Sheffield, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

A defendant cannot use a later application to reopen factual or evidential issues that should have been investigated at trial or pursued by the available appeal route. Where a prescribed speed-detection device is relied on, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, section 20 requires proof that the device was approved and that any conditions of approval were satisfied before the record or measurement is admissible. A challenge based on such conditions will not succeed where the issue was not raised before the magistrates and the evidential record does not address it.

The claimant had been convicted by magistrates of speeding under sections 81(1) and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The prosecution relied on an automatic Speedmaster DS3 camera, which recorded the vehicle travelling at 36 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour restricted area.

Before the magistrates, the claimant relied on section 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, arguing that the speed reading lacked corroboration. Before the Administrative Court, he advanced a different challenge based on the device’s operating instructions and the absence of road markings said to be required for cross-checking automatic operation. The central issue was whether that new challenge could undermine the conviction.

1. The application was dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to convict on the material before them. They found that the automatic camera was accurate and functioning correctly, that it was certificated and approved by the Secretary of State, and that it took two readings which corroborated one another.
2. The issue advanced before the magistrates concerned alleged lack of corroboration under section 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The claimant’s present challenge instead concerned compliance with the machine’s operating instructions. That issue had not been put to the prosecution witness in cross-examination and the evidence before the magistrates did not address it.
3. Section 20(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 makes a prescribed-device record or measurement inadmissible unless the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State and any conditions of approval are satisfied. Section 20(5) permits approval to be made subject to conditions concerning the purposes, manner and circumstances of use. The court had no evidence as to whether conditions had been imposed on the approval of this device.
4. The claimant was seeking to reopen factual issues which should have been explored before the magistrates, or pursued by an appeal to the Crown Court. On the evidence actually before the magistrates, their decision was lawful and the application was without substance.
5. A costs order was made in the terms sought, with detailed assessment not to be enforced without consideration of the claimant’s means.

The judgment describes a conviction by magistrates. The claimant’s alternative challenge was brought before the Administrative Court; no separate lower-court citation is stated.