A RETIRED businessman is facing a £10,000 bill after losing a test case questioning the legality of speed cameras.

Aitken Brotherston, 61, from Lymm, lost both an appeal against a personal speeding conviction and the test-case that all speed camera devices used on Britain's roads since 1992 are illegal.

Had he won the test-case it could have opened the floodgates to thousands of speeding appeals by drivers. But after a five-day hearing at Manchester Crown Court Judge Jonathan Gibson ruled against him.

Now he faces a claim against him for up to £10,000 in prosecution costs, and will have to decide whether or not to pursue his claim in a higher court.

Former computer engineer Mr Brotherston said: after the hearing: "I'm obviously disappointed at the judgement.

"Whether we go ahead and pursue this issue is something I will have to think about, but I think the judgement was wrong on both counts."

He said he regretted bringing the case in some ways. "I am being exposed to huge costs when you consider that at the start of all this I could have paid an offered £60 fine and had three points on my licence.

"On the basis of the unfair regime for motorists out there however, I'm not sorry. This is something that needs to be aired.

"There is an assumption that there is some form of blackmail to dissuade people like me from taking up the legal opportunity to have their case tested. This judgement will deter a lot of other people from similar challenges."

But a number of similar speeding appeals are already in the legal pipeline and set to come before numerous courts over the next few months.

Mr Brotherston, who at one time worked on weapons aiming systems for Ferranti, had appealed against a conviction for speeding after he was clocked by a laser-gun travelling at 52mph in a 40 limit on Princess Parkway, Manchester, in his Mitsubishi Gallant in November 2006.

He told the appeal hearing that he 'firmly believed' he had not been exceeding the limit, and claimed that the LTI 20/20 Speedscope device that targeted him must have given an inaccurate reading.

Mr Brotherston also claimed that the way roadside speed cameras have been authorised since 1992 have been illegal.

His case centred on a change of law which his legal team maintained meant orders approving such devices over the past 17 years should have been put before Parliament for scrutiny as well as being 'signed off' by the relevant Home Secretary.

Judge Gibson, who was assisted by two lay-magistrates, ruled that this was a wrong interpretation of the law, that the Secretary of State had the rightful power to authorise the equipment, and that Parliament still has the power of veto.

On the appeal against the speeding conviction, the court was told that there was at least a serious doubt as to the accuracy of the 52mph reading when the Mitsubishi was clocked. But Judge Gibson said he had been impressed with evidence given by the gun operator Guy Williams, a former police traffic officer, who had wide experience of using the equipment.

He said Mr Williams's opinion that the Gallant had been travelling in excess of the limit had been correctly corroborated by an accurate laser-gun reading.
Tweet