Brotherston and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 3 Feb 2012

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 mechanisms were lawful and specified wihin the regulations. The court discussed the stages involved in the designation of a system within the regulations.

Toulson LJ, Cranston J
[2012] EWHC 136 (Admin)
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 89, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 20, Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1992 SI 1992 No 1209, Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1993 SI 1993 No 1698
England and Wales
AppliedRobbie the Pict v The Procurator Fiscal, Dumfries HCJ 15-May-2009
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, . .
CitedRobbie the Pict v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Apr-2009
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.451360