A MAN protesting his innocence after spending more than three years behind bars has had his appeal rejected by Scotland's top judge.

Lord Carloway heard Stephen Rodger's case yesterday at the High Court in Glasgow, along with Lord Turnbull and Lord Menzies.

As revealed in yesterday's Evening Times, Stephen claims he is innocent after being convicted of a firearms offence in 2013.

He and a friend had been driving from Stephen's house in Yorkhill on April 29, 2013, when they tried to take a photograph of a car in front's registration plate.

Read more: Glasgow man hopes this photograph will clear his name after three years in jail

The vehicle, a black Corsa, had been driving around the area for three hours and the occupants had allegedly been taking photographs of people in the street.

Stephen asked his friend photograph the car when they ended up behind it at a set of traffic lights - an image which has now been recovered, and which Stephen believes proves his innocence.

Later that night passengers in the vehicle reported them to the police, claiming they were wearing balaclavas and were brandishing a gun.

Yesterday the appeal was heard before the three senior judges, with solicitor advocate Dale Hughes arguing that Stephen wasn't properly represented by his lawyers Iain Bradley and Abdullah Hamid in his initial trial.

He argued the solicitors should have requested the phone be analysed for any images of a car or registration plate.

When they took to the stand both Mr Bradley and Mr Hamid said they had no knowledge that the image existed before the trial, but were aware Stephen had said it was a mobile phone his friend was holding, and that he was trying to take a photo.

Mr Hamid said Stephen had been "crystal clear" that no relevant images were on the phone, while Mr Bradley said he was "flabbergasted" when he was told there may be a photograph .

Read more: Glasgow man hopes this photograph will clear his name after three years in jail

He claims he was told about this after the first trial, which Stephen adamantly denied from the witness box.

Stephen said: " I believed the solicitor would do what he had to do. I do not have the capability to do that, especially on remand.

"Mr Hamid and Mr Bradley were fully aware of the issues with the Blackberry phone."

Stephen said he had written "several" letters to Mr Hamid before his trial, which detailed his version of events from the night of the incident.

The letters, however, have not been produced and their whereabouts are currently unknown.

Stephen was questioned over his reasons for not testifying at his original trial, which he said were because he had been advised the defence would attempt to assassinate his character.

However Mr Bradley said he understood the reason was because Stephen did not want to incriminate his friend and co-accused.

After deliberating for less than 10 minutes, Lord Carloway ruled there had been no defective representation, stating that Stephen's decision not to introduce the photograph was "strategic".

He said: "The court is satisfied that there was no defective representation in the case.

"Therefore, no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal is refused on that basis."