Errors in a police report: when is it null and void?

Almost every traffic case starts with a police report (procès-verbal). It is often the most important evidence against you, and sometimes the only evidence. So it is tempting to hope that an error in that report will bring the whole case down. That hope is usually unfounded, but not always. In this article, you will find out which errors really make a difference.

This article complements our guides on drink driving and drug driving.

The special evidential weight of a traffic police report

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Code d’instruction criminelle) distinguishes three kinds of police reports (Article 154):

• reports that, for the judge, are worth no more than mere information;
• reports that are taken as true unless proven otherwise;
• reports that are taken as true until a formal challenge for forgery (inscription de faux).

Traffic police reports belong to the second group (Article 62 of the Road Traffic Act (loi relative à la police de la circulation routière)). What they contain is taken as established, unless you prove the opposite. The burden of proof therefore shifts to you.

This special evidential weight does have limits, however. It only applies to the factual observations that the reporting officer made personally, as part of their legal duties, about the elements of the offence (Cass. 16 January 2001). It does not apply to:

• the reporting officer’s conclusions, reasoning and assumptions;
• information they received from third parties.

“The driver was obviously drunk” is a conclusion. “The driver stumbled twice and his speech was slurred” is an observation. See also our article on drunkenness and alcohol intoxication.

When is a police report void?

An irregularity in a police report only makes it void if the law expressly says so, or if it has violated your rights of defence. In traffic cases, there are in practice two clear cases.

A missing signature

A police report must be signed by the reporting officers. Without any signature at all, it does not legally exist. Note: this applies to the original. The copy sent to you does not have to be signed.

If only one of the officers’ signatures is missing, things are different. As early as 1994, the Court of Cassation accepted that officers who witness an offence do not have to write up and sign their observations in a report themselves. A colleague may do so (Cass. 25 May 1994). In 2017, the case concerned a speed camera report signed by the officer who drafted it, but not by the officer who had made the observation. For the Court, this is an irregularity, but the judge may still take the report into account (Cass. 14 March 2017, P.15.0796.N). The Antigoon case law, explained below, then applies.

The wrong language

The Act of 15 June 1935 on the use of languages in judicial matters determines the language in which a police report must be drawn up (Article 11): Dutch in the Dutch-speaking region, French in the French-speaking region and German in the German-speaking region. In Brussels, everything depends on the language in which you make your statements and, if you make none, on the circumstances of the case, such as your domicile or the language of your vehicle registration.

A police report drawn up in the wrong language is void (Article 40). Since a ruling of the Constitutional Court, the judge must once again raise this nullity of their own motion (d’office) (Const. Court 19 September 2019, no. 120/2019).

A recent example: a driver domiciled in Wallonia was flashed by a speed camera in Schaerbeek and received a report in Dutch, together with a payment order (ordre de paiement). As he had made no statement, the language had to follow from the objective elements of the file. The only such element was his domicile in the unilingual French-speaking region. The report therefore had to be drawn up in French. The Dutch-speaking police court (tribunal de police) of Brussels declared it void and declared the prosecution inadmissible (Police Court Brussels 24 September 2025). To find out how to challenge such a fine, read our article on contesting a speed camera fine.

Two qualifications:

• Nullity does not always mean the end of the case. As long as the offence is not time-barred, a new police report can be drawn up in the correct language and the proceedings can start again. Article 40 of the Language Act still says that acts declared void interrupt the limitation period (they start a new period running). Since the 2024 reform, however, criminal procedure in principle no longer recognises interruption. How these two rules fit together has not yet been settled by the case law. For traffic offences, a limitation period of three years has applied since 1 July 2026. See our article on the limitation period for traffic offences.
• An annex in another language does not make the police report void. The court thus held that a breath analysis ticket printed in French, in an investigation conducted in Dutch, does not lead to nullity (Crim. Court Brussels 13 January 2012).

Errors that affect evidential weight

Many other errors do not lead to nullity, but they do lead to the loss of special evidential weight. The police report then counts as mere information, which the judge assesses freely. It may still be enough for a conviction, but it is no longer taken as true “unless proven otherwise”.

• An officer without authority. A reporting officer who has not yet taken the oath or who was not properly appointed loses the special evidential weight. A reporting officer does not, however, have to wear a uniform and can also act outside their working hours.
• Personal involvement. A reporting officer who is related to a person concerned, or who was personally involved in the facts, loses the special evidential weight.
• A missing date. A police report without a date is not void, but counts as mere information (Cass. 25 February 1992).
• Late sending. Since 1 July 2026, the copy must be sent within 30 days (Article 62 of the Road Traffic Act). That period only starts once it is known to whom it should be sent, for example after a leasing company has replied about the regular driver. Previously, the period was 14 days after the offence was observed. Late sending does not make the police report void, but it loses its special evidential weight (Cass. 22 October 1985). There is only a breach of the rights of defence if it is established that the delay prevented you from proving the contrary.

That loss can, however, be decisive if there is no other evidence. On 27 January 2026, the police court of Namur acquitted a driver caught by a speed camera. The copy had been sent well after the 14-day period then in force. The report therefore no longer had special evidential weight, and the file contained no other initial evidence that he had committed the speeding offence.

The Antigoon case law

For errors made when gathering evidence, such as a breath test or drug test that did not quite follow the rules, the Antigoon case law applies. Since 2013, it has been laid down in Article 32 of the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Unlawfully obtained evidence is only excluded if:

• the formal rule is prescribed on pain of nullity;
• the irregularity has undermined the reliability of the evidence; or
• using the evidence is contrary to the right to a fair trial.

Two examples from the case law:

• During a breath analysis, the 15-minute waiting period then in force had not been observed. The Court of Cassation held that the judge may decide, on the basis of the facts, that reliability and the fair trial were not affected. The evidence therefore remained usable (Cass. 6 September 2016, P.15.1105.N).
• After a fatal accident, neither a breath test nor a blood test could be carried out under the traffic procedure. The investigating judge then had the hospital’s blood samples seized and analysed. The court admitted this evidence, because the procedure on alcohol intoxication is not prescribed on pain of nullity and evidence may be provided by any lawful means (Court of East Flanders, Dendermonde division, 15 December 2015).

What does this mean in practice?

A thorough reading of the police report remains essential, but with realistic expectations. Nullities are rare. Loss of special evidential weight is more common and can make the difference when other elements contradict the observations. A procedural error is also often an argument for a more lenient penalty, even if it does not lead to an acquittal.

Frequently asked questions

Have your case reviewed

Do you have doubts about the accuracy of the police report in your case? We consult the criminal case file for you. Contact us. See also our article on the breath test and the evidential breath analysis.

Law as at 30 September 2026. We update this article when the rules change.