Court rules speed cameras legal

Aitken Brotherston was convicted of speeding in May 2008

All speed cameras introduced on UK roads since 1992 were lawfully implemented by the government, a court has ruled in a test case.

Aitken Brotherston, of Lymm, Cheshire, had argued that home secretaries had been approving the devices without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

But lawyers said Parliament had 40 days to object to specifications of new devices before they were signed off.

A panel at Manchester Crown Court ruled the devices were legally valid.

Mr Brotherston, 61, brought the case on appeal, claiming a laser gun wrongly clocked him driving at 52mph in a 40mph zone on Princess Parkway, Manchester.

He had hoped the court would rule that the evidence of the LTI 20/20 Speedscope laser gun was inadmissible because of its illegality.

Lawyers for Mr Brotherston argued the 1991 Road Traffic Act meant parliamentary backing was required for all new devices.

This judgment will deter a lot of other people from making similar challenges Aitken Brotherston

His barrister Michael Shrimpton said speed devices had to be authorised by statutory instrument with a specific description laid before Parliament for scrutiny.

Instead, he claimed a "horribly unconstitutional" system had developed in which ministers evaded the parliamentary process with generic notices of devices.

The court was told up to 10 million prosecutions using speed camera evidence have been brought in the last 17 years, leading to an estimated £600m in fines.

But Judge Jonathan Gibson dismissed his appeal, ruling the device had been correctly prescribed and had been operated correctly when Mr Brotherston was caught.

He said: "It seems to us that if Parliament wishes to exercise control it can do so by repealing the statutory instrument."

The court battle has taken three years

The judge added that the panel was satisfied the device which captured Mr Brotherston's speed had been operated correctly, dismissing an argument from lawyers that the beam could have bounced off the underside of the car.

Judge Gibson said: "It would be fanciful to suggest that light from other sources could have interfered with the reading in this case to the extent of providing an incorrect reading."

Speaking after the hearing, Mr Brotherston said he was disappointed with the judgement and would now discuss launching an appeal.

"I think the judgment is wrong on both counts. I regret bringing the case in some ways. I expected to have success here," said Mr Brotherston.

He added it was important the case was heard to make other motorists aware of the issue.

"This judgment will deter a lot of other people from making similar challenges," he said.