R (on the application of Chief Constable of Kent Police) v Marshall and another 2026
On 17 December 2023 at 08:28 hours, M drove his Peugeot motor vehicle, on the A282 Dartford Tunnel approach road. An unattended automated average speed machine (SPECS3) recorded his vehicle travelling at an average speed of 57 miles per hour over a detection zone of 775 metres.
M was issued with a notice of intended prosecution on 29 January 2024 alleging he exceeded the 50 miles per hour speed limit.
M pleaded not guilty on 3 June 2024, putting the prosecution to prove that a reduced speed limit was in force at the time of the alleged offence. He believed he was travelling in a 60 miles per hour zone.
The Crown Prosecution Service served two statements under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. M raised no objection to the evidence being introduced in writing.
At trial on 19 February 2025, the Magistrates' Court heard oral evidence from M, who produced photographs GM/01 and GM/02. No live witness evidence was called by the prosecution.
The Magistrates' Court acquitted M, finding the photographic evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the location of the exit point of the detection zone.
Kent Police appealed by way of case stated on 12 May 2025, arguing the acquittal was irrational and constituted an error of law.
The questions posed by way of case stated asked whether the court's determination of the issue amounted to an error of law: taking account of the evidence adduced at trial:
(a) was the acquittal a determination which any court properly considering the matter could reasonably make? and/or
(b) did the court make findings of fact lacking an evidential basis?
It was contended that the Magistrates' court failed to have regard to:
(1) the sequential nature of the entry and exit photographs taken by the automated cameras shown on MW01, and
(2) the fact that the cameras only capture evidence of vehicles travelling at excess speed.
It was submitted that, in terms of both procedure and substance, the court's consideration of the evidence was irrational so as to constitute an error of law.
M's case was that the evidence put forward by the Crown Prosecution Service was contradictory and the photographs did not show the location of the offence as the Crown Prosecution Service had described it and could not be relied upon. M believed he never breached the speed limit and that something must have gone wrong, as indicated by different locations identified on different notices of intended prosecution.
Held
Appeal allowed. Decision to acquit quashed and matter remitted for new trial.
The court found that the Magistrates' Court erred in law by failing to have regard to unchallenged evidence served under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which stated that the SPECS3 automated average speed camera only captured evidence of vehicles travelling at excess speed. The Magistrates' court had focused solely on photographic evidence, finding doubt as to the location of the exit point of the detection zone, and acquitted M on the basis that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The court acknowledged that the Magistrates' Court was entitled to find that the photograph at MW01(b), viewed in isolation, did not enable the precise location to be identified, and that it was not assisted by the photograph exhibited as MW11. Further, the photograph at GM/02, showing an aerial view, did not provide an evidential basis for the finding that the image had failed to establish the location beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the court found that the difficulty with the Court's reasoning was that the evidence before it was not limited to the photographic images, and it appeared to have taken no account of the unchallenged evidence in MG11-1 to the effect that the camera would only capture evidence of vehicles travelling at excess speed.
Therefore, the inference to be drawn from the statement which stated that the SPECS3 automated average speed camera only captured evidence of vehicles travelling at excess speed, was that it was the fact Mr Marshall was driving at a speed above the relevant limit within the detection zone that triggered the image at MW01(b).
The court held that failing to have regard to that unchallenged evidence constituted an error of law, and the court's findings of fact lacked an evidential basis such that the decision to acquit gave rise to an error of law.
Accordingly, the court quashed the Magistrates' Court decision and remitted the matter for a new trial.
Reproduced with permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
