These are some general guidelines for submitting photographs in court.

- Photographer must be present in the courtroom

- Photograph usually requires a time/date stamp

- Originals must be available to the court (if digital, "raw" format is used, plus a CD with the originals and the memory card)

- Photographs cannot be printed off your home computer, they must be printed by a retailer or professional photo store

- Have 3 copies of each photo, one for JP, prosecution and yourself

- Receipt from said retailer/photo store indicating date of printing or purchase must be brought to court

You cannot take a digital photograph, print it off at home and show up at court and expect that it will be accepted as evidence. That can be easily doctored with a photoshop program, and even if you swear up and down that you did not alter the photo's contents, any half-decent Prosecutor will get it excluded as unreliable.

In some cases, a higher standard is required for the photos to be accepted. If the photo is of a collision, for example, the photographer will usually have to be trained in the use of a camera.

i had all that. The prosecutor accepted the photos as evidence and the judge visibly upset said OK but they will have a very little weight.

And the photos were just ignored.The photos were the only way the proof the speed limit sign is not posted.

Is this just my bad luck to have this judge or i am doing it wrong?

By the way the court was on Friday 3pm before long weekend.

It sounds like the Prosecutor and JP both accepted them as evidence because you followed the rules for submitting them, BUT whether or not the photos have any meaning is a different story...