car's fan belt interfered with the radar reading.

And after establishing that a number of things could cause a radar gun to give an erroneous reading, he claimed the Police Force was getting rid of its radar guns and replacing them with more reliable laser guns -- already used in New Orleans and other US cities.

Perinchief further submitted the Policeman operating the radar gun aimed at him last June 17 had not used it properly.

The 49-year-old lawyer, traveling in a purple MGB sports car, registration number 07007, was clocked at 62 kph, Magistrates Court heard.

P.c. Roger Marshall testified he had been operating radar checks on Cavendish Road in Pembroke when Perinchief passed by.

He had aimed the gun at Perinchief's car, estimating he was driving at 60 to 65 kph.

P.c. Marshall said he had visually examined the gun to see if it was in working order. He saw no cracks on it and the light indicating too-low voltage was working.

During cross-examination of the witness, Perinchief established the light would only come on if the voltage was too low -- not if it was too high.

P.c. Marshall admitted he did not know off-by-heart the correct voltage range for the gun, therefore, would not know if it was overcharged.

"I suggest that if the radar gun is not operated within a range of 10 to 16.5 (volts), there is a possibility, even a probability of a spurious or improper reading,'' Perinchief said.

P.c. Marshall said he was "not aware of what problem there would be'' if the voltage was too high.

Perinchief asked him if he had encountered any interference from windscreen wipers or engine fan belts when aiming a radar gun at a vehicle.

P.c. Marshall said he had not, although he had aimed a radar gun at his car's air conditioning system and there was interferences.

Pointing out an MGB was low on the ground, he submitted: "I suggest that as you pointed the gun at the front of the car you in fact incorporated into your reading the (movement of the) fan and fan belt just below the grill.'' P.c. Marshall said he believed windscreen wipers and fan belts were too small in relation to a car to have any effect on a reading and he had never known it to happen. But he admitted he did not know for sure.

Perinchief further submitted P.c. Marshall had not held the radar gun on his car long enough before clocking him.

The officer said it did not matter how long a gun was aimed at a car. The practice of aiming it at a vehicle for three seconds was to ensure the right vehicle was clocked. There was no other traffic in the area when Perinchief passed.

Perinchief established that the officer would not have been able to see metal fatigue or "hairline fracture'' in a radar gun with only a visual check.

P.c. Marshall admitted if a radar gun's tuning fork was damaged, it would not give an accurate reading. But he said as far as he knew, there had not been any damage to the gun's fork.

Perinchief then asked the officer if he had ever heard of the "bouncing and skipping effect''.

He asked the officer if he was aware a few kilometres could be added to the speed clocked if a radar gun's beam bounced or skipped.

But before the officer could reply, Acting Magistrate the Wor. Charles-Etta Simmons, noting it was almost 5 p.m., adjourned the trial to May 25.