Have millions of drivers been unfairly snared by speed guns?
A TYPE of speed gun that has clocked millions of motorists is to be challenged in a landmark court case later this month.
Lawyers will argue that the handheld laser devices, which are used in 90 per cent of speeding cases, do not adhere to UK law.
Wick Sheriff Court will hear testimony from an expert witness that the ProLaser III – used by most police forces – has never been properly validated for use in Britain.
As the use of the device has not been legally ratified, he will argue, it cannot form the basis of a prosecution.
Home Office guidelines published in 1993 state that prescribed devices designed for recording the speed of motor vehicles must be activated by a vehicle passing through light beams.
Yet the ProLaser III operates using a series of pulses which are fired towards a moving vehicle and reflected back. The legal argument forms part of the defence in the trial of a number of motorcyclists clocked by a ProLaser III device alleged speeding in the north of Scotland, charges they each deny.
If the sheriff accepts that a loophole exists, it could have far-reaching practical and legal consequences.
Defence solicitor Duncan Burd, of Portree firm Anderson MacArthur, said: ‘We believe that if a device used in criminal proceedings is not clearly and accurately described in a Statutory Instrument, then any data from that type of device is inadmissible as evidence.
‘It is important to clarify this matter to ensure that those who make laws do it properly and don’t look for short cuts, and to make sure the law is fair to motorists.
‘This case could be very significant for the motorist. The apparent willingness of anonymous civil servants to create laws away from the judiciary and Parliament and pretend they are the genuine article is something that needs to be fully considered.’
Mr Burd will rely on the testimony of former RAF serviceman and electronics expert Tim Farrow to argue that there is no specific Statutory Instrument to cover laser devices such as the ProLaser III.
Mr Farrow worked for British Aerospace after leaving the RAF and trained the Royal Saudi Air Force in electronic techniques for five years until 1982.
He has been an expert witness since 1991 and was accredited to testify in speeding cases in 2008. He said: ‘This has been crying out for a legal challenge.
‘I believe it should go all the way to the Supreme Court so that the outcome is binding throughout the whole of the UK.’
Laser devices used by police are presumed to be covered legally by Statutory Instrument 1993/1698, signed by then Home Secretary Michael Howard in July 1993.
It states: ‘The following devices are prescribed devices for the pur- pose of section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988: (a) a device designed or adapted for recording a measurement of the speed of motor vehicles activated by means of sensors or cables on or near the surface of the motorway; (b) a device designed or adapted for recording a measurement of the speed of motor vehicles activated by means of a light beam or beams.’
However, Mr Farrow will argue the US-made ProLaser III, which has been used in the UK since 2002, does not use a beam but a series of pulses, at a rate of 200 pulses per second.
These are fired at the vehicle, normally the number plate, which reflects back allowing speed to be calculated.
His statement to the court will conclude: ‘It is my expert opinion that SI 1993/1698 does not cover the ProLaser series of speed measuring equipment and therefore the ProLaser III is not a prescribed device for the purpose of section 20 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.’
In Scotland, almost 34,400 motorists were convicted of speeding last year, with fines exceeding £5 million.
‘It is important to clarify this matter’ ‘Could go all the way to Supreme Court’