Speeder fines may be illegal, argue lawyers
Dec 1 2007 by Matthew Mckenzie, The Journal
A SOLICITOR who fell foul of a temporary speed limit is challenging its legality in a case which could pave the way for hundreds of convictions to be rescinded.
Richard Scott, a partner in Row and Scott, will be represented by his colleague Barry Row when the matter comes to court.
Mr Scott, 55, is being prosecuted for exceeding the 50 miles per hour speed limit on the A1 at Seaton Burn, north of Newcastle, where Seven Mile House bridge was being improved by the Highways Agency.
However, he and Mr Row argue that the order made by the Secretary of State reducing the limit from 70 miles per hour was invalid as it was imposed before the end of the statutory consultation period.
Mr Row, 54, said: “If the Government is going to prosecute people and take their licences off people, it has got to make sure it does it properly. If it does not do it properly, people can not be prosecuted.
“It is not the CPS’s [Crown Prosecution Service] fault, it is the Secretary of State who has not followed the correct procedure.”
The solicitors’ firm, which has offices at Wellwood Street in Amble and West Road in Newcastle, looked into the issue after Mr Scott was summonsed to attend court.
The two, both of whom live at undisclosed addresses in Northumberland, found the order had been published in the Press and notices served on consultees on September 19 last year.
By law, they say, seven clear days should have passed before it was officially ratified.
However, that was done on the seventh day, September 26, instead of the following day, when seven clear days had passed.
The Highways Agency has insisted the issue will ultimately be settled by the court.
A spokesman said: “The regulations state that ‘not less than seven days before making the order, the traffic authority shall publish notice of their intention to make the order’. It is up to the courts to interpret these regulations.”
Mr Scott, who was out of the country yesterday, is pleading not guilty to his charge and is to appear at South-East Northumberland Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, December 19. He and Mr Row are representing two other people who are also being prosecuted in similar circumstances.
But they believe many more will have been either prosecuted – some of whom could have been disqualified from driving as a result of the penalty points they were given – or handed fixed penalty notices for exceeding the temporary limit during the roadworks.
The solicitors believe everyone has a case if they succeed.
Mr Row said: “The implications are quite major if it is right. There are a lot of people who will have been given points or paid fixed penalties, there might be thousands that will be entitled to have their convictions set aside.”
Neither the CPS nor Northumbria Police would give numbers of people prosecuted or given fixed penalties while the temporary restriction was in place.
A police spokeswoman said: “A number of legal issues are being raised in relation to this matter. We are seeking our own legal advice and await the outcome of the case when it resumes. We can not make any further comments because it is sub judice.”
The CPS declined to comment but is understood also to have sought legal advice.
Mr Row was unable to say what speed his colleague was doing when caught, what kind of car he was driving or how many penalty points he has on his licence.
