References: Times 14-May-2009
Coram: Davis J
Ratio: 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 specified in an order made by the secretary of state’. The camera had been so specified in 1992.
Davis J considered the approval process: ‘As I see it, this section connotes a two stage process. Generically (and this has to be approved by Parliament in the form of a statutory instrument) a description has to be specified in an order. Once that is done as a first stage then the Secretary of State may then as a second stage approve the type in question. So one goes from the general, in the sense of the specified description, to the specific, in the sense of an approved type. That makes perfectly good sense. It is, in fact, no departure in any significant way from that which existed under the previous legislation, save only in this respect: Parliament has now taken upon itself at least to wish to sanction the actual description of the device in question, in respect of which the Secretary of State may thereafter issue an approval as to type.’
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 36(1), Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2001 (SI 2002 No 3113) 10, Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) (No 2) Order 1992 (SI 1992 No 2843)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- See Also – Robbie the Pict v The Procurator Fiscal, Dumfries HCJ (Bailii, [2009] ScotHC HCJAC – 49)
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, . . - Cited – 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: 27 June 2020
Ref: 343071 br>
The post Robbie the Pict v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 26 Apr 2009 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.