Mobile Speed Camera Van Positioning Options

[Daveyboy65]

Hi all,

newbie to the forum here but I was wondering if there are any rules/laws governing the positioning of a mobile camera van? Near my home there is a 'favourite' spot for a mobile camera van, nice wide stretch of road with a slight bend in it, 30 limit. On the inside of the bend there is a wide pavement and then an area of grass. The camera van regularly positions on the grass on the inside of the bend meaning it is impossible to see the van due to the bend when approching from one direction, until the last minute. I know a few people who have been caught out.

My question is since the van will have had to mount the kerb and cross the pavement in order to position on the grass then in doing so the driver will have contravened section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, namely driving on a footpath. So will any 'evidence' gathered be admissable since it was gathered from an illegal position?

[Advertisement]

[nemo]

So will any 'evidence' gathered be admissable since it was gathered from an illegal position?

The legality or otherwise of their parking (ignoring for a moment any exemptions they have), will have no bearing upon the admissibility of any evidence they may gather from that location.

[Daveyboy65]

Doesn't seem fair, but then the whole system is stacked against the motorist. Does anyone know if there are any precedents that back up the legally or otherwise of their parking? Seems a bit odd to me that they can gather evidence form an illegal positon and still have it admissable, it just does not 'feel' right, sorry to doubt you.

[neil3841]

Could someone please advise me if I have anything to go buy, are they exempt from any laws!

They are likely to be exempt from most parking restrictions. But even if they are shown to be parked illegally, this would have no bearing on the admissibility or otherwise of the evidence gathered from that location.

I agree I do not see why it would help your case Think of it like this if a guy was spraying graffiti on a wall and witnessed a robbery he would still be able to be a witness even though he was commiting a offence himself. You could make a complaint to the police but I doubt they would do anything

[Daveyboy65]

Surely you cannot view it like that, the guy doing the graffiti is not collecting 'evidence' he would be a witness. Surely if this logic is correct then the police can enter your house looking for 'evidence' of a crime without the need for a warrant?

[Durzel]

The difference is them being parked illegally has no bearing whatsoever on whether you choose to commit an offence or not. It's not the same as them acquiring evidence through deception, intimidation or whatever (which is dismissed). You're not being coerced into speeding whether they're parked illegally or not. It's similar to the age-old logical fallacy of "entrapment" when an unmarked car tailgates you.

Why do you think them being parked illegally should make any difference to the veracity of the evidence acquired there?

This post has been edited by Durzel: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 - 15:29

[Daveyboy65]

Agreed the reponsibility and consequences of any offence lie with the individual committing said offence, don't disagree. What I am trying to establish is if it is lawful for the police to gather evidence to pursue a conviction when the evidence is gather illegally. If the police commit an offence to gather evidence from my home, i.e. entering without a warrant, then what makes gathering evidence from contravening the RTA any different? I don't know the answer which is why I am asking.

Opinion is one thing, law is another.

[maximus999]

Yes daveyboy you are correct in that saying, there seems to be a lot of confusion on all this matter but no one seems to grasp what they are actually doing is illegal, there is no exemptions in the road traffic acts which state what the law can do in the way of breaking it and we all should abide by it, Back to your topic, i didnt realise thay actually mounted a pavement to which is against the law as you have stated the traffic act so by doing this they have broken 2 laws, WHY ARNT THEY PROSECUTED!!!! Lets put it in a different scenario, we all including the police have to abide by speed limits on the uk roads with the exception of when on emergency calls i.e. 999 and alike, this means a traffic oficer has to drive on a motorway at 70mph like the rest of us - He cant decide to drie at 100mph without reason and hope onthe off chance someone will drive past at a higher speed This is illegal!! no one can break the law when upholding the law regadless.
As for the graffiti comment yes he could be a witness but he should also be prosecuted a he/she broke the law so why is it different for the police.

Can we at this stage of waiting for a court date write to the police and pay the fine and accept the points? or is it to late. i have completed the NIP program on here and we are not disputing that we were the driver.

