PR195 Speed camera folly in Lincolnshire

News: For immediate release

In a case yesterday (19th May 2005) in Spalding Magistrates Court,
Lincolnshire the speeding case against Phil Walker was dismissed when it
emerged that the speed limit was not valid in law.

The Crown's case related to the prosecution of Mr Philip Walker for an alleged
offence of exceeding the 30 mph speed restriction on the A153 Anwick village,
Lincolnshire dating back to 2003.

The enforcement was undertaken by a static Truvelo camera system.

The defence called in the services of a signage / speed restriction expert to
examine the validity of the prosecution practices and the legal basis of the
speed restriction.

The village of Anwick is provided with a system of lighting which was
challenged by the defence expert as being incapable in law of providing a
restricted road status. His findings led him to conclude that the highway
authority had failed in its statutory duty to provide the mandatory signing
needed for an enforceable restriction, the Court were therefore, in law,
prevented from convicting a motorist of that offence.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) Said: "Oh no - not another one - Speed limit
enforcement has become dangerous and slipshod. We have to give the
responsibility for speed enforcement back to intelligent Police officers using
skill and discretion to identify the bad guys. Speed cameras simply cannot do
the job and almost always catch responsible motorists at responsible speeds.
Motorists caught at this location must ask for their money and their licence
points to be returned."

Phil Walker, (accused driver and IT specialist) said: "It was almost two years
ago that the camera flashed in my face. I know that they are supposed to have
a magenta filter fitted over the flash but that didn't stop it being
blindingly bright. I was already considering a complaint to the Chief
Constable when my Notice of Intended Prosecution arrived. I carried out my own
investigation and informed the Police in November 2003 that the speed limit
was unenforceable. It beggars belief that they have apparently continued to
pursue innocent motorists while my case was pending for court. Now they will
have to issue refunds to any drivers convicted on that particular road."

Clive Burton, Defence Solicitor, said: "I am delighted that Mr Walker has,
after a wait of two years and numerous court attendances, obtained a just
result. Nothing can of course compensate him for the stress he has undergone.

My concern is that, although there is clear direction, set by statute law and
regulations, highway authorities frequently fail to follow their
responsibilities in the placing and positioning of requisite signs, and in the
placing of speed cameras there is a trend to select sites dictated not by
considerations of dangers caused by speeding, but rather by calculations of
penalty income for the Camera Partnerships. The consequences can all too
often lead to loss of livelihood and other tragedies."

More background provided by Richard Bentley, the defence expert:

"A detailed report was submitted to the Crown highlighting this and a number
of problems including the major signing deficiencies

This, in turn, led to a number of further reports being served by the Crown,
prepared by their own experts into matters highlighted by the defence, who
then submitted additional expert reports raising further difficulties for the
Crown.

Following the submission those expert reports (some of which were presented to
rebut Crown experts evidence), pre trial discussions were held between the
Crown's Senior Prosecutor, the defence expert and the defence lawyer.

The Crown declined to call any of their experts to give evidence, instead, the
prosecutor informed the Court the Crown had no witnesses present to call (all
Crown Experts were all present in the Court building in an anti chamber
throughout the whole of the hearing).

Following those detailed and somewhat heated discussions between the defence
expert and the Crown Prosecutor (including rebuttals of the Crown's attempt to
gain / present flawed legal arguments), further corroborative documentation
supporting the defence position was served on the Crown - the Senior
Prosecutor left the Court room to undertake hasty telephone discussions with
his CPS office.

The Prosecutor returned to the Court room to, in his words to the Clerk and
the defence team,'reluctantly offer no evidence'.

The Magistrates entered, the Court sat, the Crown apologised for the delay and
presented their case, offering no evidence, the reason given as to the Bench
was: 'in the public interest'.

The Magistrates not only dismissed the charge against Mr Walker, but awarded
his costs to be paid.

The result clearly calls into question the validity of the speed restriction,
as, if the Crown were actually certain of their ground and the validity /
legality of the restriction, both Crown and Defence experts were clearly ready
to be tested in the Court.

But, additionally, this result/decision should now lead to the questioning of
the validity of many years of Partnership prosecution (pre and post Walker),
of motorists for the alleged offence of exceeding the limit of speed on the
A153 in Anwick village. It is anticipated that the number of prosecutions
would be high given the nature of the road (a busy Lincolnshire commuter /
business route linking Louth, Sleaford and Grantham), and the years of
operation."

<ends>



Notes for editors:
==================

The accused:

Phil Walker:
tel: 01827 330291 / 07775 933436

Defence Solicitor

Clive Burton
Burton and Burton
Solicitors
Nottingham
Tel 0115 952 5000.

Defence Expert:

Richard Bentley
www.rmbconsulting.co.uk

About Safe Speed
================

The Safe Speed road safety campaign is primarily the work of engineer-turned
road safety analyst Paul Smith.

Since setting up Safe Speed in 2001, Paul Smith, 49, an advanced motorist and
road safety enthusiast, and a professional engineer of 25 years UK experience,
has carried out over
8,000 hours of research into the overall effects of speed camera policy on UK
road safety. We believe that this is more work in more detail than anything
carried out by any other
organisation. Paul's surprising conclusion is that overall speed cameras make
our roads more dangerous. Paul has identified and reported a number of major
flaws and false
assumptions in the claims made for speed cameras, and the whole "speed kills"
system of road safety.

The inescapable conclusion is that we should urgently return to the excellent
road safety policies that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the World in the
first place.

Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits or appropriate enforcement of
motoring laws, but argues vigorously that automated speed enforcement is neither
safe nor
appropriate.


Contact Safe Speed:
=================

description: Safe Speed road safety campaign
web: http://www.safespeed.org.uk
email: psmith@...
telephone: 01862 832000 24 hours.
mobile: 07799 045553
note: the mobile does not work well at our office. Always try land line first.
Location: North Scotland

We are available for further comment.

To be added to our PR distribution list send an email to psmith@...
or visit our press pages at: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/prindex.html