Fox News Flash top headlines for Sept. 11
Fox News Flash top headlines for Sept. 11 are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com
An English man spent almost three years and spent almost $37,000 of his son's inheritance fighting a traffic ticket — a fine that initially would've cost him around $120.
Richard Keedwell, 71, says he was clocked driving 35 mph in a 30 mph zone while taking a day trip to the city of Worcester in 2016.
CONNECTICUT WOMAN ARRESTED TWICE IN SAME DAY FOR ALLEGED DRUNK DRIVING
Keedwell told the BBC he "was certainly not doing more than 30 mph," and was surprised to find out days later he received a notice that law enforcement intended to prosecute him.
Richard Keedwell, 71, says he spent more than $36,000 fighting a speeding ticket after he was charged for driving 5 mph over the limit in England in November 2016. (SWNS)
"I really could not believe that I had been speeding," he said. "It made a simple day out turn very sour actually."
Keedwell told investigators he had "no case to answer," and hired experts to defend him in court about the possibility of a faulty speed camera.
HOT CHICKEN WINGS BLAMED FOR CANADA TEEN'S 105 MPH SPEEDING TICKET
The man said he expected the situation to play out "fairly quick," but it didn't work out in his favor. Keedwell said it took him four visits to Worcester Magistrates' Court before his appeal was heard — which he lost. He then lost another appeal in August, the BBC reported.
All in all, Keedwell said he spent "the best part of £30,000," or $36,982 U.S. dollars on lawyer and court fees and travel expenses in an effort to try to fight his speeding ticket.
"I'm sick and tired at the whole system which is steamrolling ordinary people," he said. "I regret the amount of money. I very simply wanted justice."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service, which prosecutes criminal cases in England and Wales, told the news outlet there were a "multiplicity of issues" involved in the case — including "a lengthy trial at the magistrates' court and subsequent hearings at the crown court to progress an appeal against conviction" which is why the case took so long to conclude.