Brotherston & Ors v The Director of Public Prosecutions

Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 establishes a two-stage scheme for admitting evidence from prescribed devices. First, a statutory instrument specifies the generic description of device. Secondly, the Secretary of State approves the particular type, subject to any conditions. The statutory instrument need not identify the device’s make or model. A device initiated by an operator’s trigger may still be activated by light beams if the speed reading itself depends on those beams.

Four appellants challenged speeding convictions obtained from fixed and mobile speed cameras. The convictions were based on devices approved by the Secretary of State under statutory instruments made for the purposes of section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The appellants argued that the instruments were too generic, that approval had to precede the making of the instruments, and that the mobile devices were activated by the operator’s trigger rather than by light beams. The central issue was whether the devices were both of a description specified in a statutory instrument and of a type approved by the Secretary of State.

1. Appeals dismissed. The relevant statutory instruments and approvals complied with the statutory requirements.
2. Section 20 created a two-stage process. At the first stage, a statutory instrument specified a generic description of devices prescribed for evidential use. At the second stage, the Secretary of State approved a particular type of device, subject to any conditions of approval.
3. The expressions “of a description specified” and “of a type approved” were not interchangeable. The statutory instrument did not need to identify a particular brand or model. Type approval was an additional requirement.
4. The amended section 20 enabled technological developments, including laser devices, to be accommodated without further primary legislation.
5. The mobile devices fell within the description of devices activated by light beam or beams. Although operation was initiated by the operator pulling a trigger, the speed reading depended upon the light beams emitted from and received by the device.
6. The convictions were upheld and the appeals dismissed.

The judgment records appeals by way of case stated from convictions and, in three cases, decisions of the Crown Court upholding those convictions. One appeal was brought directly from the magistrates’ court conviction. The Administrative Court dismissed all four appeals.