In the matter of the Appeal of Michael Devos [2006] NSWDC 13

In the matter of the Appeal of Michael Devos [2006] NSWDC 13

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant travelled in excess of the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit. The alleged deviations from the radar guidelines did not create a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the reading for proving speeding: the traffic level did not breach the guidelines in a way affecting accuracy, the radar could measure two vehicles and lock onto the faster one, the 98 reading appeared for more than three seconds, and the broken tone was satisfactorily explained as consistent with two vehicles in the beam. However, because of the radar tolerance and the inconsistent estimated speeds, the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Speeding Offence Appeal / District Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction confirmed; $200 fine quashed and replaced with a $77 fine plus court costs.
Legal Topics
['speeding' 'radar Speed Detection' "manufacturer's Guidelines" 'police Testing Procedures' 'elements of Offence']
['criminal Law' 'traffic Law'] ['speeding' 'radar Speed Detection' "manufacturer's Guidelines" 'police Testing Procedures' 'elements of Offence']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Speeding Offence Appeal / District Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant drove in excess of the speed limit.' 'Whether any excess speed was greater than 15 kilometres per hour.' 'Whether the radar reading was unreliable because the Silver Eagle radar was not operated in accordance with applicable guidelines.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant travelled in excess of the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit. The alleged deviations from the radar guidelines did not create a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the reading for proving speeding: the traffic level did not breach the guidelines in a way affecting accuracy, the radar could measure two vehicles and lock onto the faster one, the 98 reading appeared for more than three seconds, and the broken tone was satisfactorily explained as consistent with two vehicles in the beam. However, because of the radar tolerance and the inconsistent estimated speeds, the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction confirmed; $200 fine quashed and replaced with a $77 fine plus court costs.

Orders

  • ['Appellant convicted of the offence of exceeding the speed limit.' 'Order of the learned magistrate for a $200 fine quashed.' 'In lieu thereof a fine of $77 plus court costs imposed.']