Safe Speed Forums

Speeding test case abandoned by Crown after campaigner exposes potential loophole
27 Jun 2011

A test case brought by campaigner Robbie the Pict challenging the validity of police speed capture devices has been deserted by the Crown after they were unable to produce a copy of the document authorising the use of the device in question.

The case, which had been pursued by the Crown for eight years and was scheduled to be heard at Fort William tomorrow, was dramatically dropped “after careful consideration” on Saturday via email.

Now, Robbie the Pict is considering raising an action to cover his court costs after eight years of protracted litigation.

In his case, Robbie had emailed district Procurator Fiscal Alison Wyllie to obtain the police officer’s competency certificate which would have demonstrated that the WPC who operated the radar device was suitably trained to do so, together with an evidential copy of the statutory approval authorising that device to be used to secure prosecutions as required by the legislation.
“48 hours later, by email on a Saturday, the case is deserted,” Robbie told The Firm.
“All I'm doing in all cases is pulling up the civil servants for not properly raising legislative instruments and the Secretaries of State for not signing them off properly. They've been getting off with it for years and are now grumpy about being pulled up for not doing their job,” he said.
“I have several examples of subordinate instruments being signed by 'One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State' when it suits them. I presented 14 examples at Portree and the Court just glazed over. The Crown had to resort to claiming that such legal instruments, which primary legislation authorises a Cabinet Minister only to raise, are not actually legislation - only departmental decisions, which any underling can effect and enjoy the protection of war-time Emergency Powers and the Carltona case of 1942/3 which became the 'authority' for indulging such practice.
“However making particular administrative decisions in a particular case is not making the legislation which will apply to a multiplicity of cases - in the case of cameras, speed-guns, motorways and toll roads throughout the UK."

Robbie’s argument is based on the contention that the enabling subordinate legislation is fatally flawed. The position will now not be established in court following the Crown’s abandonment of proceedings.

Robbie has campaigned for a number of years against the use of speed devices that he argues have been adopted and used on an ad hoc basis, bypassing the prescribed statutorily required procedure.

If the position is successfully argued, many thousands of speeding conviction charges could be overturned and the associated inflated insurance penalties rendered liable to be claimed back by drivers in civil damages.

Unfortunately "not tested in court" means that the status quo of slack administration of the law remains.

So, clearly, you agree with me that fines should not be related to a person's income.