Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[NSW] Speedcam slip puts $100m fines in doubt

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by pvda, Mar 23, 2006.

  1. From the Sydney Morning Herald

    Speedcam slip puts $100m fines in doubt
    By Michael Pelly and Justin Norrie
    March 23, 2006

    THE State Government may be forced to repay drivers up to $100 million in fines after the Roads and Traffic Authority lost a Supreme Court appeal over speed camera photos yesterday.

    Justice Michael Adams said digital photographs tendered in court against a motorist, Timothy Mitchell, did not contain the markings stipulated by the Road Transport Safety and Traffic Management Act.

    Mr Mitchell's lawyer, Dennis Miralis, is investigating a class action on behalf of thousands of motorists since digital technology was introduced in 1999.

    Before the law was amended last year, it said the speed camera photos had to have "security indicators" containing 48 characters of letters and numbers plus "symbols" such as stars or exclamation marks. Any combination is now allowed.

    But Justice Adams said the speed camera photo issued to Mr Mitchell contained no indicators at all and his $75 fine for driving 21 kmh over the limit on Parramatta Road, Auburn, should not stand. Mr Miralis said this had been happening in "thousands" of cases.

    Yesterday's decision follows the failure of another appeal by the authority last month, when the Supreme Court said a speed camera fine had wrongly stipulated which lane the motorist was using.

    The Premier, Morris Iemma, said the Government was considering a further appeal. However, two years ago the Victorian Government was forced to refund or waive fines for almost 165,000 motorists caught by faulty speed cameras, at a cost of $26 million. The Government agreed to repay fines totalling $13.7 million to 90,000 motorists and pay a further $6 million to compensate motorists who lost their licences after being snapped.

    Mr Miralis said there was no suggestion the photographs had been altered, and that the errors in NSW came down to "a failure to comply with legislation".

    However, Mr Miralis said that while the authority charged motorists $11 for a copy of the speed camera photo, this copy did not contain any security indicators. It was only by contesting the fine in court that motorists such as Mr Mitchell could find out whether any existed.

    When the matter was first heard, in Burwood Local Court, the authority relied on a speed camera photo to get a conviction, but Mr Miralis successfully argued the photo was not evidence of what had actually happened.

    In another case at Hornsby last year, the charge was dismissed after the authority could not provide an expert to prove the camera image was not doctored.

    "Courts have to be satisfied the picture taken at the time of the offence was the same photograph relied on by the prosecution in court," Mr Miralis said. "The RTA have been going to court … and the courts have been convicting people on photographs which the Supreme Court says are unreliable and cannot be accepted as evidence."

    Yesterday's decision may cover anyone convicted by a court since the introduction of digital cameras in 1999 until new regulations were passed last year. Those who have not contested the fines in court would have no recourse to compensation.

    Mr Miralis estimates 10 per cent of people contest speed camera fines. The authority revealed in court that the cameras generated $150 million a year, meaning incorrect security indicators could cost the State Government $100 million.

    The Roads Minister, Eric Roozendaal, said he had been assured by the authority that all photographs tended to court contained security indicators.

    The Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam, said the Government should have fixed the problem two years ago: "They simply didn't do their homework."

    Mr Iemma said the Government would analyse the judgement before deciding whether to lodge an appeal.

    "All I can say at the moment is that speed kills and speed cameras save lives," he said.


    2004: First speed camera fine overturned because photo did not contain correct markings. Legislation amended.

    2005: Roads and Traffic Authority omits markings from photos tendered to court.

    2006: Supreme Court says photographs with no markings are inadmissible as evidence.
  2. HarHarHarHar!!
    Go on, keep tellin' yerself that, ya mug!
    Nobody else believes ya!

    Today is a good day :)
  3. Mr Dennis Miralis, you sir are a hero :)

    What's that got to do with appealing this case? No one's arguing if they save lives or not - if you refund $100 million, how are lives being put in jeopardy? :?

    Giving back money wrongly gotten won't cost lives. I'd say the only thing they are worried about is the bottom line $... save me the 'ooh Joe Public we love you and want to stop you from dying on the roads' speil - it doesn't wash when they start getting petty over the money... :mad:
  4. 2007:Legislation amended, photos not needed anymore. Defendant has to prove he wasn't speeding.

    anyone else see the trend here ...

  5. Used to be a time, back in the 70's & 80's, when a police officer's word and estimation that you were speeding was admissible as evidence in court, and it was up to you to prove that you weren't, and the only evidence that the court would accept from the driver was if a licensed driver, who was not a friend of the driver or a member of the driver's family was sitting in the front passenger seat and watching the speedo at the same time.

    I remember my sister's boyfriend at the time got hauled into court for "speeding" about half a dozen times when the police mistakenly thought that someone from his family was yelling abuse at officers at some public event. After being dragged through court all these times by the same officer who kept claiming he was speeding on visual estimation alone, he found the officer and had a chat and asked what the problem was, and found out that the officer was picking on him over a case of mistaken family identity.

    He never got called to court again for "officer estimated speeding" again, after that.
  6. The government are right :p Its everybody else thats wrong :twisted: And to top it off they use our money to lodge appeals against us when they can even be bothered to comply with the legislation. I have fought every fine that has been issued to me and the score is police 0 me 3 :LOL: