Amies v Dixon

[2009] QDC 110

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Amies v Dixon [2009] QDC 110

PARTIES:

BRIAN WALTER AMIES

Appellant

AND

JEFFREY ARTHUR DIXON

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

Appeal 3061/08; MAG 00007433/08(5)

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 May 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2009

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC – Offences – speeding – speed camera – whether challenge to image – interpretation of image – whether offence proved.

Traffic Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 ss 118, 120.

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared in person

K Overell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant was not represented

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

1. On 5 October 2007 a speed camera was operating on Old Northern Road, Everton Park.  At about 9.15 am the appellant drove his motor vehicle past the camera.  As a result, on 22 September 2008 he was convicted of exceeding the speed limit contrary to s 20 of the Traffic Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999, and a fine was imposed.  He appeals from that conviction, on the grounds that the magistrate failed to consider crucial evidence and failed properly to consider fundamental evidence.

Course of proceedings

1. The trial began on 29 July 2008, when the prosecution tendered the certified image produced by the camera (Exhibit 1), which gave a speed for the target vehicle of 73 kph, in a 60 kph zone, and a series of certificates to show that the defendant was criminally responsible for the speed of Volvo sedan 616 FQP:  Exhibits 2‑5.  There was also a certificate under s 124(1)(pf) of the Traffic Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (“the Act”) that on 20 February 2007 the speed camera concerned was tested and was operating properly:  Exhibit 6.

1. Evidence was given by the respondent, then an acting senior sergeant in the traffic camera office, as to the interpretation of the image Exhibit 1, which shows five vehicles, although the Volvo sedan 616 FQP dominates the foreground in the photograph.  The respondent testified that it was that vehicle that had been detected, as a result of which the image was captured by the device.[1]  The prosecution then closed its case and the defendant gave evidence.  He did not dispute that he was driving that vehicle at the time.[2]  He said that he knew when driving down that particular length of road he needed to have his brakes applied, and that the brake lights were visible in Exhibit 1:  p 11.

   [1]To use the terminology in the definition of “photographic detection device” in the Traffic Regulation 1960.  In effect, that the camera took the photograph Exhibit 1.

   [2]He never actually said one way or the other, and the proposition was not confirmed during cross‑examination, although other things he said presuppose that he was driving.

1. The appellant referred to extracts from what he described as the Queensland Police Service Operational Procedures Manual, which he said showed that the speed camera on this occasion…