Agar v Dolheguy

Agar sought judicial review of a conviction for exceeding the speed limit, arguing that the County Court judge erred in law in his assessment of the evidence regarding the calibration and use of the speed measuring device. The court was required to determine whether the judge correctly assessed the evidence regarding the calibration, testing, sealing, and use of the speed measuring device, as well as whether the combined error tolerances of the speedometer and the police speed measuring device were properly considered. The court also needed to decide whether the judge erred in his interpretation of the term “satisfied” in Regulation 306 of the Road Safety (General) Regulations 1999, and whether the defence of honest and reasonable mistake was appropriately considered.

The court found that the County Court judge did not err in his assessment of the evidence, as there was no error in the use or calibration of the speed measuring device. The court also found that the combined error tolerances of the speedometer and the police speed measuring device were properly considered and did not affect the accuracy of the reading. The court held that the term “satisfied” in Regulation 306 required the judge to be convinced to a degree of comfort that satisfied his or her judicial conscience, and that the judge had correctly interpreted this term. Finally, the court found that the defence of honest and reasonable mistake was properly considered, but ultimately rejected by the County Court judge.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review and affirmed the conviction. The final order was that the application be dismissed with costs.