|
ROBBIE THE PICT GOES TO WAR AGAINST SPEED CAMERA LAWS
A Major flaw in speed-camera legislation could lead to prosecutions dating back 15 years being wiped, it was claimed yesterday.
Robbie the Pict, who led the successful battle to have the Skye Bridge tolls scrapped, said he had established a legal argument which could open up the Home Office to claims of compensation amounting to millions of pounds for wrongful convictions of drivers and, in many cases, loss of earnings.
The law surrounding the detection equipment used to catch speeding motorists was very specific, but some of the provisions appeared to have been ignored.
He said that under the Road Traffic Act 1991, a "prescribed device" such as a camera or radar had to be used before evidence from it was admissible in court, and the act must have a specific description of the device that was being used.
"The specific description must be the subject of an order made by the secretary of state for transport," he said.
"In other words, the secretary of state has to place an order known as a 'statutory instrument' before parliament, detailing the equipment that has been approved to monitor motorists' speed.
"The statutory instrument is like a mini act of parliament.
Every time a new machine is introduced to catch speeders, a statutory instrument should be set out for it and laid before parliament.
If no one objects, the machine comes into force two weeks later.
The order should name each new device and describe it specifically."
Mr Pict said he had checked with the statutory instrument registrar for the UK, based in the Cabinet Office, who had conceded that statutory instruments had not been raised for these specific devices.
Solicitor David Hingston, a former procurator fiscal in the Highlands, said that, based on Robbie the Pict's research, there appeared to be a case for the Government to answer.
He said: "You would have to examine each statutory instrument to see that they conform to the act, but the act says very clearly that you need a statutory instrument that specifies the device that is to be used.
There cannot be a cover-all statutory instrument because the act does not allow that. All the Government has to do to prove that Robbie is wrong is to produce the statutory instruments."
Mr Hingston added: "If Robbie the Pict is right, it places politicians in a difficult position.
While the lawyers can argue over who was, or was not, wrongfully convicted, and whether or not they are time-barred from appealing their convictions, the politicians would have to take a clear stance on the issue.
There is also a wider question: much of the legal system is based on trust, and if the prosecution service says in court that someone is being prosecuted on sound legal grounds, it is usually accepted.
If Robbie the Pict is right, that could raise questions about the reliability of other parts of the law."
Mr Hingston said people could then start pleading not guilty and challenge every part of the law, leaving the entire court "to collapse".
No one was available for comment at the Cabinet Office.
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: "Speed cameras are there for a reason. Cameras have been shown independently to save lives.
If Mr Pict wants to liaise with this department then I am sure we would answer any queries that he raised."
Road Traffic Act 1991 S23: Here
Article Here
|
