Footballer's conviction is 'flawed'

Yorke was clocked driving at 61mph in his Porsche

A speeding conviction imposed on footballer star Dwight Yorke was fatally flawed, the High Court has heard.

Lawyers for the Blackburn Rovers striker argued that he should have been acquitted, in a case which could affect thousands of other motorists.

They claimed that there was no signature on an official form relied on by police to show he was the driver of a vehicle caught speeding.

Mr Justice Owen, sitting in London, was told that similar cases were appearing at court across the country.

Lawyers for Mr Yorke, and Michael Mawdesley, another motorist also convicted for speeding, said that magistrates were wrong to accept the unsigned forms as admissible evidence.

They said that the legislation for dealing with speeding cases was badly drafted and that both convictions must be quashed and the law overhauled.

Documents do not become admissible by magic

Lisa Judge, Yorke's counsel

The judge reserved judgement and said that he was surprised the legislation had not been challenged before.

Mr Yorke's Porsche 911 turbo was clocked doing 61mph on Princess Road, Withington, Manchester, in a 40mph zone in May 2001.

He was fined £350 and ordered to pay £1,000 court costs by the city's magistrates.

His first appeal to Manchester Crown Court was unsuccessful.

Michael Mawdesley, from Chorley, Lancashire, was found guilty by Warrington magistrates of doing 102mph on the M56 in April 2002.

He was fined £300 and had six penalty points put on his licence.

No signature

Lisa Judge, for Mr Yorke, who was not in court, said the law required the owner or keeper of a vehicle to give information identifying the driver when that vehicle was caught speeding.

The footballer, then living in Alderley Edge, Cheshire, was alleged to have partially filled in the form and returned it, although it did not contain his signature.

The magistrates decided they were entitled to accept the form as prime facie evidence that he was the speeding driver.

Mr Yorke declined to give evidence and the magistrates decided that the unsigned form, together with his failure to give evidence, entitled them to convict.

'Unfair evidence'

Ms Judge said: "Documents do not become admissible by magic.

"It is the signature (on the document) which allows the court to use it in order to identify a driver in summary proceedings."

Mark Laprell, appearing for Mr Mawdesley, agreed that allowing unsigned documents to be treated as bona fide evidence was unfair.

He said someone else could get hold of the form, fill in the details and return it to the prosecuting authorities without the vehicle owner's knowledge.

Martin Walsh, appearing for the prosecution in both cases, argued that the magistrates had acted lawfully and the convictions should not be quashed.

The appeal continues.