Photographic output was part of device process
The defendant appealed his conviction for speeding, complaining at the technical accuracy of the Gatso camera used, and the use of photographs developed from pictures taken by the cameras.
Held: The photographs used for analysis were records produced by a prescribed device, even though not directly produced: ‘The record produced directly by the device, the film, is not readable until it has been developed. It is then readable through a viewer or it can be printed on to paper. The photographic print is, in our view, a record produced (albeit indirectly) by the device, notwithstanding the need for the development and printing processes. We do not consider that the scope of section 20(1) is limited to records which issue directly from the machine, such as those produced by devices which use a digital camera or other form of printout. In our judgment, a print produced from a film used in a Gatsometer is a record produced by a prescribed device. ‘
As to the non availability of an opportunity to check the timing of the photographs: ‘The device makes use of two completely independent types of technology. The primary speed check uses radar and is dependent on the ‘Doppler’ effect. The device emits a high frequency radio beam along the road. A vehicle approaching the device will reflect some of the signal back to the device. The frequency of the returned signal will be different from that of the transmitted signal and the difference between the two is a function of the speed of the approaching vehicle. The device is able to calculate the speed from the difference in frequency. Thus the primary speed check is wholly independent of the correct working of the clock inside the device. The secondary check is dependent on the clock. Only if the secondary check tallies with the primary check will there be a prosecution. It seems to us that it is not unfair to require the defence to take on trust the correct functioning of the camera at an interval of half a second because, if the camera timing were not correct, it would be an extraordinary coincidence that the result of the two checks, independently carried out, should turn out to be the same. ‘
Smith LJ, Gross J
[2007] EWHC 619 (Admin)
Bailii
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 21(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Garner v Director of Public Prosecutions 1990
The court considered the admissibility of evidence produced by a prescribed device for measuring breath alcohol levels.
Held: The record (the printout from a Lion Intoximeter device) was admissible either under the statutory provision without . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Thornley Admn 3-Feb-2006
The prosecution appealed dismissal of an allegation of speeding. The defendant had argued that the prosecution had not served the required evidence. The prosecution sought to rely upon the evidence of the officer.
Held: The provisions of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.250458