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.

VIC Speed camera fine contested and won

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by chicken78, Sep 5, 2011.

  1. There is about to be a segment on today tonight re: Wellington rd speed camera that was contested and won by a sen con in vic pol. Last week the AG had cleared the cameras and were declared as accurate, this week the fine was challenged by a member of vic pol and thrown out by the magistrate. Traffic lawyers believe its a breakthrough. Thoughts?

    here is the link from the herald sun earlier today?
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...ink-speed-camera/story-fn7x8me2-1226129693812



    Note - The magistrate had warned vic pol NOT to lose this this case.....
     
     Top
  2. Hmm I'll be watching it then
     
     Top
  3. It does show a double standard. The question would be when the camera was found to be faulty to when the AG had it tested.
     
     Top
  4. Read it today on News Com.
    Am I the only one who feels like a cupcake?
     
     Top
  5. As far as a double standard goes, I don't think so, it shows that the judiciary are still seperate from the State. Any other person could have mounted the same argument. This one happened to be a cop. I do however expect an appeal. Any word on an appeal on the show?
     
     Top
  6. Removing the double standard argument alex, Im interested in the outcome. The AG may have audited them as accurate, challenged by a member of the public(Im removing the fact she is a copper) and shes won, I might be speculating and correct me if im wrong, but does this help prove "revenue raiser" theory when its evident the AG seems to only have a vested interest in the protection of the governments revenue figures...
     
     Top
  7. 1252082132-cupcake-stand_49.
    Cupcakes anyone?
     
     Top
  8. So let me get this right . someone goes to court with a speeding fine for 6ks over and her defense is that she had the cruise control on and she has a witness a 15 year old girl that makes a statement to the affect "yes I looked the speed o and she was only doing 97ks "

    Magistrates : ok "" fantastic thanks case dismissed .

    Ps on iPhone and didn't see the show .
     
     Top
  9. Car was calibrated correctly.. But yup thats the sum of it
     
     Top
  10. Traffic lawyers quote off the segment, I was waiting for elaboration on this point, but nothing more was mentioned. If the defence is availible and has been used successfully, the only reason we hearing this is due to her occupation?
     
     Top
  11. Could simply be that the evidence from the speed camera is no longer seen as infallible? For there to be doubt, the court has accepted that it could have been been wrong (?).
     
     Top
  12. AG had it tested and declared in perfect operation. Basically said that it's fine, and if you get a fine, you can be assured that you were speeding and should suck it up. Seems that the court in this case disagrees. Were does that leave the report. We keep getting told to trust it, he's an independent auditor... We can trust him.


    -- Sent from the year 2319 using Tapatalk (if you can read this, I finally got my flux capacitor working)
     
     Top
  13. The Traffic Lawyer was Sean Hardy. He doesn't actually say it, the reporter did say at 00:36 "but Traffic Lawyer Sean Hardy said it is a breakthrough" followed by Hardy stating at 00:40 "this case is likely to encourage more people to have a go in court fighting speed camera cases, especially on East Link."

    So it may be that the reporter interpreted it that way. Especially since at 00:13 Hardy states;
    "This is not the first speed camera case the police have lost, and it won't be the last."

    It seems to be the usually shoddy editing by the TT crew. I wonder what Sean thinks? :)

    The footage is here. http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/video/watch/26519044/
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  14. I agree. I believe there is only one real defence to a speed camera fine and she used it. I've been at court before and the magistrates always mentions it somewhere during the case. The fact she is a copper is the only reason it made this fairytale show. As pointed out already it's not the first case Vic Pol has lost and it won't be the last.
     
     Top
  15. I used this defence with a mobile speed camera 5 years ago calibrated speedo etc except i had a stat dec from my daughter who lives interstate.But the procecutor did a deal before we went in to court no fine no costs but 1 demerit point so no precedent was set.This was without legal rep on my part i refuse to just cop a fine even i i was doing it.I want my moneys worth and if more people did the same i bet you would find a large attitude change from the powers to be.
     
     Top
  16. Judgment of The Honourable Justice Vanstone (South Australia Supreme Court) on 04/05/2010:

    VANSTONE J: The respondent was charged on complaint with speeding, contrary to Rule 20 of the Australian Road Rules.
    It was further alleged that he was driving at a speed of about 81 kilometres per hour on a road governed by a speed limit
    of 60 kilometres per hour. The offence was said to have occurred on 9 March 2009 at Verdun.

    The matter went to trial in the Magistrates Court at Mount Barker on 12 March 2010. In proof of its case the prosecution
    tendered a certificate of accuracy of a traffic speed analyser and called the operating officer, Senior Constable Turner of
    the Traffic Division at Mount Barker. Senior Constable Turner testified that on the day of the offence he was using a laserlite
    gun which he tested, as required, both at the beginning and end of his shift. He was satisfied as to its accuracy.

