Safe Speed Forums

Comment: This story appears to be on the PA wire and has been picked up by quite a few news outlets. I think the ACPO spokeswoman has confused the issue really, MCN are only talking about court cases.

http://www.24dash.com/content/news/view ... ewsID=3488

Many speed camera prosecutions "should be thrown out"
Publisher: Ian Morgan
Published: 01/03/2006 - 08:46:49 AM

Nearly all speed camera prosecutions are based on "inadmissible vidence" and can therefore be thrown out, according to Motor Cycle News.

Defendants are not given evidence on time and camera scheme organisers are breaching the 1967 Criminal Justice Act by not providing a photo or video evidence of an offence at least seven days before a trial, Motor Cycle News (MCN) said in its latest edition.

The publication's news editor, Tony Carter, said Motor Cycle News has contacted the three biggest areas which run the speed camera partnerships.

Each one said evidence was not automatically submitted to defendants before trials, which meant, according to MCN, that each one has potentially been bringing prosecutions based on inadmissible evidence.

Mr Carter added: "All the partnerships said 'Evidence isn't automatically submitted'. The problem for most people accused of speeding is they won't realise that this fact of law, which our investigation has uncovered, can render the evidence inadmissible in court.

"Our investigation has shown that even some solicitors aren't 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 can't have the evidence but fail to tell them they are entitled to see it. They want to have their cake and eat it."

The three partnerships contacted were London, Thames Valley and Mid and South Wales.

MCN said a spokeswoman for the London partnership said the evidence "doesn't automatically go out" to defendants.

A spokesman for the Thames Valley partnership said: "We don't send people a file of evidence."

And a spokesman for Mid and South Wales said: "We don't automatically supply pictures or tapes."

Other partnerships said video evidence from mobile speed camera vans wasn't submitted to defendants before a trial.

John Davies, spokesman for Lancashire, said stills would be sent to defendants instead.

In court, the whole video may be called on as evidence - but as it wasn't given to the defendant beforehand, it wouldn't be admissible.

Top traffic lawyer Nick Freeman, who has successfully defended the likes of David Beckham, Ronnie O'Sullivan and Sir Alex Ferguson, said: "Most of the prosecuting authorities go to court without producing the photo, and so there's no admissible evidence as to what the speed is.

"And it's not just a case of serving the photograph. It's got to be submitted at least seven days before the trial."

A spokeswoman for the Association of Chief Police Officers said Motor Cycle News' story was incorrect.

"There are two separate issues, the first relates to when a motorist receives notification that they've been detected by a speed camera and they wish to view the evidence relevant to that offence.

"They would then normally submit a request to the safety camera partnership to view that evidence which may be sent to them by post or alternatively arrangements may be made to view the evidence at a police station.

"The second issue relates to when a motorist chooses to have their case heard before a magistrates court and enters a plea of not guilty to the specific offence. Under these circumstances, there are strict procedures laid down in the Criminal Procedures Act 1996 to which the police service fully adheres."

The spokeswoman added that Motor Cycle News had "confused" the two issues.

Copyright Press Association 2006

I would like to view the original article for myself, does anyone have it?

Try this.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Sorry Smeggy, it's not the full article you need the paper .

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

There is a scan of part of it here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=9909

The photo is Nick Freeman I think.

Cheers Gareth (and Dave).

Yeah, that looks Like Nick freeman to me too.

Story update here


MCN right over loophole
March 1 2006

The Association of Chief Police Officers has backtracked over accusations that MCN misled the public with a story on Gatso evidence in our issue dated March 1.

In the March 1 issue we report that photo or film evidence is required by law to always be submitted to defendants at least seven days before a trial and that, because camera partnerships fail to meet the requirement, nearly all speeding prosecutions are based on inadmissible evidence.

Our story was supported by admissions from London, Thames Valley and Mid and South Wales camera partnerships that evidence is not automatically submitted to Defendants before a trial, and by comments from top celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman. ACPO responded this morning with a press statement claiming: "It is unfortunate that this article may well mislead the public in believing that police forces are not complying with the advanced disclosure of evidence as laid down in the Act.”

ACPO spokespeople described out story is "incorrect" click here

But Ian Bell, ACPO’s safety camera partnership co-ordinator, later said: “I’m not saying you’ve misled the public. What I’m saying is that someone reading the article may be under the impression that the police are not conforming with the Criminal Procedures Act.”

Asked if he thought MCN’s story was wrong, he added: “I’m not saying that at all.”

He offered to remove the word ‘mislead’ from the statement.

Bell admitted MCN’s story was accurate with regard to the law, saying: “The evidence has to be sent at least seven days before the date that the trial is set… The rules that are laid down are quite explicit.”

Bell claimed that, contrary to the admissions made by safety camera partnerships to MCN last week, evidence is in fact submitted to Defendants in accordance with the law. He added: “They have probably tried their best to answer the questions that you’ve laid to them… They could well have got it wrong.”

One partnership also contacted MCN to retract its previous statement. Dan Campsall, communications manager for Thames Valley, said: “It may well be that I have misunderstood.”

MCN reader Bryn Carlyon, who Mid and South Wales camera partnership attempted to prosecute in December, confirmed the partnership failed to meet the requirements. He said: “They didn’t provide the pictures until the trial.”

The case against Carlyon was dropped after MCN used the pictures to prove he wasn’t really speeding.

Transport for London has suggested that the question MCN asked last week related to evidence submitted in cases dealt with by Fixed Penalty rather than a trial. MCN has the question and answer on tape. See page two of this story for the full transcript:

MCN: You don’t send people evidence voluntarily, do you?

Spokeswoman: Sorry, when you say send people evidence voluntarily…

MCN: Before going to court. I mean, if somebody is going to court for speeding, would you voluntarily send them the evidence?

Spokeswoman: I believe that that aspect of safety cameras is dealt with by the Metropolitan Police, but I’m just going to have to chase up on that. So you might have to speak to them. Can I get your number please… Okay… I’ll give you a call back.

Spokeswoman (later): Right, no, they [Defendants] can get that information [evidence] on request. It’s not just at the court. But they need to ask the Metropolitan Police to give it to them.

MCN: Right, so it wouldn’t be sent to them voluntarily, but it would if they requested it?

Spokeswoman: Yes. Yeah, it doesn’t automatically go out but it is available on request. [/url]

Mentioned this on CSSP forum - P4 of this weeks issue - a quote by a Steve Calaghan ?? what does it actually say ??

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on