Which also raises the issue of whether, if a 'red route bay' is not considered part of a 'red route' and therefore not enforceable by camera then the contravention grounds of 'stopping where prohibited on a red route or clearway' must similarly be incorrect.
No, the restrictive definition is found in regulation 11, which only concerns the use of CCTV enforcement. The whole issue arises out of the fact that for the purposes of CCTV enforcement, there is an explicit, narrow definition of a red route which is narrower than the normal definition.
the legislation says that CCTV enforcement can only be used on DRLs and SRLs and only when the timeplate that is required to give effect is in place - which taken literally means that CCTV could never be used to enforce DRLs as there cannot be a timeplate, therefore the legislation cannot be read absolutely literally, and rather than being read with the necessarily implied "where appropriate" or somesuch, the legislation must be read only insofar as it supports them and otherwise disregarded.
I understand that this shows an utter lack of integrity which is not inconsistent with LA enforcement, or the legal profession for that matter. Or arguments that have won in other cases and other courts where the bench were determined to find a way to give effect to their biases. Beyond that, I struggle to recognise or understand any rational or credible argument on their behalf.
That's an extremely good summary. Assuming I have to deal with the JR pre-action protocol letter, I hope you don't mind if I borrow that?
The only comment I'd make is I'm not sure there is any lack of integrity on the part of the legal profession, I'm sure if Commercial Plant had forked out whatever it costs to instruct them, Mr Timothy Korner KC and Mr Andrew Byass would have made a compelling case for the appellants.
