Please allow me to explain my previous letter of the 3rd August and query the correctness of what the Director for Local Government stated in his letter of reply of the 10th August wherein he put me in error and referred to CCTV as being “covered” by law, namely, the Commissioners for Justice Act and Legal Notice 350 of 2007. I should have used the technical legal term “prescribed” by law if I had known that we were going to play word games. There is no error in my assertion that CCTV cameras are not prescribed apparata.
Legal Notice 350 of 2004 deals solely with mode of service of an infringement and states simply “where a person is captured committing the act or omission giving rise to the suspiscion on a film or photograph taken by means of close circuit television” the person suspected has to receive notice within two days by post. This is the only mention of what we call CCTV in the law and it deals solely with the notice time requirement.
When it comes to the data of any electronic data in general, the Commissioners for Justices Act (Chap 291) deals with this in its Section 14 (6) and (7), reproduced here:
“Section 14 (6) Data or other information received from electronic or other apparata used by a Police Officer, or any other officer, authority or person
who in accordance with any law is charged with the responsibility for the enforcement of such law shall be deemed to be proof of the contents thereof
unless the defendant proves otherwise.” (my underlining).
“Section 14 (7)(b) Where evidence is submitted by photographs, video film or other visual means, such evidence shall be authenticated by the person who is the author
of such photograph, video film or other visual means.”
Then why does the law deal specifically and differently with speed cameras in Reg.127 of the Motor Vehicle Regulations? They are electronic or other apparata are they not? The legislator ordained that data from a prescribed speed camera be deemed as proof of the offence and which cannot be disputed by the defence, whilst the same legislator ordained that the other generic unprescribed apparata generated data, as referred to in Section 14 (6), be deemed proof of its contents and no more than this, and as the section says, may be contested by the defendant.
And what does a CCTV photograph contain? A picture taken once and another picture taken three minutes afterwards of a car in the same position. It does not prove the offence. The offence is proven by evidence that the car was left parked and in an unauthorised place. Where is proof of the no parking signs? Do the often faded double yellow lines show up in the monochrome photos? Do the photos show no driver behind the wheel or the engine off? Does a still photograph capture motion?
The Director for Local Government knows that only “speed monitoring devices” can be and have been prescribed by the Minister in accordance with the law as it stands today. CCTV or any other apparatus, apart from a “speed monitoring devices” has not been prescribed by the Minister. The law has to be changed to allow him to do so. Thus my original point that, up to now, you cannot be found guilty merely on CCTV data even if it is authenticated in terms of Section 14(7)(b).

Paul Pullicino
Valletta