Gary Cusick V. Procurator Fiscal, Airdrie
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Brodie,Lord Wheatley,Lord Justice Clerk |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] HCJAC 39 |
| Published date | 15 May 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Docket Number | XJ87/14 |
| Date | 06 May 2014 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lord Justice Clerk Lord Brodie Lord Wheatley | [2014] HCJAC 39 XJ87/14 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD JUSTICE CLERK in STATED CASE by GARY CUSICK Appellant; against PROCURATOR FISCAL, AIRDRIE Respondent: _____________ |
Appellant: MacKintosh; John Pryde & Co
Respondent: Fairley, QC AD; the Crown Agent
6 May 2014
[1] On 28 October 2013, at Cumbernauld Justice of the Peace Court, the appellant was found guilty of driving on Castlecary Road, Cumbernauld at 49mph, which was in excess of the 30mph speed limit, on 1 March 2012, contrary to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, sections 81 and 89. He was fined £300 and 4 penalty points were imposed on his licence.
[2] During the trial the appellant objected to the evidence from the police about the readings from a Unipar SL700 laser speed detection device, on the basis that the conditions of the relevant Approval Order had not been satisfied. In this regard, section 20(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides that the record produced by a prescribed device is not admissible as evidence unless that device is of an approved type and any conditions, subject to which the approval was given, are satisfied. Section 20(5) provides that any approval may be given subject to conditions as to the purposes for which, and the manner and other circumstances in which, any device is to be used (see, generally, Robbie the Pict v Corrins 2009 JC 11).
[3] The objection was that, in terms of an agreement between the Home Office and the manufacturer, relative to the Unipar SL700, there was a condition (Clause 14) whereby the manufacturer was required to advise if there was any change in the legal personality of the manufacturer. The agreement itself bears to run in the name of Unipar Services, but the signatures appended to it are under the name Unipar Services Limited. In terms of a letter dated 4 December 2012 from Companies House, the limited company was dissolved in 2008 and there was no evidence that the Home Office had been notified of this event. According to the appellant, therefore, this was a breach of a condition. However, a letter from Unipar Services intimates that it is a continuing partnership which continues to service the Unipar SL700. The limited company had been formed for another purpose, which had since passed. The use of "Limited" on the agreement had been an error.
[4] The Justice of the Peace, having...
To continue reading
Request your trial