Update (6th October 2013) – Please note that the issues addressed within this article have now been considered before Leamington Spa Magistrates Court on 26th July 2013 and the court has ruled that those persons who pleaded guilty to offences occurring prior to 27th November 2013 (to which these signage issues relate), will not be allowed to re-open their cases before the Magistrates Court. If however, you still wish to challenge any such conviction there remains an option to challenge the courts decision by way of judicial review to the High Court. Please see our article entitled “M6/M42 Variable Speed Limit Signage – Applications to Re-Open Declined”.
If you wish to discuss any other matter in connection with an on-going prosecution before Leamington Spa Magistrates Court for an offence relating to the M42/M6 Variable Speed Cameras, please contact us to discuss how we can help.
Further to our blog on 9th November 2012, providing information on potential defects with the variable speed limit cameras located on the M42/M6 Toll, junctions 9-7, we have now become aware that a number of prosecutions before Leamington Spa Magistrates Court have been withdrawn by the police.
In our conversations with the police and CPS, we have been able to establish that this issue appears to relate to the operation of the “variable speed limit” signage, such that this may not have been operating correctly in certain cases where motorists have been summonsed to court for exceeding a variable speed limit.
If this variable speed signage has not operated correctly, then the prosecution will not be able to prove any offence as Section 85(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, requires “that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to whether any, and if so what, limit of speed is to be observed on any road”.
We have now established that a large number of cases are being withdrawn by the police/CPS relating to this particular stretch of variable speed cameras and that other cases are suspended pending further investigations.
At present we are aware that this is an issue which potentially impacts upon allegations during May and June 2012, and we are currently seeking to establish whether these issues are limited to this period or as to whether they go beyond.
It is very possible that a number of motorists may have already been wrongly convicted of offences relating to these cameras, have already received fines, penalty points and even been disqualified. In the event that it is established that this has occurred in any case, individuals will be entitled to make applications to re-open their cases before the magistrates court in order to have any conviction and sentence set-aside.
We will continue our investigations in an effort to provide further information on this subject and will continue to keep our readers updated.
21st November 2012