Griffiths v Director of Public Prosecutions

A photographic print developed from film used in an approved speed camera is a record produced indirectly by the prescribed device and may be admitted under section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Continuity evidence is unnecessary where the film and data block identify the images, unless tampering is specifically raised. However, section 20(8) requires usable copies of the evidence to be served at least seven days before trial. Poor-quality copies do not satisfy that requirement, and the requirement may be waived only by the defence. Failure to comply prevents reliance on the statutory procedure, but does not prevent the prosecution proving the photographs as real evidence by an identifying witness. Use of an approved device operating through independent primary and secondary checks is not, without more, incompatible with a fair trial.

Brian Griffiths appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by the North Surrey Justices for exceeding a 50 mph speed limit. The prosecution relied on photographs produced by a Gatsometer BV Type 24 speed camera, together with evidence from a camera technician who carried out a secondary check by counting road markings.

The justices ruled that the photographs were admissible under section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, that continuity was unnecessary, and that the device and calibration evidence were sufficient. The appeal raised questions concerning the meaning of a record produced by a prescribed device, continuity, advance service, disclosure of computer images, and the fairness of relying on the camera’s half-second timing interval.

1. Photographs and continuity. A print developed from film used in a Gatsometer is a record produced indirectly by the prescribed device for the purposes of section 20(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The negative image contains the vehicle image and relevant data, including the time, location and calculated speed. Development and printing do not prevent the resulting print from being a record produced by the device.
2. There was no requirement to prove continuity through the persons who removed, developed or printed the film. The data block identified the images and prevented their attribution to the wrong case. If tampering were specifically alleged, the prosecution might need to identify those involved in processing the film, but continuity evidence would not itself establish whether tampering had occurred.
3. Service under section 20(8). A copy served seven days before trial must be sufficiently clear to be used for the purpose for which it is served. Prints so dark that the defence could not perform the secondary check did not amount to service. The defect could be waived by the defence, but it was not waived merely because no adjournment was sought. The photographs were therefore inadmissible under the statutory procedure.
4. Alternative admissibility. Section 20 is permissive. It provides a means of admitting a prescribed-device record without calling a witness, but does not exclude proof by other admissible means. Following DPP v Thornley [2006] EWHC 312 (Admin) and Garner v DPP [1990] RTR 208, the photographs could be admitted as real evidence through a witness able to identify them and link them to the case. The technician fulfilled that role.
5. The use of computer images for the secondary check caused no difficulty because the photographic prints themselves were real evidence from which the check could be performed.
6. Fair trial. The device’s primary radar check and secondary photographic check used independent technologies. It was not fundamentally unfair to rely on the approved half-second interval without allowing the defence independently to verify the clock to a greater degree of precision. The coincidence required for inaccurate timing to produce the same result as the independent radar check provided sufficient protection in the circumstances.
7. The appeal was dismissed.

High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The court held that the photographs were properly admitted, although the justices’ reliance on section 20 was incorrect because the usable prints had not been served seven days before trial.