    He stationed himself on the Mount Barker Road at Verdun looking south-east to a roundabout situated towards the end
    of the exit ramp for traffic leaving the South Eastern Freeway. Senior Constable Turner said he was positioned at the
    north-westerly end of that stretch of Mount Barker Road, near to its junction with Onkaparinga Valley Road. He said that
    the length of Mount Barker Road between the roundabout and the junction is about 500 metres. Senior Constable Turner
    said that from the roundabout the road slopes slightly down for a short way and then, approaching the junction, is slightly
    inclined. The witness said that at the time he took the reading of 81 kilometres per hour in relation to the respondent’s
    vehicle, that vehicle was 229.9 metres from his position.

    The prosecution relied on the certificate I mentioned, together with the presumption provided by s 175(3)(ba) Road Traffic
    Act 1961, to the effect that the traffic speed analyser was accurate. It was not suggested the certificate was not admissible.
    The presumption has the effect that the instrument is presumed to be accurate in the absence of proof to the contrary.
    I set out the provision.

    175. (3) In proceedings for an offence against this Act –
    ...
    (ba) a document produced by the prosecution and purporting to be signed by the Commissioner of Police, or by any other
    police officer of or above the rank of inspector, and purporting to certify that a specified traffic speed analyser had been
    tested on a specified day and was shown by the test to be accurate to the extent indicated in the document constitutes,
    in the absence of proof to the contrary, proof of the facts certified and that the traffic speed analyser was accurate to
    that extent on the day on which it was so tested and, for the purpose of measuring the speed of any motor vehicle—

    (i) in the case of a traffic speed analyser that was, at the time of measurement, mounted in a fixed housing—during the
    period of 27 days immediately following that day; or

    (ii) in any other case—on the day following that day,
    whether or not the speed measured differed from the speed in relation to which the analyser was tested or the circum-
    stances of the measurement differed in any other respect from the circumstances of the test;


    The respondent gave evidence in his defence and called his wife; she was a passenger in the vehicle at the relevant time.
    Both gave evidence that the vehicle was not travelling as fast as 81 kilometres per hour at that time
    . The respondent
    himself said that shortly after leaving the roundabout he saw Senior Constable Turner and saw his flashing lights go on.
    He immediately looked down at his speedometer and saw that he was travelling at 50 kilometres per hour. He allowed
    the car to roll down the incline and then continued on. He said that although he saw the police officer activate his lights
    and move from his position in his vehicle, it was not until the officer flagged him down that he realised that the officer
    was interested in his vehicle, as opposed to another one he had noticed in the vicinity.

    The magistrate accepted that all three witnesses were attempting to give truthful and accurate evidence. In respect of
    Senior Constable Turner and the prosecution case, he made this observation at [9]:

    The prosecution case in this matter is strong, there is nothing from the evidence that I have heard from Senior Constable
    First Class Turner to indicate that he is in any way anything other than convinced that his use of the laser gun was in
    accordance with the requirements of that item and that his reading of the speed on the detection device was accurate.
    As he said, he showed that reading to the defendant.


    No finding went any further than this one in terms of accepting that the device was operated and read correctly. The
    magistrate noted the difficulty confronting the defendant in overcoming the statutory presumption. However, he observed
    that the defendant was just as adamant in his evidence and his wife’s evidence gave him some support
    . The magistrate
    referred to the fact that the disparity in the recorded speed, compared with the speed attested to by the respondent and
    his wife, was great. That being so, it would be hard for the respondent and his wife to be mistaken.

    The magistrate was not prepared to find that they were mistaken or lying. He went on to say that he was not in a position
    to know whether the explanation for the differing evidence could be a mistake made by one or more of the witnesses, or
    an error related to the use of the device. He was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed
    .

    The appellant argues that the magistrate’s reasoning indicates an error of approach. It is asserted that in circumstances
    where the competing versions were finely balanced, a correct application of the statutory presumption should have resulted
    in a finding of guilt.

    In my view, the appellant’s position is not strictly correct. The onus was on the defendant to prove on the balance of
    probabilities the contrary of what the certificate asserted if he so chose: Crawford Earthmovers Pty Ltd v Fitzsimmons
    (1972) 4 SASR 116. However, the defence did not attempt specifically to quarrel with the accuracy of the device. Rather
    the defence hypothesis was that there was some sort of operator error, possibly due to the presence of a white motor
    car in the near vicinity, attested to by the respondent and his wife.

    As I read the magistrate’s ex tempore reasons, while giving full weight to the statutory presumption, he was yet not
    satisfied that the prosecution had proved that the device was operated and read correctly and that the reading achieved
    related to the speed of the respondent’s vehicle. He made no finding to that effect. On that reading, the magistrate was
    correct to dismiss the charge.

    Therefore, my order is that the appeal is dismissed.




    Justus.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  17. OK, got that. Good to know, for reference.
     
     Top
  18. It's not a breakthrough as such, but it does prove that the cams are not infallible...

    I'd be interested to know the source for your second comment.....
     
     Top
  19. This has been dealt with in prev posts, was quoted during the segment
     
     Top
  20. Wonder if this could be stretched to discredit the whole VAG report?
    (ever the optimist :))
     
     Top