Whilst I am all for people not speeding

Great, so you have advised your girlfriend to plead guilty while you try and resolve this issue in the hope guilty people don't get off on a technicality...?

C.T.C If you want to call this a technicality then that is your opinion but i call it UNLAWFUL. If you happened to walk past a copper in a back lane receiving oral sex off a prostitue and you were dealing drugs would you use what he was doing to get off I think you would

The difference is them being parked illegally has no bearing whatsoever on whether you choose to commit an offence or not. It's not the same as them acquiring evidence through deception, intimidation or whatever (which is dismissed). You're not being coerced into speeding whether they're parked illegally or not. It's similar to the age-old logical fallacy of "entrapment" when an unmarked car tailgates you.

Why do you think them being parked illegally should make any difference to the veracity of the evidence acquired there?

If they are breaking the law and nothing happens to them why should something happen to us for breaking the law Beats me Broken britain

[C.T.C]

C.T.C If you want to call this a technicality then that is your opinion but i call it UNLAWFUL. If you happened to walk past a copper in a back lane receiving oral sex off a prostitue and you were dealing drugs would you use what he was doing to get off I think you would

As it's not an offence to engage in a sex act with a prostitue, I'd just regard it as a perk of his job and wish him well...

Now, shall we debate the rights and wrongs of guilty people walking away from crimes they are caught red handed at, on a technicality....?

[Daveyboy65]

Surely it is not a technicality, it is the law or not? The question is and still remains, can the police break the law to gather evidence? In driving over a public pavement the police are breaking the law had they not broken the law they would not have been able to gather the evidence.

[nemo]

our argument is purely that the camera van was parked illegally on the grass verge.

I'm sorry, but your argument is flawed on many levels.

For instance, even if you don't think that exemptions are likely to apply to SCP / police vehicles which are parked 'illegally', the grass verge between the pavement and fences was held to be part of a road in Worth v Brooks [1959].

[Durzel]

If they are breaking the law and nothing happens to them why should something happen to us for breaking the law Beats me Broken britain

As I understand it most parking exemptions/TROs contain exemptions for any vehicle being used for police purposes, so technically they aren't breaking the Law, quite the opposite in fact - the Law makes specific provisions for them to be able to park there.

This post has been edited by Durzel: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 - 16:03

[Daveyboy65]

Ok maybe you are confusing 2 different starting points here. Nemo, agree on the strip of grass being deemed as part of the road. Durzel, I am sure you are right about specific provisions for parking etc. However the point I am making is how they came to arrive at the parking point, in mounting a kerb and driving accross a footpath at the side of the carriageway they have committed an offence under the RTA. Now when they park that might be legal but to get to the parking place is another matter and is the subject of my argument.

Suppose the police suspected a person of drug dealing from their home (stupid but possible) and the police break into the house opposite, set up still & video cameras to collect evidence, would that evidence be valid? The police would have committed an offence to get to their vantage point would they not? Now apply the same logic to driving illegally over a pavement to arrive at a vantage point to collect video/stills for evidence in a later prosecution, would that evidence be admissable?

I know logic and law are not comfortable bed fellows.

[maximus999]

C.T.C If you want to call this a technicality then that is your opinion but i call it UNLAWFUL. If you happened to walk past a copper in a back lane receiving oral sex off a prostitue and you were dealing drugs would you use what he was doing to get off I think you would

As it's not an offence to engage in a sex act with a prostitue, I'd just regard it as a perk of his job and wish him well...

Now, shall we debate the rights and wrongs of guilty people walking away from crimes they are caught red handed at, on a technicality....?

Hold on, its not an offence for a 'police officer' to receive oral sex from a prostitue in a back lane in PUBLIC when he is on duty, you must make these laws up are you an mp or maybe mr brown?

This world is stark raving mad, is the colour black - black or white? only stupid people would say it is white if its black its black theres no point in trying to say any other. This is what we are trying to get over

[Equalizer]

As I understand it most parking exemptions/TROs contain exemptions for any vehicle being used for police purposes, so technically they aren't breaking the Law, quite the opposite in fact - the Law makes specific provisions for them to be able to park there.

