Crader v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Blake |
| Judgment Date | 23 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 3553 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/2356/2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 23 October 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 3553 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Blake
CO/2356/2015
Mr D Sonn (instructed by Sonn Macmillan Walker) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr P Taheri (instructed by Hampshire Constabulary Force Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Aldershot Justices who convicted the appellant of driving on the A31 using in excess of the 70 miles per hour speed limit. The appellant did not attend his trial on 11 November 2014 nor had he attended on the previous occasion when the matter was listed for trial but was not reached. No issue arises in respect of service of notice of the date of trial.
In good time before the first date listed for trial the statements relied on by the prosecuting authority, the Chief Constable of Hampshire, were served on the appellant. Amongst those statements was the document which is the subject of this challenge. That document is in the following terms. It has on its top left-hand side the logo of the Hampshire Constabulary. It has the heading "Section 20 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1991 As Amended" and then continues as follows:
"In accordance with the above I hereby certify that a Lastec Concept DVD System is a prescribed device of a type approved by the Secretary of State."
Details of the device, its functioning on the date of the offence, which was said to be 1 February 2014, are given, and the belief of the author that the device was operated in accordance with the approval given and functioned and operated correctly at all material times. That certification is signed and dated 21 March 2014 and a stamp is attached below the signature in the terms Jeff Winkworth, Prosecutions Clerk giving the address: Safety Camera Unit, Central Ticket Office, PO Box 112, Winchester, and attached is a representation of what the camera had recorded.
The Justices received that certificate in evidence and were satisfied on the basis of the information before them, including the contents of that certificate, that the appellant had exceeded the speed limit, indeed the camera was recording him as driving at 97 miles per hour.
Subsequently, they were asked to state a case on the basis that they should not have received the certificate because it is contended that the requirements of section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act were not met in this case.
Section 20 is in the following terms:
"(1) Evidence… of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies may be given by the production of—
(a) a record produced by a prescribed device, and
(b) (in the same or another document) a certificate as to the circumstances in which the record was produced signed by a constable or by a person authorised by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed;
but subject to the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial