A
Anonymous
Copied from another forum I am on ... interesting.
Any legal brains on here care to comment?
"Motoring: Speed camera loophole uncovered
06 Mar 06 17
1
Speed Cameras: evidence could be inadmissible
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
'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.
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.
'And it is not just a case of serving the photograph. It has got to be submitted at least seven days before the trial. '
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.
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.
It's emerged that photos issued by new RedSpeed cameras are also inadmissible as evidence in court.
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.
And while the authorities may produce the time interval in court, by not submitting it earlier, they render that inadmissible as well. "
Any legal brains on here care to comment?
"Motoring: Speed camera loophole uncovered
06 Mar 06 17
1 Speed Cameras: evidence could be inadmissible
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
'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.
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.
'And it is not just a case of serving the photograph. It has got to be submitted at least seven days before the trial. '
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.
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.
It's emerged that photos issued by new RedSpeed cameras are also inadmissible as evidence in court.
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.
And while the authorities may produce the time interval in court, by not submitting it earlier, they render that inadmissible as well. "
