A professional comedian has failed to overturn his conviction for failing to identify who was driving his car as it sped through Cumbria.

Carlisle Crown Court was told that a roadside speed camera next to the A590 near Ulverston clocked Gary Skyner's Renault car doing 75mph in a 60mph zone.

But when the so-called "Section 172 notice of intended prosecution" arrived through the post at Skyner's Liverpool home, he said that he had no idea who was driving his car, which has the word "GAG" in its number plate.

The car was photographed breaking the speed limit on the A590 near Ulverston on November 25, 2016.

The appeal hearing was told that 58-year-old Skyner - a motivational speaker who was voted Merseyside comedian of the year three times - had made a considerable effort to identify the driver was that day.

This included him phoning the B&B where he stayed that night and asking the owners who was driving when he arrived; and calling the M6 Service station where he and his carer had stopped to ask if they had CCTV. Despite this, Skyner could not identify the driver.

On the day in question, he and his carer had left Newcastle to travel to south Cumbria for an overnight stay before a gig in Morecambe the next day.

Rejecting the appeal, Judge Peter Hughes QC, sitting with two magistrates, noted how Skyner had battled with fortitude against disability, having been born with deformities caused by the notorious drug Thalidomide.

But the judge raised the question of whether Skyner, whose job sees him travelling 60,000 miles a year with his carer, could with reasonable diligence have known who was driving.

"One piece of information which is highly material when considering that question is that we all learn from experience," said the judge.

"Mr Skyner has experience on three previous occasions of being served with a 172 notice."

This happened first in April, 2014, when he was acquitted by magistrates in Carlisle of the same offence; and again in 2015 when he received two notices of intended Section 172 prosecutions, though both were discontinued.

Keeping a note in his car of who was driving on any given day would have been a reasonable and practicable step allowing Skyner to identify who the driver was, said the judge.

"Had that been done," added the judge, "Mr Skyner would have had no difficulty at all in supplying the requested information."

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires the person keeping the vehicle to give information about who was driving a car which has been caught on camera speeding.

Failing to do so is likely to result in a fine and endorsement of six penalty points.

There is a statutory defence where the person who keeps the vehicle argues successfully that he or she not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was.