Connell v Crown Prosecution Service

Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 establishes a permissive evidential procedure. Its admissibility conditions apply when the prosecution relies on the statutory procedure for proving facts by producing a record or measurement from a prescribed device. They do not generally exclude other evidence of speeding.

Accordingly, a police officer may give opinion evidence of a vehicle’s speed and may use a reading from a prescribed but non-approved device to corroborate or confirm that opinion. The statutory restrictions do not prevent that evidence being admitted outside the section 20 procedure.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by Bury St Edmunds Magistrates’ Court for exceeding the 70 mph speed limit. A police officer had estimated the claimant’s speed and had also obtained an average-speed reading from a Police Pilot device. The device was prescribed but had not been approved by the Secretary of State.

The magistrates admitted the officer’s evidence and convicted the claimant. The central issue was whether section 20(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 made the device reading inadmissible in every speeding prosecution, or only where the prosecution used the evidential procedure provided by section 20.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

1. Construction of section 20. Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is a self-contained and permissive evidential code. Section 20(4), which requires a prescribed device to be of an approved type and to satisfy any conditions of approval, applies when the prosecution seeks to rely on the procedures permitted by sections 20(1) and 20(6).
2. Evidence outside the code. Section 20(4) does not apply generally to every offence of speeding under section 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Outside the statutory procedure, the prosecution may rely on ordinary oral evidence, including a police officer’s properly founded opinion of speed. A reading from a prescribed but non-approved device may be admitted as corroboration or confirmation of that opinion.
3. Authorities. The earlier form of section 20 and the interpretation given in Roberts v Director of Public Prosecutions [1994] RTR 31 did not assist in construing the materially different statutory code. DPP v Thornley [2006] EWHC 312 (Admin) supported the permissive construction. Iaciofano v DPP [2010] EWHC 2357 (Admin) strongly supported the availability of an alternative route based on oral opinion evidence corroborated by a device reading.
4. Disposition. The answer to the case stated was yes. It was common ground that the conviction should therefore be upheld. The court made no order as to costs. The remaining period of disqualification was to commence again from the date of judgment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated from the decision of Bury St Edmunds Magistrates’ Court was dismissed and the conviction upheld.