Best v Police

The appeal in the matter of Best v Police was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in South Australia. The appellant, Mr Best, had been convicted in his absence of driving at 113 km per hour on a road where the speed limit was 100 km per hour. Mr Best had been issued with an expiation notice for allegedly breaching the Australian Road Rules by a motorcycle traffic officer using mobile radar on Traeger Road at Pinery. Mr Best elected to be prosecuted for the alleged breach and was subsequently charged under the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA). Mr Best did not attend the hearing at Clare on 2 February 2015 and the matter was adjourned until 2 March 2015 at 2.00 pm for a pre-trial conference. Mr Best appealed the conviction on the grounds that the trial should have been moved to accommodate his schedule and to a Court of competent jurisdiction, that the device used to detect his speed did not comply with the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth), that under common law he had not hurt or caused any loss or injury, and that he was entitled to a trial by jury.

The court had to decide whether the Magistrate erred in proceeding to hear the trial ex-parte, whether Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter, whether the certificates tendered were valid and whether they needed to comply with the National Measurement Act, and whether the appellant was entitled to a trial by jury. The court found that the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter as the offence was a summary offence. The court also found that no error of the Magistrate was demonstrated. The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit to the appeal.

The court held that the Magistrate did not err in proceeding to hear the trial ex-parte as the appellant had failed to attend the hearing and had been notified of the consequences of failing to attend. The court also held that the certificates tendered were valid and did not need to comply with the National Measurement Act. The court found that the appellant was not entitled to a trial by jury as the offence was a summary offence and therefore could be heard by a Magistrate. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the appellant was upheld.