Anastasiou v Police

The case of Anastasiou v Police involves an appeal by the defendant, Mr Anastasiou, against findings of guilt of two speeding offences detected by traffic speed analysers in South Australia. The magistrate's court proceedings were heard in conjunction for convenience, with Mr Anastasiou representing himself. The prosecution relied on certificates under the Road Traffic Act 1961 to prove the offences. Mr Anastasiou argued that the testing of the analysers did not comply with the required regulations and that his own evidence suggested inaccuracies in the devices. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the statutory presumptions of accuracy of the traffic speed analysers were properly rebutted. Mr Anastasiou argued that the testing of the accuracy of the devices should have been conducted at speeds approximating the speed limit at the relevant locations, and that a one kilometre per hour discrepancy in the test results indicated a fault requiring corrective action. The court also had to consider whether there was compliance with Commonwealth law in the form of the National Measurements Act 1960 (Cth), although this argument was not raised before the magistrate.

The court found that the certificates proved compliance with the Road Traffic Act and the relevant regulations regarding the operation and testing of the devices. The one kilometre per hour discrepancy did not amount to a "fault" necessitating corrective action. The court held that the discrepancy could have resulted from rounding or inaccuracies in the test car's speedometer, and did not rebut the statutory presumption of accuracy. The court also found no basis to suggest that traffic speed analysers required certification under the National Measurements Act. The magistrate's findings and sentence were within his discretion, and the appeals were dismissed.

ORDERS:
The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed. It was held that there was no indication of non-compliance with the regulations and that the defendant's evidence did not amount to proof to the contrary.