Robbie the Pict, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 establishes a two-stage scheme for the admissibility of evidence from prescribed devices. First, a statutory instrument must specify the relevant generic description of device. Secondly, the Secretary of State may approve particular types within that description. The type approval need not itself be made by statutory instrument. The statutory instrument and approval must be read according to the distinct functions assigned to them by the section. A device may therefore be a prescribed device of an approved type even though its specific make and model appear only in the Secretary of State’s approval. In a red-light case, evidence from the Gatsometer device was consequently admissible and the conviction stood.

The claimant was convicted in the Nottingham Magistrates’ Court of failing to comply with a red traffic signal, contrary to section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The prosecution relied on a record and photograph produced by a Gatsometer type 36 device.

The Deputy District Judge found that the device was an approved device and admitted the evidence. On an appeal by way of case stated, the claimant argued that the device’s specific make and model had to be prescribed by statutory instrument and approved by Parliament. The central issue was the proper construction of section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as amended.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court declined to certify a point for the House of Lords and refused permission to appeal. Costs were ordered in the sum of £100.

2. Section 20 distinguishes between a “prescribed device” and an approved “type”. Under subsection (9), a prescribed device is a device of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. Under subsection (10), orders under subsection (9) are made by statutory instrument and are subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.

3. The statutory instrument made under section 20(9) specified the generic description of device required by the section. It was not necessary for the instrument also to identify the particular make and model.

4. Subsection (4) imposes the additional requirement that the device be of a type approved by the Secretary of State and that any approval conditions be satisfied. That approval need not be contained in a statutory instrument. The Secretary of State’s approval identified the make and model of the Gatsometer and therefore supplied the necessary specific approval.

5. The statutory scheme accordingly operates from the general to the specific: Parliament sanctions the relevant description through a statutory instrument, after which the Secretary of State approves particular types within that description. The claimant’s argument improperly conflated these two stages and the related statutory concepts.

6. The court rejected the proposed narrow construction based on the criminal context. The statutory language and purpose were clear. The device was a prescribed device of an approved type, so the prosecution evidence was validly obtained.

7. Any question concerning speed cameras would have to be determined by reference to the statutory provisions, instruments and approvals applicable to those devices. The court expressed approval of the approach taken in Brotherston, but treated that observation as confined to the postscript.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On an appeal by way of case stated from a conviction and evidential ruling of a Deputy District Judge sitting at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court, the appeal was dismissed. Certification and permission to appeal were refused.