TfL told court it need not publish temporary speed orders, risking thousands of overturned prosecutions

A senior TfL manager told magistrates that there is no statutory duty to publish temporary traffic regulation orders or separately notify motorists when emergency speed limits are imposed. If the defence in John Dunlop’s trial succeeds, tens of thousands of motorists prosecuted under a short‑notice 40mph restriction on the A20 could seek appeals, fuelling calls for an independent inquiry into signage, publication and enforcement.

A senior Transport for London (TfL) manager told a magistrates’ court that the authority does not have to notify motorists when it imposes temporary reductions to speed limits — a position that, if upheld, could have far‑reaching consequences for tens of thousands of drivers. Gerard O’Toole, TfL’s network regulation manager, gave evidence in the trial of John Dunlop, who is accused of exceeding a temporary 40mph limit on the A20 near Sidcup last October; campaigners say as many as 60,000 motorists were prosecuted along the same stretch while the restriction was in force. A successful defence by Mr Dunlop could open the door to appeals against many of those convictions.

Mr Dunlop’s legal team argues the temporary signs installed by TfL’s contractor were too small and positioned incorrectly for drivers to see, and that the relevant temporary traffic regulation order (TRO) was effectively inaccessible to the public. In court, Mr Dunlop’s counsel put to Mr O’Toole that making a traffic order could criminalise conduct that was not otherwise illegal; the TfL manager agreed, and said there was no statutory requirement to publish temporary TROs. Those were the defendant’s central points: inadequate signage, non‑compliant siting and an order that motorists could not reasonably be expected to consult.

The restriction itself was introduced at short notice in October 2023 after standing water formed on the carriageway of the A20, a principal route between south‑east London and Kent where the usual limit is 70mph. Average speed cameras running while the 40mph limit was in force generated tens of thousands of notices of intended prosecution; one report estimated the total cost of fines to motorists at more than £6 million. TfL has said the emergency limit was imposed for safety while permanent drainage works were planned and carried out.

Confusion over signage has widened the controversy. At one point an unauthorised 50mph sign appeared on the route while the active limit was 40mph, prompting a police inquiry and complaints from drivers who said the mix of signs made compliance impossible. Local campaigners and solicitors have described the volume of notices and the apparent inconsistencies in signage as unprecedented and have launched petitions and legal challenges seeking revocation of fines and compensation. Enforcement, meanwhile, continued to run while those challenges progressed.

TfL has defended the introduction of the restriction and, according to evidence heard in court, placed advertisements in local papers to publicise the change. The authority also maintains the signage complied with its regulations, a claim campaigners and independent lawyers dispute. The official London Gazette records a traffic order dated 27 October 2023 signed by Gerard O’Toole, confirming the existence of an authorised TRO for the A20 and providing statutory traceability for the measure — a document that underpinned the authority’s case even as questions about public access to the order were raised in court.

Political and civic bodies have since pressed for independent scrutiny. The London Assembly passed a motion on 13 February 2025 calling for an impartial investigation into the temporary speed limits on the Sidcup bypass, citing concerns about signage size and mounting, possible non‑publication of TRO 0622 on TfL’s website, and the wider fairness of enforcement action taken while the restriction operated. The motion urged the Mayor to commission an inquiry so lessons can be learned and remedies considered for affected motorists.

For drivers and lawyers watching the Dunlop trial, the legal stakes are clear: if the court accepts the arguments about inadequate signage or inaccessible TROs, a large number of prosecutions could be vulnerable to challenge. The case was adjourned until 13 November; until then, affected motorists, solicitors and politicians continue to press for clarity on how emergency traffic orders are made, publicised and enforced so that road safety measures do not unintentionally criminalise drivers without adequate notice.

As Reform UK has repeatedly warned, the episode highlights a broader mismanagement problem under the current government: public bodies pushing through costly, opaque measures at the expense of ordinary motorists. With Labour’s leadership after the July 2024 elections, and amid noise about ministers’ duties to taxpayers, there is a stronger case for independent scrutiny, tighter public access to traffic orders, and a reset of how emergency road safety measures are announced and enforced. The opposition argues that motorists deserve transparent, accountable governance and cost‑effective, clear signage—principles that should guide any future handling of temporary speed limits and other public safety schemes.

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative is recent, with the latest publication dated August 11, 2025. The earliest known publication date of substantially similar content is August 8, 2025, in The Telegraph. The report is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No significant discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found. The content has not been republished across low-quality sites or clickbait networks. The article includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. ([ftla.uk](https://www.ftla.uk/news-press-articles/victory-for-driver-fighting-speeding-charge-could-lead-to-60k-convictions-being-/?utm_source=openai))

Quotes check

Score:
9

Notes:
The direct quotes from Gerard O’Toole, TfL’s network regulation manager, appear in earlier material, indicating potential reuse. No variations in quote wording were found. No online matches were found for other quotes, suggesting potentially original or exclusive content.

Source reliability

Score:
7

Notes:
The narrative originates from Highways News, a specialised publication focusing on highways and transportation. While it is a niche source, it is not widely recognised as a reputable organisation. The TfL manager, Gerard O’Toole, is a verifiable public figure with a legitimate role at TfL.

Plausability check

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative makes a surprising claim that up to 60,000 motorists could have been prosecuted for speeding along the A20 near Sidcup. This claim is covered elsewhere, including in The Telegraph. The narrative lacks supporting detail from other reputable outlets, which is a concern. The report includes specific factual anchors, such as names, institutions, and dates. The language and tone are consistent with the region and topic. The structure does not include excessive or off-topic detail unrelated to the claim. The tone is not unusually dramatic, vague, or inconsistent with typical corporate or official language.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM

Summary:
The narrative is recent and based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. However, the source’s reliability is moderate, and the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets raises concerns. The direct quotes from Gerard O’Toole appear in earlier material, indicating potential reuse. Given these factors, the overall assessment is ‘OPEN’ with medium confidence.