dreamweaver
03-01-2009, 06:10 AM
This isn't directly a Freeman on the Land issue but I think it will be of interest all the same...
Lifted from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/4059922/Speed-cameras-could-be-illegal.html
At least 80 cases are in the pipeline in which drivers will argue that evidence was gathered unlawfully gathered because the cameras have never been given the necessary parliamentary approval.
Should they be successful, it would pave the way for an avalanche of claims from tens of thousands motorists who have been fined and had points put on their licence.
Within the next few months courts in England and Scotland will decide whether motorists were punished unlawfully because of a drafting error dating back to the early 1990s.
“This is of major public importance,” said Kieran Henry, a specialist road traffic solicitor from Stockport, involved in several of the cases.
“We believe that the Tory Government left a major loophole when they changed motoring law.
“Despite hundreds more cameras being introduced neither they nor Labour have ever sorted this out.”
More than £100 million a year is raised from speed camera fines, with the cash going to the Treasury, leading to claims that the programme is little more than a “stealth tax” on motorists.
One estimate puts the number of motorists who have received fines as a result of cameras as high as eight million.
The legal challenges come amid a growing political backlash against the speed cameras across the country.
Tory-controlled Swindon council has refused to continue funding the cameras and another Conservative authority, Northamptonshire, has announced a review of its scheme.
The legal challenge centres on a change to motoring law when the Tories were in power.
Up until 1992, when the speed camera programme was in its infancy, devices only needed approval by Home Office scientists to be considered legal.
Lawyers for the rebel motorists claim that the position changed when the 1991 Road Traffic Act became law and required parliamentary backing for new cameras.
However over the past 15 years this has not happened once - meaning the status of virtually all of the 6,000 speed cameras currently on Britain’s roads is in question.
It is understood that the Home Office believes that blanket approval was given to all speed cameras by Michael Howard when he was Home Secretary.
But this is being challenged in the courts, with lawyers for the motorists arguing that Mr Howard’s approval only applied to technology which was in operation at the time.
Any devices brought in since then, it is claimed, should have been subject to approval by MPs.
Should the motorists win, evidence from the vast majority of cameras on Britain’s roads would be struck out until the Government rectified the situation.
The Department for Transport defended the speed camera programme.
“Safety Cameras play a substantial role in saving lives. Independent research has shown that 1,745 fewer people are killed and seriously injured at camera sites each year.
“The Government is clear that the best safety camera is the one which takes no fines at all, but succeeds in deterring drivers from speeding.”
Lifted from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/4059922/Speed-cameras-could-be-illegal.html
At least 80 cases are in the pipeline in which drivers will argue that evidence was gathered unlawfully gathered because the cameras have never been given the necessary parliamentary approval.
Should they be successful, it would pave the way for an avalanche of claims from tens of thousands motorists who have been fined and had points put on their licence.
Within the next few months courts in England and Scotland will decide whether motorists were punished unlawfully because of a drafting error dating back to the early 1990s.
“This is of major public importance,” said Kieran Henry, a specialist road traffic solicitor from Stockport, involved in several of the cases.
“We believe that the Tory Government left a major loophole when they changed motoring law.
“Despite hundreds more cameras being introduced neither they nor Labour have ever sorted this out.”
More than £100 million a year is raised from speed camera fines, with the cash going to the Treasury, leading to claims that the programme is little more than a “stealth tax” on motorists.
One estimate puts the number of motorists who have received fines as a result of cameras as high as eight million.
The legal challenges come amid a growing political backlash against the speed cameras across the country.
Tory-controlled Swindon council has refused to continue funding the cameras and another Conservative authority, Northamptonshire, has announced a review of its scheme.
The legal challenge centres on a change to motoring law when the Tories were in power.
Up until 1992, when the speed camera programme was in its infancy, devices only needed approval by Home Office scientists to be considered legal.
Lawyers for the rebel motorists claim that the position changed when the 1991 Road Traffic Act became law and required parliamentary backing for new cameras.
However over the past 15 years this has not happened once - meaning the status of virtually all of the 6,000 speed cameras currently on Britain’s roads is in question.
It is understood that the Home Office believes that blanket approval was given to all speed cameras by Michael Howard when he was Home Secretary.
But this is being challenged in the courts, with lawyers for the motorists arguing that Mr Howard’s approval only applied to technology which was in operation at the time.
Any devices brought in since then, it is claimed, should have been subject to approval by MPs.
Should the motorists win, evidence from the vast majority of cameras on Britain’s roads would be struck out until the Government rectified the situation.
The Department for Transport defended the speed camera programme.
“Safety Cameras play a substantial role in saving lives. Independent research has shown that 1,745 fewer people are killed and seriously injured at camera sites each year.
“The Government is clear that the best safety camera is the one which takes no fines at all, but succeeds in deterring drivers from speeding.”