A Speed Camera Partnership is not the Police. SCPs are not considered an emergency service. And in fact even the emergency services are not allowed to break TROs unless they are on Police Business (ie - not just gone into the local MacDonalds for a hamburger).

So if this is a SCP then there is no doubt it has acted illegally. If it is the Police then there is some doubt. Was it really on Police business at the time of the transgression? But the real issue is can this make any difference to somebody caught over the limit? I don't know. But I would certainly appreciate finding out the legal points involved!

[maximus999]

Heres another scenario, The law states a driver has to be warned that there is camera detection devises ahead via signs and also the speed of that part of road it is on, both has to be in clear view whilst the devise is also in view, if there are no signs whatsoever any offences detected can be challenged and won.

As I understand it most parking exemptions/TROs contain exemptions for any vehicle being used for police purposes, so technically they aren't breaking the Law, quite the opposite in fact - the Law makes specific provisions for them to be able to park there.

A Speed Camera Partnership is not the Police. SCPs are not considered an emergency service. And in fact even the emergency services are not allowed to break TROs unless they are on Police Business (ie - not just gone into the local MacDonalds for a hamburger).

So if this is a SCP then there is no doubt it has acted illegally. If it is the Police then there is some doubt. Was it really on Police business at the time of the transgression? But the real issue is can this make any difference to somebody caught over the limit? I don't know. But I would certainly appreciate finding out the legal points involved!

Thankyou equalizer, someone makes sense, the van what caught my partner speeding was not a police speed van so i presume it was a SCP van. Sod it we will go to court and no doubt i will be held for contempt

[davidson]

The law does not state that there have to be signs stating there are cameras in use. These are guidelines. The law does state it is illegal to speed. On a side note a speed van in Reading regularly parks on the central reserve of a dual carraigeway which could be argued as illegal as well.

[maximus999]

The law does not state that there have to be signs stating there are cameras in use. These are guidelines. The law does state it is illegal to speed. On a side note a speed van in Reading regularly parks on the central reserve of a dual carraigeway which could be argued as illegal as well.

Hi davidson, yes sorry i agree just read they are guidlines and connot be used as a get out clause in court. You say 'the law does state it is illegal to speed' Granted. The law also states it is illegal to park on a grass verge. - and has no mention of exceptions for anything other than to save life. Simple really when you think about it.

[southpaw82]

Christ, where to start?

The camera van being parked on the verge makes no difference whatsoever - there's no way in hell you'd convince a court to exclude the evidence under PACE in such circumstances. If they broke into your house without a warrant or lawful authority then yes but being parked on a verge, no way.

There is no requirement for signs or for them to be visible.

Is this going to be one of those threads where polite replies are reserved for people you agree with and all other (correct) views will be ignored?

[Durzel]

As I understand it most parking exemptions/TROs contain exemptions for any vehicle being used for police purposes, so technically they aren't breaking the Law, quite the opposite in fact - the Law makes specific provisions for them to be able to park there.

A Speed Camera Partnership is not the Police. SCPs are not considered an emergency service. And in fact even the emergency services are not allowed to break TROs unless they are on Police Business (ie - not just gone into the local MacDonalds for a hamburger).

So if this is a SCP then there is no doubt it has acted illegally. If it is the Police then there is some doubt. Was it really on Police business at the time of the transgression? But the real issue is can this make any difference to somebody caught over the limit? I don't know. But I would certainly appreciate finding out the legal points involved!

I didn't say "police", I said "police purposes" - there's a difference. This may even mean any vehicle and any operator so long as it is being used for "police purposes", it will depend on the TRO wording.

Even if the above wasn't the case and Police/SCP didn't have an exclusion to park wherever they want it would have no bearing on the validity of the evidence. Trying to argue that in court will see you shot down in flames, I'm sorry to say.