In a potentially stunning appeal case in the High Court on Tuesday the futureof speed cameras may be decided, at least for a while. The case concerns anunsigned section 172 form, where an apparent loophole in the law requires adriver to return "information" about a motoring offence, but the law does notappear to require the form to be signed.
If the form is not signed other legislation suggests that it cannot be used inevidence. In this way thousands of drivers have already escaped conviction formotoring offences, by returning "information" as required on unsigned forms.
The situation gained national publicity last year after a similar case inNorth Wales was dismissed. Since then many thousands of drivers have returnedforms unsigned in the hope of escaping conviction. Although no official figureexists, we have heard estimates ranging up to 100,000 unsigned forms cases inthe system at present.
If the appeal is won, drivers will not have to sign their forms and the speedcamera system will be thrown into chaos. Paul Smith of Safe Speed comments:"Speed cameras have had a strong negative effect on UK road safety overall,and it will be a very good thing indeed if the appeal is won. We will be ontrack for getting back to the excellent road safety policies that gave us thesafest roads in the world long before speed cameras."
Idris Francis said: "I am appealing this matter in the interests of roadsafety and the law, and on behalf of responsible motorists. It is unacceptablethat the law is in disarray on the matter. I abhor the way that longestablished legal principles including the right to silence and thepresumption of innocence have been eroded to enable speed cameras to be widelyinstalled. My investigations into the overall effects of speed cameras confirmthat they have been very bad indeed for UK road safety."
The appeal follows a case in Aldershot on the 28th August last year wheremagistrates convicted Mr Francis of "failing to provide information" underS172. There was no dispute that information had been provided, it had - thequestion, then as now, was: "Is it sufficient to satisfy the requirements oflaw to provide the information on a form that is not signed?"
John Josephs, Mr Francis solicitor, said: "There are two main reasons why thepresent system is unfair. First, the system does not discriminate betweenthose drivers who are greatly exceeding the limit at busy times and those whoare marginally over the limit but are otherwise driving perfectly safely. Second, although the points system is often compared to the "yellow card" infootball, a player knows that he has been given a yellow card. In many casesa motorist may fall foul of a hidden mobile camera more than once in a fewdays without even knowing it."
The case is listed for hearing on Tuesday 16th March 2004 at 10.00 at the HighCourt.
