S v Wells (152/89) [1989] ZASCA 154; [1990] 2 All SA 1 (A) (27 November 1989)

S v Wells (152/89) [1989] ZASCA 154; [1990] 2 All SA 1 (A) (27 November 1989)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that there is no rule or principle of law entitling a motorist to inspect or check the speed measuring apparatus immediately after passing through a speed trap, particularly where a camera is used on a freeway and stopping the vehicle would be dangerous. The Court found that the revised written judgment, which elaborated on but did not alter the substance of the ex tempore judgment, is the lawful judgment of the lower court. The Court further held that expert evidence regarding the manufacturer's specifications of the speed measuring apparatus was unnecessary, as the functioning of the apparatus was admitted and the operator was certified. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 154
Parties
Appellant: The State; Respondent: Ivor H Wells
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 1989
Case Number
152/89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence reinstated.
Judges
Joubert, Hefer, Milne, Steyn, Friedman
Legal Topics
Speeding Offence, Burden of Proof, Expert Evidence, Judgment Revision
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Speeding Offence Burden of Proof Expert Evidence Judgment Revision

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Appellant

Ivor H Wells

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a motorist is entitled to inspect or check the speed measuring apparatus immediately after passing through a speed trap.
  2. 2 Whether the State was required to adduce expert evidence regarding the manufacturer's specifications of the speed measuring apparatus.
  3. 3 Which version of the lower court's judgment is legally binding: the unrevised ex tempore judgment or the revised written judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that there is no rule or principle of law entitling a motorist to inspect or check the speed measuring apparatus immediately after passing through a speed trap, particularly where a camera is used on a freeway and stopping the vehicle would be dangerous. The Court found that the revised written judgment, which elaborated on but did not alter the substance of the ex tempore judgment, is the lawful judgment of the lower court. The Court further held that expert evidence regarding the manufacturer's specifications of the speed measuring apparatus was unnecessary, as the functioning of the apparatus was admitted and the operator was certified. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence reinstated.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The order of the Court a quo is substituted as follows: (a) The appeal is dismissed. (b) The conviction and sentence of the Respondent are confirmed.