News RSS Feed


Follow the Daily Echo on Facebook to get headlines straight to your news feed. Readers Letters Tweet with the Daily Echo Don't Be A Fuel Fool

Thousands may have speed convictions overturned


THOUSANDS of Hampshire motorists may have their speed camera convictions quashed following a landmark court hearing.

Two Hampshire motorists have had their convictions overturned after it emerged the allegations against them were based on false documents.

Proceedings against Barrington Wells and Michael Halliwell collapsed because of a paperwork blunder.

Speed camera opponents say the hearing could lead to thousands more motorists following their lead fearing they too were the subject of unsafe convictions.

Southampton Crown Court heard how speed camera bosses signed and wrongly backdated a vital certificate proving when Mr Halliwell had been sent a notice of prosecution.

It was dated October 27, 2004 but it was revealed in court that it had actually been signed in February 2005.

It was sent to magistrates as part of evidence against the 66- year-old, but yesterday cases against both men were dropped after prosecution lawyers admitted the document, sent from Winchester central ticket office, was false.

Click below to see a video of today's headlines in sixty seconds

Prosecutor Michael Forster said: “The Crown has decided to offer no further evidence because the whole of the prosecution has been based on documents that are false and that is not a thing that should properly happen.”

Mr Wells, 65, of Waterloo Road, Southampton, and Mr Halliwell of Newlands Manor, Everton, have spent five years fighting their convictions after a district judge found them guilty of exceeding the temporary 30mph limit through roadworks on the A35 Redbridge Road.

They were both caught on camera, recorded driving at 38mph and 43mph respectively but fought the fines on the basis there were no signs warning of the temporary speed limit.

Consultant and independent witness Richard Bentley said: “It would appear many thousands of drivers were taken to court and those prosecutions were based on the same documents that the Crown admitted were false.

Clearly many thousands of motorists may well be able to have their convictions quashed and points removed.”

Another consultant Barry Culshaw, who has helped the duo fight the case, said nearly 500 people contested prosecutions after being caught at Redbridge in 2004. He has called for an investigation saying: “If it happened in Mr Halliwell’s case – and there was a r e a s o n a b l e inference that it happened in Mr Wells’ case – surely the suspicion is that it will relate to everyone who ended up in court? The implication to me is that it was systemic and an investigation needs to be carried out to establish the scale of the problem. If anyone is concerned about their own case they should seek legal advice.”

Hampshire Constabulary refused to say whether the case damaged the credibility of the speeding prosecution process or if there was an investigation.

See today's paper for more on this story


Comments(19)

Brite Spark says...
7:19pm Wed 15 Jul 09

How much over the speed limit were these guys driving? If they were driving dangerously they should accept their fines and points like men, and not whinge about it. Are any crimes punishable these days without someone appealing because they feel that they have been harshly sentenced?

work-on says...
8:30pm Wed 15 Jul 09

I agree. If people put as much effort into getting it right in the first place as they do into disputing when they get it wrong that would be just fine.

Tony S says...
10:06pm Wed 15 Jul 09

They were obaying the 50mph speed limit. The court case stopped before the court heard evidence about the poorly signed tempoary 30 mph limit. 5,890 people were flashed in 2 months, 477 people are still fighting thier case.

Paramjit Bahia says...
2:30am Thu 16 Jul 09

It is clearly stated in the article “Southampton Crown Court heard how speed camera bosses signed and wrongly backdated a vital certificate”. In other words somebody cooked the books. Surely this should be a matter of concern and the people who produced false documents should be booked and brought in front of the courts for proper punishment.
But that is highly unlikely to happen. Because if an ordinary person end up breaking the speed limit little bit that person gets booked, unless he/she happen to be a Police Chief (Surrey incident) or Home Secretary of the time (Jack Straw) being driven well above the legal limits by a police officer. But when the police produces fake documents (by back dating) nobody gets charged.
Obviously there is one law for ordinary people and another standard for police and the privileged and powerfuls.

Brite Spark says...
3:03am Thu 16 Jul 09

I don't understand why people post on here during the night, have they got nothing better to do at 0300?

DONT-KNOCK-THE-ROCK says...
11:05am Thu 16 Jul 09

Was the back dating ILLEGAL ?

Barrie21 says...
11:45am Thu 16 Jul 09

DONT-KNOCK-THE-ROCK wrote:
Was the back dating ILLEGAL ?
Falsifying certificate on a document knowing it to be explicitly for the Court and prosecution process can be seen as perverting the course of justice!

