References: [2009] ScotHC HCJAC – 49
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Carloway, Lord Emslie and Lord Abernethy
Ratio: The defendant appealed against his conviction for speeding. He said that the speed gun used was not a device of a type approved by the Secretary of State since the regulationas allowed approval of speed measuring mechanisms activated by light, whereas this manual speed gun was actived by the police officer pulling its ‘trigger’.
Held: The argument failed. ‘Whilst it may be said that the process of capture of the vehicle speed is initiated by the operator of the device pulling the trigger, it is obvious that the reading itself is initiated and completely dependant upon the light beams emitted from and received by the device and we have no hesitation in finding that it is a device which is ‘a device designed or adapted for recording a measurement of the speed of motor vehicles by means of a light beam or beams’.’
This case cites:
- See Also – Robbie the Pict v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Times 14-May-09)
The defendant, a road traffic camera campaigner appealed against his conviction for contravening a red light traffic signal, saying that the camera was not approved.
Held: The appeal failed. A ‘prescribed device’ was a ‘device of a description . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Applied – Brotherston and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2012] EWHC 136 (Admin))
Four drivers said that the use of approved speed cameras for evidential purposes was unlawful. They argued that the cameras used were not ‘of a description specified’ under an Order.
Held: The appeals failed. The different speed trap . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 17 December 2018
Ref: 346257
The post Robbie the Pict v The Procurator Fiscal, Dumfries: HCJ 15 May 2009 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.