Yorke was clocked driving at 61mph in his Porsche

On Thursday judges sitting in London, ruled the case against the Blackburn Rover striker had been "fatally flawed".

Yorke had told the court he should be acquitted because a police form used as evidence did not have his signature on it.

The case will have implications for drivers in the UK because of the increase in the use of speed camera evidence in court.

On Thursday Mr Justice Owen, sitting in London, agreed a prime facie case against Yorke was set up on an "erroneous basis".

Identity proof

The 31-year-old was convicted by magistrates in Manchester of driving his Porsche 911 at 61mph in Princess Road, Withington, Manchester, in May 2001.

However, Mr Justice Owen said because there was no signature on the form to prove the identity of Yorke as the driver the conviction should be set aside.

The judge had been told similar cases were spreading "like a virus" to magistrates courts up and down the country.

Yorke, who used to play for Aston Villa and Manchester United, had been fined �350 and ordered to pay �1,000 costs after his conviction.

His first appeal to Manchester Crown Court against the conviction was unsuccessful.

But lawyers for Yorke and Michael Mawdesley, another motorist also convicted of speeding, argued in the High Court that magistrates were wrong to accept the unsigned forms as admissible evidence that they were the guilty drivers.

Retrial considered

The lawyers argued that the legislation for dealing with speeding cases had been so badly drafted by Parliament that the convictions must be quashed and the law overhauled.

Michael Mawdesley, from Chorley, Lancashire, was found guilty by Warrington magistrates of clocking 102mph on the M56 in April 2002.

The two cases centre on a section of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, which requires the owner or keeper of a vehicle to give information identifying the driver when that vehicle is caught speeding.

Yorke was alleged to have partially filled in the form and returned it to the central ticket office in Manchester in July 2001, although it did not contain his signature.

Mr Mawdsley will face a retrial because there was no other evidence to prove the identity of the driver.

The judge has ruled that it must go back to Warrington magistrates for reconsideration.