This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8132032.stm
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 2 | Version 3 |
---|---|
New blow for speeding fine couple | |
(about 11 hours later) | |
A Sheffield couple who spent £20,000 trying to overturn a speeding fine have failed in their latest legal challenge. | |
Dr Iain Fielden and his wife Vikki claim a speed camera near Huddersfield could not have been accurate as it was set up on a bend in the road. | Dr Iain Fielden and his wife Vikki claim a speed camera near Huddersfield could not have been accurate as it was set up on a bend in the road. |
They have been trying to overturn the £60 fine and three penalty points issued to Mrs Fielden three years ago. | |
A High Court judge said on Friday the case was "doomed to fail" and refused permission for a further appeal. | |
Mr Justice Maddison, sitting with Lord Justice Richards, said "a simple case was made exceedingly and unnecessarily complex". | |
'Inaccurate' reading | |
Mrs Fielden, 52, of Shirecliffe Road, Sheffield, was convicted at Huddersfield Magistrates' Court in August 2007 after her VW Polo, in which her husband was a passenger, was photographed on the A619 at Brockholes, West Yorkshire. | |
The camera recorded Mrs Fielden travelling at 36mph (58km/h) in June 2006. | |
Dr Fielden, a research scientist at Sheffield Hallam University, argued that the reading was inaccurate because the radar beams of the speed cameras only work in straight lines. | |
The couple were issued with a £15,000 legal bill last year after their appeal against the ticket was dismissed by a judge at Bradford Crown Court. | The couple were issued with a £15,000 legal bill last year after their appeal against the ticket was dismissed by a judge at Bradford Crown Court. |
Dr Fielden, 43, who said he was "seething" at the outcome of the case, estimated that, on top of the £15,000 costs bill, his wife now also faced paying around £5,000 more to cover the fees of her own legal team. | |
After Friday's ruling, Mrs Fielden vowed to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. | |