Help - Search - Members - Calendar
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences

the text below is taken from the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1995 and relates to (as far as I can tell) video evidence and it's usage in court. Would I be correct in saying that this would also apply to "in car" video equipment (VASCAR etc.)?

283.—(1) For the purposes of any criminal proceedings, a certificate purporting to be signed by a person responsible for the operation of a video surveillance system and certifying—
(a) the location of the camera;
(B) the nature and extent of the person's responsibility for the system; and
© that visual images recorded on a particular video tape are images, recorded by the system, of events which occurred at a place specified in the certificate at a time and date so specified,
shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be sufficient evidence of the matters contained in the certificate.

(2) A party proposing to rely on subsection (1) above ("the first party") shall, not less than 14 days before the trial diet, serve on the other party ("the second party") a copy of the certificate and, if the second party serves on the first party, not more than seven days after the date of service of the copy certificate on him, a notice that he does not accept the evidence contained in the certificate, subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to that evidence

(3) A copy certificate or notice served in accordance with subsection (2) above shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal; and a written execution purporting to be signed by the person who served the copy or notice together with, where appropriate, the relevant post office receipt shall be sufficient evidence of such service.

(4) In this section, "video surveillance system" means apparatus consisting of a camera mounted in a fixed position and associated equipment for transmitting and recording visual images of events occurring in any place.

Straightforward enough you would think, or is it.........?

What exactly does Subsection 2 mean?

Can anyone shed any light on (1) whether or not this applies to an alleged speeding offence and (2) what the implications are if it does.

Observer, one for you I think!!


QUOTE (firefly)
Observer, one for you I think!!

ss.1 provides that a person who is responsible for the operation of a video surveillance system is able to issue a certificate certifying the location, the nature and extent of thier responsibility for the system, that a specified video tape contains images recorded by that system at a specifed time and date. Such certificate will be "sufficient evidence" (that the images on the video tape were taken at the specified location, date and time) so cannot be challenged as (say) actually taken at a different place, date or time.

ss.2 provides that a certificate given under s.1 1 must be served on the second party (presumably the party against whom the vidoe recording is to be used in evidence) 14 days before the trial date and that the second party can give a notice that he doesn't accept the evidence, in which case the reliability of the evidence cannot be "taken as read" and may be challenged in court.

In short, a defendant has to declare in advance of the trial whether he wishes to contest the reliability of the video evidence. If he doesn't, he cannot then challenge it in court.

It would seem that it cannot apply to an "in car" system because that surely cannot be in a "fixed position" as per the definition in ss.4. I would say, for the same reason, it cannot apply to a portable system (LTI 20/20 for example).
Thanks Observer,

That is exactly my reading of the procedure as well.

In terms of disclosure of evidence (in relation to a speeding offence), the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (which covers criminal procedures in Scotland!!) rolleyes.gif makes no allusion to video evidence with regards to alleged speeding offences.

If indeed a case did go to court (which my friends may well do, depending on what the video evidence that he has requested, shows), then on what basis could the video evidence to be taken into consideration because, as you stated, subsection 4 requires video equipment to be "mounted in a fixed position" states that alleged speeding offences in Scotland are covered by the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.




I have been informed that the concept of “disclosure” does not actually exist in Scotland. When questioned, the lawyer said that: “you just have to ask for the video, and the Procurator Fiscal will provide you with a copy.”

If you want to ask someone with personal recent experience of how the Scottish legal system works, you should try contacting The General.

Incidentally, where does it say: "states that alleged speeding offences in Scotland are covered by the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.” icon_question.gif

What it actually says is: “Criminal procedures in Scotland are covered by the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995” rolleyes.gif
Thanks Mika,

Contested speeding offence=criminal procedure (eventually!) icon_wink.gif

It amounts to largely the same thing.



Mika and the those with more knowledge.

I am in court oi a few days. From this string do I understand that if I request a copy of the video taken of me that the Procurator Fiscal must give me a copy before I make any plea?.

I have run down various technical defence options to an unfortunately negative conclusion and am now clutching at straws.

My question is : Is it worthwhile having this video just on the off chance that there may well be an error message that the boys in blue chose to ignore? !! I know that the equipment must have been at its range limit. I measured the point where my detector went off to the bridge and it is coming on for a third of a mile. I know that Mika has some excpertise in these particular matters.

The worst scenario is that this will also give me proof that they were filming from a different location than that shown in the NIP. Whilst Mika has let me know this is no defence to a speeding charge due to the slippage rule, I intend to complain through the ABD to the Local Police Complaints Authority regarding the illegal parking of the camera van. (they said it was on a normal road at a point where it crossed the motorway by an overbridge, was it bollocks, it was parked on the hard shoulder of a Motorway flyover.

Any comments appreciated.


This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.