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] Test case looms on speed camera appeals

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Justus, Sep 3, 2007.

  1. Test case looms on speed camera appeals

    Norrie Ross

    September 03, 2007 12:00am



    POLICE are planning a legal strategy to head off motorists fighting
    speed camera fines in court. The bar may be raised for such motorists.


    The force wants to take a case in which a fine has been overturned on
    appeal to the Supreme Court to try to raise the bar for motorists.

    Police prosecutors have been instructed to find a suitable case, in which
    no expert witnesses were called, to serve as a test case.

    Under the road laws, a properly set up and calibrated speed camera is
    assumed to have recorded a speeding vehicle unless there is "evidence
    to the contrary".


    Magistrates sometimes interpret this fairly liberally, finding in favour of
    motorists who give sworn evidence that they were not speeding.

    Police have been frustrated over the dismissal of a number of cases in
    which costs were awarded against them.

    A 76-year-old woman who defeated a speeding charge in Sunshine
    Magistrates' Court three weeks ago has been warned her case could be
    the subject of an appeal.

    Joan Rowlands was clocked doing 108km/h on the Princes Highway, but
    successfully argued that her husband, in the passenger seat, had
    monitored her speed as being 92km/h.

    Mrs Rowlands, who represented herself, said she believed the camera
    had snapped a truck in the next lane.

    She said it was appalling that police should try to make it harder to
    contest the fines.

    "I've been warned my case could be appealed,"
    she said.

    "What they want to do in the Supreme Court is to change the rules so that
    the camera is never wrong.

    "They just don't like it that evidence can be produced that throws doubt on
    the accuracy of the cameras.

    "The police want to get the Supreme Court to say there can be no 'evidence
    to the contrary'."


    The Herald Sun reported last week that speed cameras could come under
    renewed court assault after two drivers beat fines and were awarded
    costs.

    John King and Claus Salger used information from the police's own speed
    camera operators' manual, seen through Freedom of Information, to
    prove infringement notices should not have been issued in their cases.

    Barrister and traffic law expert Sean Hardy plans to use the same data to
    challenge mobile speed cameras on behalf of a client later this year.



    Mrs Rowlands said cameras on the Geelong road regularly caught the
    wrong drivers and should be removed.

    "Even if they are booking even one person wrongly, it's not on," she said.

    Mr Hardy said he had been contacted by drivers who had beaten fines in
    court who had been told there might be appeals in their cases.

    "I was incredulous.

    "I said, 'You're dreaming. There's no way in the world they're going to appeal
    that decision',"
    Mr Hardy said.

    "But I think there are some prosecutors who would like to see the bar raised."

    A police spokesman refused to say if the force was searching for a case to
    take to the Supreme Court.

    "We review every dismissal, as opposed to withdrawals, to see if in our view
    the magistrate has made an error at law. If that is the case, we seek review
    from the superior jurisdiction."


    Link: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22350729-661,00.html
     
     Top
  2. It almost had to happen, didn't it?

    This is all brought on by the Govt. legislating that radars and camera are scientific devices that cannot be in error, and yet time and again people are proving in court that this is, in fact, false.

    I shudder at the thought that the day will ever come when individuals are not allowed to question the validity of the readings from devices that can be quite clearly shown to be in error.

    I know that every time I drive or ride by a speed camera, whether mobile or static, at or below the speed limit, the thought does cross my mind that this might be my turn when it'll read wrong and I'll be issued with some ridiculous fine.
     
     Top
  3. So rather than pass legislation - is. take some sort of vote to amend the existing laws that could otherwise be quashed by reasonable members of parliament: the POLICE [who are to enforce the law, not create it] are simply seeking to set a precedent in a higher court than usual.

    What if they do so, and win?

    Some poor bastard gets lumped with Supreme Court costs on top of their fine, just so the cozzas have a case to point to when their arses are dragged in to give account for what may have been done in error.



    I think this is a step in the right direction.
    Hopefully this pushes all the vic motorists just enough to get some proper public outrage/backlash... can't wait to see a few cameras get torched.
     
     Top
  4. All of this sh*t is about iron fisted control. Every year more and more cars are hitting the roads. Control of traffic flow and driver behaviour is becoming more and more difficult.

    The police and certain politicians know this and would more than happy with a process that always find road users in error. The stifles them with exorbitant fines. And is more than happy to release pressure off the roads by taking away licences.

    There are various publications out that show you how to use the ‘due process’ of the law to stifle the law back. Stretching out cases for years in some cases. These should be printed in every newspaper so when enough people follow these mechanisms. They will be forced to change the laws, or have a backlog of cases stretching decades.
     
     Top
  5. Because when they lose, costs gets awarded again them?


    Looks like it eh.

    Increase ya expenses & provide you with less grounds to appeal are great
    ingredients for reducing number of those contesting fines & therefore
    percentage of cases where they are made to pay up.



    Hope so. handthumb2_O3U8OH.
    .. & not when its too late. surrender_9Z5XOZ.
     
     Top
  6. refer to my avatar, then point me in the direction of your local camera :grin:
     
     Top
  7. I have a copy of the eBook that is published by Aussie Speeding Fines and it's full of methods and techniques to challenge and get out of most of the speeding fines that are issued.

    I was fined for the first time in 6 years and had I spent $40 and read that eBook before being booked I would be $215 richer :(
     
     Top
  8. Any chance you could PM me with a link to that book for download or purchase, Vic?
     
     Top
  9. More info required Vic. 399891.
     
     Top
  10. Just look for the banner on this site?
     
     Top
  11. Eh? I thought it went the other way around.
     
     Top
  12. :LOL: Me too.

    Thats their excuse for what they are now trying to do.

    I reckon its all Politics rather than whether a Magistrate is right or
    wrong & the real reason for their new direction is because of
    frustration/money as quoted..

     
     Top
  13. Either side can seek appeal.
    However, a case cannot be "retried" at appeal (facts of the case heard again). The side seeking the appeal has to prove there was an error in the way the judge applied the law to the case.
    Eg: Allowed "forbidden" evidence when he should not have.
     
     Top