Berry v Commissioner of Police

In the case of Berry v Commissioner of Police, the applicant was convicted for speeding, specifically for driving at 123 kilometres per hour in a 60 kilometres per hour zone. The applicant contested the conviction, asserting that she was interstate at the time of the offence. The case proceeded to the court where the primary issues revolved around whether the applicant was correctly identified as the driver and whether the statutory requirements for the traffic infringement notice were fulfilled. The court was also required to determine if the applicant's statutory declaration sufficiently outlined her defence, and whether the primary judge had erred in his findings.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that there were significant issues with the statutory notice served on the applicant. The notice did not include the required written information under section 116(1)(b) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, which was a crucial defect. Additionally, the court found that the primary judge had misunderstood the statutory declaration submitted by the applicant, which detailed her defence under sections 114(3) and 114(6) of the Act. The court ruled that the notice provided in the statutory declaration did not exceed the requirements set by the legislation. As a result, the primary judge's decision was deemed to have fallen into error.

Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to appeal. The conviction was set aside, and the appeal against the conviction was allowed. The orders made by the magistrate on 25 October 2013 were also annulled. The applicant was instructed to file and serve any written submissions on costs within 14 days, with the respondent to respond within seven days of receipt of these submissions.