The camera never lies? Not according to Alan Haigh, who has successfully challenged a fine imposed on him for allegedly jumping a red light in Manchester Road.

His case throws up concerns about the use of traffic cameras as a blunt instrument of law enforcement.

Mr Haigh, a former police officer who is now a private investigator, was convinced he had not jumped the light. And after gathering his evidence, he claimed the camera was focusing on a line three metres from the legal stop line. He took it to appeal, whereupon the CPS decided to offer no evidence and the judge overturned the ruling.

Despite countless letters and Freedom of Information requests, Mr Haigh has been unable to find out how many other motorists have been caught by the same camera.

The Casualty Reduction Partnership, which is responsible for enforcing traffic cameras, insisted at the original hearing it was pointing at the right place, but refused to comment in the light of the appeal and Mr Haigh’s decision to go public.

If the camera is in the right place it is strange no evidence was offered to this effect at the appeal hearing. If it is not, then the CRP should admit it and say how many drivers have been caught by it.

Safety cameras used judiciously can help cut accidents and incidents on our roads. However, there is room for error, and problems arise when agencies rely too heavily on the evidence the cameras present.

It is easy to accept that being caught on camera means you are bang to rights, and it is only when someone with the resources and the know-how to challenge the evidence that problems like this are brought to light.

If we are to have these cameras, they have to be monitored to make sure they are doing their job correctly and effectively.