Barber v Director of Public Prosecutions

On an appeal by case stated, the appellate court is confined principally to the magistrates’ findings of fact. A prescribed speed-detection device may provide corroborative evidence of a police officer’s opinion of excessive speed. Evidence from an experienced officer about the meaning and operational effect of a device’s display may be admissible as expert evidence. A message such as “Timeout” does not, without more, establish that the recorded speed is unreliable or relates to another vehicle. Where the magistrates have resolved those evidential issues on admissible evidence, the appellate court should not reopen their factual assessment.

The claimant was convicted by magistrates of driving at 117 miles per hour on a dual carriageway, contrary to the statutory speed limit. The prosecution relied on the oral evidence of a police constable and still images produced from a Laser LT1 20/20 device attached to a video system. The claimant challenged the admissibility and reliability of the stills, particularly because they displayed the word “Timeout”, and questioned the procedural propriety of the equipment’s use.

The appeal by case stated concerned whether the stills could corroborate the officer’s opinion, whether the “Timeout” display undermined their reliability, and whether the magistrates had been entitled to accept the officer’s evidence about the approved device.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to accept the police constable’s evidence that he had used the Laser LT1 20/20 device. Their finding that the reference to another device in his written statement was a typographical error was a factual assessment open to them.
2. Section 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act requires supporting evidence in addition to the opinion of a single witness. The still images were real evidence capable of providing that corroboration.
3. The magistrates were entitled to accept the constable’s evidence concerning the “Timeout” display. He had approximately four years’ daily experience using the device and explained that the display indicated when he should remove his finger from the trigger before targeting another vehicle. The display was not thereby shown to be an error message or to invalidate the recorded speed.
4. If the issue had been framed as one of hearsay, the constable was in any event capable of giving expert evidence about how the device operated and how the display affected the validity of the stills. His explanation was evidence which he was entitled to give.
5. The claimant had produced no admissible evidence casting doubt on the validity of the stills. On an appeal by case stated, the court was confined to the magistrates’ findings and it would require exceptional circumstances to admit fresh evidence. The questions were therefore answered affirmatively, and the conviction stood.
6. A contribution of £500 towards the prosecution’s costs was ordered, payable at £20 per week.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 22 November 2006, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal by case stated and upheld the magistrates’ conviction.
• Magistrates’ court: The claimant was convicted after trial of speeding.