|
Whilst the number
of visible police officers patrolling our roads is apparently diminishing,
it is a fact that the number of criminal offences being prosecuted is
increasing. Much of this is to do with the continuing expansion of the
use of speed cameras and other cameras which detect red light offences
and bus lane infringements.
Most offences detected
by cameras go unchallenged by the individuals concerned who believe
that if the police or Safety partnership has notified them that an offence
has been committed, then they must be right. Regrettably, in a lot of
cases because alleged offences go unchallenged, the authorities have
taken a casual approach to the legal requirements of proving the offence
concerned. The result is that people are pleading guilty to an offence
which either they have not committed or which the prosecution could
not prove if put to the test.
An example of this
is where police officers have failed to follow the ‘user manual’
requirements accompanying the speed measuring equipment they are using.
This renders the evidence produced by the equipment inadmissible or
at the least inadequate to prove the offence. The prosecution have a
burden to prove the case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
Therefore any failure
to follow the equipment instructions is likely to reduce the value of
the evidence and often leads to a finding of Not Guilty.
Similarly, prosecutions
are brought after using speed measuring equipment in an area where the
lawfulness of the speed limit itself is questionable.
It is usually assumed
by the police and the CPS that because there are 30mph signs together
with street lights that the speed limit is lawful. This assumption especially
in villages where the lighting has been adopted many years ago by the
Highway Authority is sometimes flawed. We have had one instance where
a prosecutor has told us that because the Highway Code says something,
it is the law. That is simply not correct.
There are regulations
and definitions which decide whether the lighting is of the correct
type. This is usually overlooked by the prosecution and then vigorously
contested by them when a matter is defended. This stubbornness can only
be resolved in court with the use of expert opinion and good cross examination.
Our advice is that
whenever you receive anything from one of the prosecuting authorities
you should not return any paperwork or documentation to them until you
have taken our advice.
|
