Thousands may have speed convictions overturned

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.

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.