Cleveland 172 Notice Appeal No 1
 
 Yarm, Cleveland
 
Location:   Worsall Road, Yarm, Cleveland.              
 
Offences:   Exceeding the 30 mph speed limit.
 
Précis:      The client was prosecuted in October 2004
                  and convicted in the Magistrates Court,
                  He challenged the result in Teesside Crown
                  Court.
 
Findings:   Richard Bentley undertook a site
                  examination and identified critical areas of
                  the speed limit and enforcement that failed
                  to meet the basic requirements of law:
 
 
                      The speed limit was defectively signed.
 
                      The Traffic Order did not apply restricted    
                      road status (as was suggested)
 
                      The advanced camera warning signs
                      were non-prescribed and therefore
                      illegal.
                  
                      The NIP/172 notice was defective.
 
 
                  In certain circumstances where a highway
                  authority fails in its statutory duty
                  to sign in accordance with law, the
                  Court are prohibited from applying a
                  conviction.
 
                  In other circumstances the limit becomes
                  fatally flawed.
 
                  Three reports were submitted to
                  assist the Court.
 
Legal Arguments:
 
                  Legal arguments were made following the
                  Crowns evidence.
 
                  This evidence had included the
                  Crown’s position that the combined
                  172/NIP form had been the sole document
                  used by the Camera Partnership since
                  they commenced operations in 2000,
                  and, having had the document checked
                  by their Legal Department, they were
                  happy the document was valid.
 
                  Mr De Mello argued that the document was
                  defective and could not stand.
 
 Result:      040706  Teesside Crown Court.
 
                  His Honour Judge Bowers found the            
                  arguments of Mr De Mello compelling and
                  concluded that the 172 notice was in fact
                  defective, as such, the Court could not
                  legally ascertain the identity of any alleged
                  offender.
 
                  Use of the document would breach Human
                  Rights and for that point alone the appeal
                  against conviction would be upheld.
 
                  He added that other Crown evidence such
                  as the section 20 certificate and
                  unsubstantiated suggestions that the
                  ACPO Policy document contains a typing
                  error which, combined with Home Office
                  allow a Gatsometer to be used in forward
                  facing mode were also unsatisfactory.
 
                  The conviction was overturned and His
                  Honour ordered costs to be paid by the
                  Crown.
Yarm, Cleveland
Solicitor:   Clive Burton
Counsel:   Mr. R. De Mello