The growth in the number of speed cameras deployed since the early 1990s has caused a great deal of controversy. More recently, the use of mobile speed cameras to supplement the use of fixed and hand held cameras has caused even greater controversy. A very worrying recent development is the deployment of hidden mobile cameras, as seen recently in North Wales, infamously policed by Richard Brunstrom. For those of you who might not be aware, Richard Brunstrom is the Chief Constable of North Wales Police, and was Head of Road Policing of the Association of Chief Police Officers until 2005 when he was ousted after protests from other Chief Constables.

It might be thought that the police and safety camera partnerships can place such cameras wherever they please. However, there are laws and guidance governing both the visibility of speed enforcement cameras as well as the signs which are necessary to warn drivers about speed cameras.

It is crucial to grasp the difference between the law on the one hand, and guidance on the other. Should the police fail to abide by the law when setting up a particular camera, it is likely that any evidence from that camera will be inadmissible, and not allowed in to Court. However, if the guidance is not complied with, the rule of thumb is that this will not necessarily provide a defence, and the police will be able to use the evidence from that camera in Court.

An example of the law applying to speed cameras is the legal requirement that they must be of a type approved for use by the Home Secretary. Whilst the most (in)famous is the GATSO, in its many different forms, there are now a number of devices approved for speed limit, red light and bus lane enforcement.  It is expected that enforcement cameras will be developed shortly to police no overtaking zones. If a particular type of camera is not approved, then evidence from the camera could not  be used  against you in Court.

Government Ministers, under public pressure, have now conceded that cameras should be visible to those they are seeking to catch. The guidance requires speed cameras to be yellow, if on a road with street lighting, and reflective yellow, if on an unlit road. The guidance also requires that a mobile enforcement vehicle should be identifiable as an enforcement vehicle to riders. The guidance further requires both fixed and mobile cameras to be visible from the rider’s viewpoint from at least 60 metres away if the speed limit is 40mph or less, or from 100 metres away for all higher limits.  Safety camera partnerships have not so far undertaken hidden camera enforcement but it is clear that the police have, certainly in the Conwy Valley in North Wales.

Unfortunately, these rules on camera visibility are only in the guidance, not the law. Therefore, any wronged biker will face an uphill struggle to persuade the Court that the evidence from the speed camera should be thrown out. However this is possible, especially if it can be shown to the Court that it would be unfair to admit such evidence.

There are a number of legal requirements relating to signage. Speed camera zones must be clearly signposted. Also, camera signs must be either illuminated (in the hours of darkness) or reflectorised. Camera signs and speed limit signs must comply with the measurement requirements laid down by law.  These are legal requirements (law), and any failure to abide by the requirements  will cause the police problems, as any challenge should result in the Court not accepting the evidence.

Speed camera signs should appear together with the speed limit signs, where permitted and practicable. This is called co-location.  Co-located signs on the same post should have the speed limit sign above the camera sign. Alternatively, the two signs may appear on the same board provided that the board is rectangular, has yellow or grey backing and that it does not have a border. Co-located signs can be on different posts provided that they are on the same side of the carriageway and both can be seen in the same view as the fixed camera by the rider. In addition, camera signs should be placed at intervals of around 1km throughout the route. Again, these are guidelines rather than legal requirements. As a result, it can be difficult to use them to have evidence thrown out but the police or CPS may drop the case in light of the breach of the guidelines.

The actual location of speed cameras is also governed by guidance. There are complex rules for sighting cameras, which run to many pages. However, it is always worth investigating whether a camera complies with the guidance because a wrongly placed camera may lead to the police dropping the case, or possibly the evidence being ruled inadmissible.

Whilst the guidance might be difficult to get to grips and  complex, and whilst it might not always be clear what the police should and should not be doing to comply with the guidance, what is now abundantly clear is that there is great scope to challenge speed camera evidence on the grounds of visibility, signage and location. Should you receive a notice of intended prosecution, fixed penalty notice or summons, you should carefully consider this and seek specialist legal advice, you could be pleasantly surprised at the outcome. The government rely for their revenue on riders blindly accepting the penalty or fine, whereas a challenge can often lead to a not guilty verdict, the case being thrown out or the prosecution being dropped.

For further information please telephone 0808 160 5016.