R v David Robert Baldock [2006] NSWDC 37

R v David Robert Baldock [2006] NSWDC 37

The conviction was quashed because there was no evidence from the prosecution establishing that the speed as measured by the speed camera was the speed actually travelled by the appellant, given credible evidence to the contrary was adduced by the appellant.

Parties
Appellant: David Robert Baldock; Respondent: Roads & Traffic Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Local Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Speeding Offences, Speed Camera Evidence, Certificate Evidence, Evidential Burden, Admissibility of Photographic Evidence
Criminal Law Traffic Law Speeding Offences Speed Camera Evidence Certificate Evidence Evidential Burden Admissibility of Photographic Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Robert Baldock

Appellant

Roads & Traffic Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Local Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence from speed camera and certificates sufficiently proved speed travelled beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether 'evidence to the contrary' negates statutory presumptions under s 46 and s 47 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was quashed because there was no evidence from the prosecution establishing that the speed as measured by the speed camera was the speed actually travelled by the appellant, given credible evidence to the contrary was adduced by the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • Conviction appeal is upheld.
  • Conviction recorded by the learned magistrate is quashed.