Law and Rights
Road traffic offending continues to produce some interesting judicial decisions. On 3rd February, the High Court gave judgment in Brotherston and others v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] EWHC 136 (Admin). Four drivers had been convicted of speeding - an offence under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - (sections 84 and 89). Before the High Court, all four drivers argued that the supposed authorisations relating to the use of certain speed measuring devices for evidential purposes was unlawful.
The devices challenged were the LTI 20.20 TS/M Speedscope; the LTI 20.20 Ultralyte 100. Both of those are mobile speed cameras. The operator points the device at the rear of the vehicle which he thinks is speeding and pulls the trigger. This activates a laser beam enabling measurement of the vehicle's speed. Also challenged was the Gatsometer 24 - a speed camera which operates on radar principles.
Parliament "prescribed" the use
of radar measurement in the Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1992 . A similar Order of 1993 prescribes (a) a device designed or adapted for recording a measurement of the speed of motor vehicles activated by means of sensors or cables on or near the surface of the highway; and (b) a device designed or adapted for recording a measurement of the speed of motor vehicles activated by means of a light beam or beams.
Having "prescribed" the devices in this way, it is then a matter for the Secretary of State to "approve" the use of particular devices such as those mentioned earlier. A list of approved devices as at March 2007 may be seen via the Home Office website - here.
By the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 s.20 - evidence of speed measured using "prescribed" devices is admissible. However, under section 20(4), the prescribed device must be of a type approved by the Secretary of State and it must be used in accordance with any conditions subject to which the approval was given. Section 20(9) defines ?prescribed device? as a device of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
The drivers argued that the generic descriptions used in the 1992 and the 1993 Orders were too vague and broad to meet the requirements of section 20 and that the Secretary of State should have approved the device before placing the statutory instrument before Parliament.
The High Court considered some Scottish case law - which is of "persuasive authority" - and concluded that the plain effect of section 20 (4) is that the requirement for the type of the device to be approved is additional to the requirement that the description of the device is specified in the relevant statutory instrument. The statutory instrument did not need to specify the particular device.
This interpretation of the law makes good sense since it permits new devices to be approved by the Secretary of State without necessarily having to amend the legislation. In this way, new technology can be more readily brought into use.
- The Best Safety Lexus Has To Offer, Isn't For Us
The new Lexus LS 460 that goes on sale this fall be able to parallel park itself without the driver touching the steering wheel. Pretty slick! Only problem is, some of the car's best high tech safety features won't be put on cars shipped to the...
- Driving ~ Fixed Penalties
On 16th August, careless driving (Road Traffic Act 1988 s.3) became an offence for which a fixed penalty notice can be issued - Government announcement. The fixed penalty for careless driving is now £100 with 3 points on the driver?s licence....
- Finger Pointing
Steve Coogan not guilty of speeding at Hove seafront declares the BBC 16th July. In fact, it appears that he was found not guilty of the offence of failing to supply information under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This is not a speeding...
- Uninsured Drivers Beware
It is not possible to say exactly how many uninsured drivers are on the roads. Nevertheless, the number is very substantial. In July 2010, The Independent drew attention to the fact that premiums were rising and that this might be leading...
- Speed Cameras - Funding Cuts - Will The Roads Be Less Safe?
Early on in the days of the coalition government a cut to funding for speed cameras was announced - see Telegraph 18th June. The Guardian 9th August reports that the Chief Constable of Gwent has said that cutting speed cameras will put lives at...
Law and Rights
Speeding - Prescribed and Approved Measurement Devices
The devices challenged were the LTI 20.20 TS/M Speedscope; the LTI 20.20 Ultralyte 100. Both of those are mobile speed cameras. The operator points the device at the rear of the vehicle which he thinks is speeding and pulls the trigger. This activates a laser beam enabling measurement of the vehicle's speed. Also challenged was the Gatsometer 24 - a speed camera which operates on radar principles.
Parliament "prescribed" the use
of radar measurement in the Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1992 . A similar Order of 1993 prescribes (a) a device designed or adapted for recording a measurement of the speed of motor vehicles activated by means of sensors or cables on or near the surface of the highway; and (b) a device designed or adapted for recording a measurement of the speed of motor vehicles activated by means of a light beam or beams.
Having "prescribed" the devices in this way, it is then a matter for the Secretary of State to "approve" the use of particular devices such as those mentioned earlier. A list of approved devices as at March 2007 may be seen via the Home Office website - here.
By the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 s.20 - evidence of speed measured using "prescribed" devices is admissible. However, under section 20(4), the prescribed device must be of a type approved by the Secretary of State and it must be used in accordance with any conditions subject to which the approval was given. Section 20(9) defines ?prescribed device? as a device of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
The drivers argued that the generic descriptions used in the 1992 and the 1993 Orders were too vague and broad to meet the requirements of section 20 and that the Secretary of State should have approved the device before placing the statutory instrument before Parliament.
The High Court considered some Scottish case law - which is of "persuasive authority" - and concluded that the plain effect of section 20 (4) is that the requirement for the type of the device to be approved is additional to the requirement that the description of the device is specified in the relevant statutory instrument. The statutory instrument did not need to specify the particular device.
This interpretation of the law makes good sense since it permits new devices to be approved by the Secretary of State without necessarily having to amend the legislation. In this way, new technology can be more readily brought into use.
- The Best Safety Lexus Has To Offer, Isn't For Us
The new Lexus LS 460 that goes on sale this fall be able to parallel park itself without the driver touching the steering wheel. Pretty slick! Only problem is, some of the car's best high tech safety features won't be put on cars shipped to the...
- Driving ~ Fixed Penalties
On 16th August, careless driving (Road Traffic Act 1988 s.3) became an offence for which a fixed penalty notice can be issued - Government announcement. The fixed penalty for careless driving is now £100 with 3 points on the driver?s licence....
- Finger Pointing
Steve Coogan not guilty of speeding at Hove seafront declares the BBC 16th July. In fact, it appears that he was found not guilty of the offence of failing to supply information under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This is not a speeding...
- Uninsured Drivers Beware
It is not possible to say exactly how many uninsured drivers are on the roads. Nevertheless, the number is very substantial. In July 2010, The Independent drew attention to the fact that premiums were rising and that this might be leading...
- Speed Cameras - Funding Cuts - Will The Roads Be Less Safe?
Early on in the days of the coalition government a cut to funding for speed cameras was announced - see Telegraph 18th June. The Guardian 9th August reports that the Chief Constable of Gwent has said that cutting speed cameras will put lives at...