John Croawell says he is astonished his case will be reheard in the Dunedin District Court after Judge Michael Crosbie yesterday quashed the conviction handed down by justices of the peace earlier this year.
Speaking outside the Dunedin District Court after Judge Crosbie's decision, Mr Croawell said he contemplated giving up his fight and paying the $80 fine.
''At the end of the day I was trained to never give up,'' he said.
''I don't want to see a lot of trouble, I just want them to fix the problem.
''I can show them how to fix the problem if they just listen.''
He is fighting a charge of speeding 11kmh over the 50kmh limit in Brighton Rd last year and claims errors in the installation of the fixed camera which captured his speed resulted in a false reading.
He claims information provided by police shows fixed speed cameras have to be installed at 22.5deg to the road but he calculated the camera, which allegedly captured him speeding, is installed at an angle of at least 35deg.
''All I'm saying is prove to me it works,'' Mr Croawell, who has a degree in biochemistry, said.
''If they prove to me it works, I will shut up and never say anything again.''
Judge Crosbie upheld Mr Croawell's appeal of the conviction and sentence, and said a possible miscarriage of justice had taken place after Mr Croawell was only provided with an expert witness's evidence brief on the day his case was heard on June 17.
Judge Crosbie said he was not entirely certain Mr Croawell's evidence was relevant to the requirements of proof under the Land Transport Act, but the technical nature of expert witness' brief meant he did not have time to ''digest and review it''.
''Even if Mr Croawell had received the information days earlier, he may have been successful in seeking an adjournment,'' he said.
The short timeframe in which Mr Croawell had the evidence before he had to counter it through cross-examination of the witness meant a miscarriage of justice had occurred, he said.
''It doesn't for that matter mean I'm agreeing with your case. It just means there's possibly been a procedural issue and we are going to wind the clock back a bit,'' he said.
Crown counsel Simon Power argued that the brief was emailed to Mr Croawell in the days before the hearing and his cross-examination of the witness showed he was prepared for court.
''The appellant's cross-examination was better than what a lot of local counsel would provide,'' he said.
Although Judge Crosbie agreed the cross-examination ''looked pretty good - it looked pretty tidy'', he had to take Mr Croawell's word that he received the brief only on the day of the hearing.
While he made no judgement on the merits of Mr Croawell's case, he was ''interested ... the police deem it necessary in this case to call an expert witness''.
He adjourned the matter until August 20 for a case management hearing.
Mr Croawell said his case would have huge ramifications if he was successful in defending it.
''I tried talking to police about this case - I wasn't interested in this becoming a public matter,'' he said.
''But they aren't interested.
''There's just been this authoritative clamping down that `we are right'.
''People say `just pay it, it's an $80 fine'. But it's not about an $80 fine, it's about fourmillion tickets.''
Mr Croawell said he could not have been travelling at the alleged speed.
''I definitely wasn't doing even 50kmh.''
His argument was the incorrect angle of the speed camera had greatly exaggerated his speed and, if proven correct, other cameras could be equally erroneous, he said.
''I believe every citizen has a duty of care, not only to the individual but to everybody because if you let it go by you become part of the problem.''
