Thousands of drivers are wrongly fined for speeding each year because of errors with speed camera evidence.

Both computer and human error in processing data from speed cameras has prompted a recent increase in the number of drivers wrongly accused of speeding.

According to the Automobile Association (AA) many drivers have paid fines for offences they did not commit, because they wrongly believed they were at fault.  Alternatively many drivers do not know how to contest a speeding ticket and have ended up paying fines and receiving penalty points when they could have avoided a conviction.

A number of recent cases before the courts illustrate this.

James McGregor of Inverness was clocked in his imported Subaru at 132mph on the A9.  He was charged not only with speeding but also driving dangerously, an offence which could have led to a prison sentence.

He had been accused of travelling at 130mph on 6th August last year – almost twice the 70mph limit.  Traffic police had told the Inverness Sheriff Court that the ProLaser III speed gun had operated correctly when it had recorded Mr McGregor.  His lawyer produced evidence in court which proved that the vehicle was an import from Japan and had been fitted with an electronic speed limiter which is a legal requirement in that country.  A defence expert witness had tested the Subaru on a rolling road and found its top speed was 107mph. Further, at no point had the vehicle been tampered with.  The case was found not proven.

Campaigners want the guns withdrawn.  Paul Smith, of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: “We must cease all use of these devices to prosecute motorists until such time as the errors can be fully explained and confidence restored”.  Despite this the police have said that the force will not stop using the devices.

This is not an isolated case.

A Suffolk bus driver, Trevor Martin of Ipswich was falsely accused of thundering through a 30mph limit at 81mph.  He was actually travelling at 29mph when the fixed camera flashed his vehicle.  He was able to prove his innocence, as the bus he was driving was fitted with a tachograph, which recorded his speed.  The vehicle also had a device preventing it going above 62mph.

Of even greater concern are two recent cases uncovered by the AA.  The first was that of a vicar who was alleged to have been speeding in London when he was in fact delivering a sermon in Wales.  In another example a Scottish dairyman received numerous tickets for “speeding” in his milk float.

Jeremy Scott, a leading road traffic lawyer, has many years experience of successfully defending speeding cases.  In a recent case he secured a not guilty verdict for a client who was on his way to a funeral.  He commented “The police alleged that they had a video showing my client driving a hire car at more than 20mph over the speed limit”.  It was only when the case was listed for trial that the police served a photograph taken from the video speed camera footage. Careful analysis revealed that the video evidence was flawed, as it was impossible to tell whether a man or a woman was driving the vehicle.  “I put pressure on the prosecution who dropped the case at the door of the court. I was also able to recover all of my clients costs as when a client wins a case he is entitled to have all of his costs paid for by the Government” said Jeremy.

“Cases like these are on the increase.  Speed cameras are being used to catch innocent drivers and are being used as a means to impose yet another tax on the motorist” .

There are a number of ways in which a speeding ticket can be challenged.  The majority of these are technical and require timely advice from a specialist road traffic lawyer if they are to be successfully challenged. If you require advice or have any queries please do not hesitate to contact Jeremy Scott on 0808 160 5016.  In most cases free initial advice can be given and we always offer transparency and certainty with regard to the likely costs of advice and representation.