Evidence inadmissible if camera photos are late
Published: 22nd May 2006
Category: Prosecution
Reader's Rage: [38votes]

Motor Cycle News magazine covered a story in March that said photographic evidence from speed cameras must be made available to the defence at least 7 days before a court trial. The editor contacted three of the biggest speed camera partnerships who said that this evidence isn't automatically submitted to the defence.

According to the 1967 Criminal Justice Act photographic evidence is required to be made available at least 7 days before a trial, so in cases where camera photos are not made available at all until the trial date, or less than 7 days in advance, the 1967 act has been breached which renders the evidence inadmissible in court.

Most people are unaware of this law and don't realise that they can object to the use of such late evidence. After the magazine had published this news story it was dismissed as "misleading" by ACPO - the association of chief police officers.

Motor Cycle News wrote in a later issue: "Our story was supported by admissions from London, Thames Valley and Mid and South Wales camera partnerships that evidence is not automatically submitted to Defendants before a trial, and by comments from top celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman. ACPO responded this morning with a press statement claiming: 'It is unfortunate that this article may well mislead the public in believing that police forces are not complying with the advanced disclosure of evidence as laid down in the Act.'"

The magazine were determine to show that their original article was accurate and contacted Ian Bell, ACPO?s safety camera partnership co-ordinator, who said ?I?m not saying you?ve misled the public. What I?m saying is that someone reading the article may be under the impression that the police are not conforming with the Criminal Procedures Act.?

Asked if he thought MCN?s story was wrong he added: ?I?m not saying that at all.? According to MCN he offered to remove the word ?mislead? from the statement.

Our comment: This loophole has been law for 40 years which every camera partnership should be aware of - and everyone with a court summons needs to be aware of.

Printer friendly version

Discussion Forum
Do you want to have your say about this news article? Head on over to our Discussion Forum and join in with existing conversations or start your own.