This topic has had a thorough airing on PPRuNe over the last month or two.
Here is Fenton Bresler's opinion, from The Telegraph:-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There can hardly be a motorist in the land who has not read about the twin cases of Blackburn Rovers footballer Dwight Yorke and Michael Mawdesley from Chorley, Lancashire, whose speeding convictions were overturned in the High Court by Mr Justice Owen because of a technicality about unsigned forms sent back to the police.
"A legal loophole that could be exploited by hundreds of drivers," exulted one newspaper. "Thousands of motorists have a case for driving convictions to be toppled," said another. "Thousands of drivers may be able to have speeding convictions overturned," proclaimed a third.
But The Daily Telegraph more discreetly stated: "Speeding laws may have to be redrawn." That sober assessment is the most likely to be correct, and I say that based upon many years of experience as a barrister defending motorists in court.
It is standard practice when the police believe that a significant driving offence has been committed – not only speeding – and they have not personally spoken to the driver at the time, to send, within 14 days, three written notices to the registered keeper of the vehicle, as revealed by its registration number.
These are: (1) "Notice of Intended Prosecution'' under Section 1 of the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act, warning that a prosecution may follow; (2) "Notice Requiring Information About The Driver'' under Section 172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, asking the registered keeper to fill in, sign and return the notice answering questions as to who was driving the vehicle at the specified time and place when the offence was alleged to have been committed, and, in many cases; (3) Notice making "Conditional Offer'' of a Fixed Penalty under the Road Traffic Offenders Act so that the driver can avoid going to court and facing greater punishment.
Yorke and Mawdesley's cases concern Section 172 notices. In Yorke's case, the box for the driver licence number had been left blank but his name and address had been inserted together with his date of birth. In Mawdesley's case, the driver's number had also been inserted plus his name, address and date of birth.
But in both cases the spaces for signature and date had been left blank. Without those signatures, was there any evidence that either man had been the driver when Mawdesley's vehicle had been caught on a speed camera travelling at 102mph on the M56, and Yorke's Porsche 911 Turbo had been recorded by an approved laser device travelling at 61mph in a 40mph zone? Warrington magistrates had said ``Yes'' in Mawdesley's case and convicted him. Manchester magistrates had ruled likewise with Yorke and the local Crown Court had upheld his conviction.
The much greater use of speed cameras over the last year or so has greatly increased police resource to Section 172 notices. Otherwise, how could they prove who was driving when the camera shutter clicked? In overturning both convictions (although remitting Mawdesley's case for a retrial) Mr Justice Owen said there appeared to be "widespread knowledge", which was spreading "like a virus" up and down the country, that an unsigned Section 172 form was inadmissible as evidence. And he acknowledged that his decision was of particular importance "given the prevalence of the use of laser and photographic technology to check the speed of motor vehicles".
In fact, according to Andrew Mimmack of the Justices' Clerks' Society, there have been several drivers who have recently avoided conviction because of blank forms. "It's a steady trickle," he says, "and we long for the uncertainty to be cleared up." This is big business for the police — £73 million was generated from speed cameras last year, with £66 million returned to camera partnership schemes which include the police as partners.
However, Mr Justice Owen's somewhat turgid judgment has not greatly served to clarify the law for either motorist or police officer and the CPS is considering an appeal to the House of Lords. Indeed, unnoticed by the media, the judge actually said in terms: "I accept that if the Appellants (ie counsel for Yorke and Mawdesley) are right in their submission that an unsigned Section 172 form is inadmissible, then there may be a lacuna in the law. But that is not an issue that it is necessary for me to resolve for the purposes of these appeals."
Oh really! So what is all the fuss about? Mr Justice Owen overturned Yorke and Mawdesley's convictions because, off his own bat, he concocted the argument (not originally advanced by counsel) that an unsigned Section 172 form could amount to a "confession" under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which, he ruled, did not require a caution. Since the Crown Prosecution Service had not argued their case before the magistrates on that basis, he sent Mawdesley's case back to them for a rehearing, but because Yorke's agent had given evidence that he had completed the footballer's unsigned form (without permission), he thought it "not appropriate" in Yorke's case to order a rehearing. Having read and re-read Mr Justice Owen's judgment, I still do not understand why, as a matter of law, he came to that conclusion.
So where are we? What now is the law? Some experts have elaborated the most fanciful and ingenious arguments to protect future motorists. With respect, I think they are all nonsense and no self-respecting Bench – or their clerk – would allow them to triumph. Edmund King of RAC Legal Services hits the nail on the head when he says that Yorke was fortunate that the authorities had not picked up on his unsigned form earlier. "If the police had done their job properly," he says, "they would have gone back to him to sign, and he would not have got off."
In fact, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police have already improved their processes, with the police returning unsigned forms to the registered keeper for signing. As a spokeswoman for RAC Legal Services says: "If there is a repeated failure to sign the notice, it is highly probable that an alternative charge will be made: eg failure to supply details of the driver at the time of the alleged offence, an offence which carries the same penalty points and fine as the original speeding charge."
The law is in a mess, and Mr Justice Owen has not helped much. Ian Murray, an AA legal adviser, says: "He has tried to plug the use of this defence and although the floodgates aren't open, there's still uncertainty and the law will probably have to be rewritten."
Meanwhile, shoddy police work could still lead to some motorists escaping.
Defence lawyer Fin O'Fathaigh of the White Dalton Partnership, which has clients facing similar speeding cases, says: "For now, motorists who receive what looks like a notice of intended prosecution through the post will be giving it to their wives or relatives to open and fill in without permission."
But will an intelligent, practical Bench believe such a tall story? I very much have my doubts