braking was enough to convince him that the accused was guilty.<br>
<br>
Does anyone actually have a clean licence these days?<br>
<br>
Mark

<p></p><i></i>

[Carsreunited]

Don't want to appear smug but I have never received any points. Can't say I'll be lucky enough to say the same thing about a criminal record in 12 months time. Probably contested 15 points worth over the last 10 years.<br>
<br>
As far as the red light camera goes, request the photographic evidence to help you identify the driver. If you can't see the driver in the picture then make reasonable steps to establish if it was you, me or your friend/partner or dog driving on the day in question. I don't know about you but my memory isn't that great and until they make it law that a written record be kept of all journeys completed in your vehicle(s) then most cases will be dismissed.<br>
<br>


<p></p><i></i>

[algtj]

I have a clean licence and have done for over ten year's.<br>
Sure I have been lucky though.<br>
But then again, I don't think I drive like a complete nutter on the Queens highway.<br>
This makes good conversation though as one day you never know when you might need such advice.

<p></p><i></i>