I admire him for standing up for what he thought was right, but at the end of the day he should have had the common sense to see he wouldn't get anywhere and just paid up in the first place

"I Fought the Law,An the Law Won" sung the various bands over the years, you will never beat theses money making cameras..weres all the profits go i want to Know? 15 grand for all this????
Get more bobbies out on the streets again !Not theses stupid "Safety" cameras .that everyone just speeds up again when they have gone through them.

This man was fighting for justice, but unfortunately was up against a company (Road Safety Support Ltd) who specialises in backing up the CPS in fighting people who wish to defend themselves.

This company has directors including Meredydd Hughes (a certain speed camera zealot, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and serial speeder) Trevor Hall, who was at Elvington Air Field in York when the LTI 20.20 was proved to be unreliable and a n other. Part of the company is a Steve Callahan (who did head up Cumbria’s Speed Camera Partnership and possibly still does) who claims to be the Technical support for ACPO Road Safety Support Ltd, yet does not as far as I know, have any qualifications to support this. He also claims to manage the ACPO/Home Office Type Approval Committee for speed cameras. All of these people are working as public servants but are making money from denying fair trials for people who stand up against unfair accusations from the modern highwayman, speed camera partnerships.

This is the company who Hughes boasted – “come and get us if you think you are hard enough,” and was set up the prevent honest hard working people a fair trial by threatening huge costs bills.

Far from being thick, this man is standing up for his rights, and the rights of all others who are being more and more denied a fair trial by a corrupt organisation.

Philip Gwyne of the West Yorkshire Speed Camera Partnership has stated that, “In speeding matters, it is the law of the land not the law of physics that matters.” Which says it all. It doesn’t matter if the camera doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter if it is set up incorrectly as this one was, what matters is that it gave us a reading even though it was pointing in the wrong direction and no matter how much you tell us, and prove, that it could not be reliable, we are going to find you guilty anyway.

Scotty was obviously wrong, Ye can change the laws of physics captain, but only in speeding matters.

IF THE CHIEF CONSTABLE MEREDITH HUGHES IS IN FACT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THIS COMPANY THEN I THINK THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SACKED LONG AGO. SURELY THE POLCE AUTHORITY OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THESE CLAIMS MADE BY 'QUATTRO' AS SURELY THE CHEIF CONSTABLE'S POSITION WILL BE UNTENABLE.

"IF THE CHIEF CONSTABLE MEREDITH HUGHES IS IN FACT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THIS COMPANY THEN I THINK THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SACKED LONG AGO. SURELY THE POLCE AUTHORITY OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THESE CLAIMS MADE BY 'QUATTRO' AS SURELY THE CHEIF CONSTABLE'S POSITION WILL BE UNTENABLE."

I will email the articles of assocition to the STAR if they like and they can publish them.

i wish i had £15,000 to spare to fight a £60 fine, i read somewhere that the total trial costs were in the region of £100,000,

Amazing. The camera doesn't, by law, need to be set up according to the manual. In fact, if I recall correctly the Gatso representative and Mr Hall said that the manual was incorrect. So, how is the installation carried out? A finger in the wind,an accumulation of the lottery numbers divided by 3.14? If there isn't an accepted procedure for setting up the camera how do we know it has been correctly set? Ah, because they tell us it has. But what do they use to make certain; to be able to prove that it is operating as it should?

Now, forgive me for being a little on the slow side here, but my understanding of british law states that we are 'innocent until proven guilty', and that we should be guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Hmmmmm, so why has it taken all of this time to settle this matter in court? Because Dr Fielden had to prove that the camera was inaccurate - but wait I hear you cry, isn't that like saying guilty until proven innocent. Well, yes. Good isn't it?

In my opinion the judge got the law wrong. The prosicution must be based on a prescribed device (gatso) set up in accordance with the type approval.
as laid down in the road traffic act.
"rta 1991 s23:
23. For section 20 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (admissibility of measurement of speed by radar) there shall be substituted—
“Speeding offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence.

20. — (1) Evidence (which in Scotland shall be sufficient evidence) of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies may be given by the production of—
(a) a record produced by a prescribed device, and
(b) (in the same or another document) a certificate as to the circumstances in which the record was produced signed by a constable or by a person authorised by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed…..
(4) A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless—
(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and
>>>>>(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.
"