March 1 2006
Speed camera loophole
Nearly all speed camera prosecutions are based on inadmissible evidence and can therefore be thrown out, according to an exclusive report in MCN - out on March 1.
This Afternoons BlattThis afternoons blatt started, effectively, at Rowsley a few miles north of Matlock. I turned right off the A6 onto the...
It's because defendants aren't given evidence on time. By not providing a photo or video evidence at least seven days before a trial, camera partnerships breach the 1967 Criminal Justice Act.
MCN News Editor Tony Carter said: "We contacted each of the three biggest camera partnerships and they all 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. People need to be aware of their rights."
For the full and exclusive story see MCN out on Wednesday March 1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Metro:
"Top traffic lawyer Nick Freeman, who successfully defended 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'" ------------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt the law will be changed soon. I wonder why magistrates connive at this blatant rule-bending and convict without evidence? -- Mr X
