Court case, final score due on Wednesday.
The legality of every speed camera introduced on British roads since 1992 is being challenged in court. Skip related content
Related photos / videos Aitken Brotherston is challenging a speeding conviction in a legal test case Lawyers in a test case are arguing the law has been wrongly implemented by successive home secretaries and all devices authorised in the last 17 years are illegal.
A ruling on the case is expected to be made on Wednesday by a panel of one judge and two lay magistrates at Manchester Crown Court.
It could pave the way for an avalanche of challenges to speed camera convictions from millions of motorists, in which an estimated £600 million was collected in fines.
Retired computer engineer Aitken Brotherston, 61, of Lymm, Cheshire, has brought the hearing on appeal after he was convicted of driving 52mph in a 40mph zone.
Mr Brotherston said he “firmly believed” the LTI 20/20 Speedscope laser gun which captured his speed provided an inaccurate reading.
Defence barrister Michael Shrimpton said each home secretary since Michael Howard had effectively set up their own scheme of ministerial approval and were wrong to pass such devices as the LTI 20/20 without parliamentary scrutiny.
Previously they approved the technical evaluation of a named speed camera but now were rubber-stamping equipment which was not identified before Parliament, he said.
But Andrew Perry, prosecuting, told the court that the change in the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act in 1991 had not left Parliament out of the loop.
Judge Jonathan Gibson said the appeal panel members would make their decision only on the facts put before them and not on any mooted implications.
By: symon - 5th February 2009 at 17:21
As one who doesn’t cause trouble….I would much rather the cameras are there for my safety than aren’t there for my help.
By: J Boyle - 4th February 2009 at 23:17
As a law abider, I don’t actually mind. I have no reason to deny where I am, no reason to stay hidden…so I’m not exactly sure which of my civil liberties are being infringed upon by appearing on CCTV’s all over the place.
My second point was made from an American point of view. Being a country founded by malcontents from the UK, as you might expect there is a group against virtually ANYTHING here.
Some people (not me I hasten to add) feel that the UK level of police cameras would be an unwarrented invasion of privacy…and would have a “cooling” effect on a persons rights to exercise other civil liberties….speech, assembly etc, etc.
Yes, there are lots of security cameras here, but most are of rather limited scope…at ATM machines, or high value targets.
Those same people see sinister intent in anything…and as you might expect they’re rabidly against even the most common sense actions taken since
9-11. The courts try to walk a fine line, but the general agreement is that (in the words of a famous judge) the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact…that some restraints on individual liberty are accepted for overall safety.
By: old shape - 4th February 2009 at 22:36
Prediction: the cameras will stay.
Why?
Money…and the possibility that outlawing them might lead to a re-examination on the legality of all the police security cameras (isn’t the UK the woulds most officially watched nation?).Regardless of whether the cameras are legal or accurate, they’ll stay to preserve the status quo.
I can’t find the result on the news.
Money, yes. Imagine having to refund all the fines. Unpick all the incorrect insurance hikes due to having points. No way would a Judge and his Mags. allow it to happen, they’ll be “Got at”.
Yes, we are officially the most watched nation. As a law abider, I don’t actually mind. I have no reason to deny where I am, no reason to stay hidden…so I’m not exactly sure which of my civil liberties are being infringed upon by appearing on CCTV’s all over the place.
By: J Boyle - 3rd February 2009 at 23:20
Prediction: the cameras will stay.
Why?
Money…and the possibility that outlawing them might lead to a re-examination on the legality of all the police security cameras (isn’t the UK the woulds most officially watched nation?).
Regardless of whether the cameras are legal or accurate, they’ll stay to preserve the status quo.
Sign In
February 3, 2009 at 10:13 pm