The defendant appealed against his conviction for speeding, saying that the device used to measure his speed was not approved. The only evidence relied on was that the officer said it had been installed in many police vehicles.
Held: The magistrates had not been entitled to take judicial notice of such an opinion. Though a court hearing a case stated might have wide powers in such cases, the powers were not available here because of the restricted nature of the magistrates’ decision. The court would remit the matter for trial before a new bench. An argument that a remittal would lead to unfair prejudice or prejudice failed, since the delay was only nine months.
Hooper LJ, Parker J
[2010] EWHC 2357 (Admin)
Bailii
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 84 89(1), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 Sch 2, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 20, Senior Courts Act 1981 28(8)(iii)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Nicholas v Penny QBD 1950
A police officer’s assessment of a defendant’s speed could be corroborated by evidence as to the reading of a speedometer, even if the latter device had not been checked for the accuracy of its reading, unless there were particular reasons for . .
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 . .
Cited – Nicholas v Penny QBD 1950
A police officer’s assessment of a defendant’s speed could be corroborated by evidence as to the reading of a speedometer, even if the latter device had not been checked for the accuracy of its reading, unless there were particular reasons for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.424952