Appeal from a speeding conviction dismissed. The court held the justice of the peace did not misapprehend the radar evidence or apply the wrong legal test.
The Crown must disclose the ticketing officer's contemporaneous statement (officer's notes) and any other relevant statements in its possession in speeding cases upon request, and must inform an unrepresented accused of the right to request such disclosure when a not guilty plea is entered; failing to disclose in this case denied the appellant's right to make full answer and defence and created a reasonable possibility the outcome was affected, warranting setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial.
The court held that s.8(3)(b) of the Summary Proceedings Act should be given a liberal, purposive construction so that the word "offence" can include a provision already passed by the Legislature and assented to but unproclaimed where proclamation was virtually inevitable; accordingly O.I.C. 2002-43 validly designated s.106A for the S.O.T. regime and the conviction under s.106A(b) is upheld.