Tony S says...
11:50am Thu 16 Jul 09

It would be illegal if it was done willfully.



The person had 30+ years previous service in the police... It appears to have been day to day practice. If they issued 6000 notices of prosicution, there should be 6000 records of postage stored at the camera partnership. An investigation is required to find the truth.

Barrie21 says...
11:54am Thu 16 Jul 09

Whilst driving at excessive speed should be punished if it puts anyone at risk, it is worth looking at the circumstances of this case. The speed camera was at a site where there were no road works and for the route taken there were 50mph speed limit signs. The Crown alleged in court that there was a 30mph sign on the approach, but it was shown in cross examination that this sign ha been removed weeks earlier.

Barrie21 says...
12:26pm Thu 16 Jul 09

It is worth considering what is really happening here! It is in the interests of the Speed Camera Partnership (who run the cameras) that the maximum number of motorists exceed the speed limit at camera sites as this maximises their income. (This was true at the time of this case, but the situation has improved more recently as central government have changed the rules.) For this case, there were well in excess of 600 alleged offences in a single day. If it were true that 'speed enforcement' was a matter of safety during the roadworks, then under the Health and Safety at Work act measures should have been taken to effectively reduce speed to protect the workforce. In fact all that happened was to increase the frequency of changing film in the camera to increase revenue!

King Mush says...
5:22pm Thu 16 Jul 09

Brite Spark wrote:
I don't understand why people post on here during the night, have they got nothing better to do at 0300?
It depends on which part of the world one is posting from........

Or maybe shift workers?


D'uh!

King Mush says...
5:22pm Thu 16 Jul 09

Brite Spark wrote:
I don't understand why people post on here during the night, have they got nothing better to do at 0300?
It depends on which part of the world one is posting from........

Or maybe shift workers?


D'uh!

lorra1 says...
5:35pm Thu 16 Jul 09

King Mush wrote:
Brite Spark wrote: I don't understand why people post on here during the night, have they got nothing better to do at 0300?
It depends on which part of the world one is posting from........ Or maybe shift workers? D'uh!
night workers like me

Redback says...
5:44pm Thu 16 Jul 09

Speed cameras do not catch dangerous, careless and reckless driving, which are a far greater menace than speed on its own. Scrap the cameras and get traffic cops back on the roads.

Honest Di says...
1:14am Fri 17 Jul 09

In response to 'Brite Spark', these two men were not speeding. They were doing 38 and 43 mph in a signed 50 mph speed limit. The evidence against them was manufactured. The accused have had the strength to highlight a flawed system.

Honest Di says...
1:16am Fri 17 Jul 09

In response to 'Brite Spark', these two men were not speeding. They were doing 38 and 43 mph in a signed 50 mph speed limit. The evidence against them was manufactured. The accused have had the strength to highlight a flawed system.

Paramjit Bahia says...
2:22am Fri 17 Jul 09

Redback wrote:
Speed cameras do not catch dangerous, careless and reckless driving, which are a far greater menace than speed on its own. Scrap the cameras and get traffic cops back on the roads.
You are right. Visible police is the best deterrent, and they, or at least most of them, also tend to use bit of common sense while enforcing the law. But speed cameras create plenty of profit with very little investment.

Tony S says...
7:36am Fri 17 Jul 09

The court heard that they were putting two 900 frame films in a day. They did not think that the sinage was wrong or about the health and safety of the roadworkers. it was an opportunity to earn £54000 per roll. the speed camera which cost £30k was paid for 11 times. The ticketing office was struggling to process and post the tickets within 14 days. They are still in huge profit even after a 5 year court case. The same road signing errors are present on the roadworks today. Wrong signs, a different signing style at many of the junctions and signs that cancel the speed limit in the middle of the site. no combined camera and speed roundel in view of the cameras. It is all about cash, not about safety.

Barrie21 says...
9:39am Fri 17 Jul 09

Southampton should follow the excellent example of other local authorities such as Swindon where a rational and informed decision was made to remove all Speed Cameras and the parasitic organisation that ran them, and took the revenue. Swindon are now spending their road safety budget on far more effective measures such as 'road engineering' to make danger points more obvious, and use of Vehicle Activated Speed Signs which flash a warning if traffic exceeds a speed limit. These devices have public acceptance as they are placed at locations where there is a genuine need to reduce speed, rather than at locations to catch the most drivers to raise the most money. Anyone who then ignores these warnings deserves to be prosecuted.


A Gatso speed camera Speed convictions quashed after paperwork blunder

Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses