Bevacqua v Wykes

[2009] QDC 137

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bevacqua v Wykes [2009] QDC 137

PARTIES:

SHARON RAE BEVACQUA

(Appellant)

v

RONALD LAWRENCE WYKES

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal 270/09

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court Pine Rivers-Strathpine

DELIVERED ON:

27 May 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 May 2009

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed

CATCHWORDS:

VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC – speeding offence – radar device – admissibility of certificates to prove offence

Traffic Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 section 124(1)(pa), section 124(1)(pb), section 124(4)

Teelow v Commissioner of Police (2009) QCA 84 applied

Lekich v Dickson (2009) QDC 116 followed

Amies v Dixon (2009) QDC 110 followed

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared in person

Ms Litchen for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant was not represented

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

1. The appellant was found guilty of the offence of speeding by the learned magistrate.  This is the appellant’s appeal to the District Court against the Learned Magistrate’s decision.

1. The charge against the appellant was that on the 26^th day of April 2008 at Mango Hill in the State of Queensland she drove a motorbike at a speed over the speed limit.  Particulars of the charge were that this occurred about 2:02pm and the appellant as the driver detected by police exceeded the speed limit travelling at 160km/hour in the 100km/hour speed zone.

1. The prosecution case relied upon the evidence of Senior Constable Wykes and 3 Exhibits. 

1. Exhibit 1 is a photograph showing the location where Senior Constable Wykes was parked on the day and showing 3 lanes heading south and 3 lanes heading north on the Bruce Highway.

1. Exhibit 2 is as follows:

1. Exhibit 3 is as follows:

1. The appellant represented herself before the learned magistrate and again on the hearing of this appeal.

1. The appellant did not give evidence.  However, she told the Magistrate at the end of the case she maintained she was not guilty of the offence and that she was not travelling at the speed that the officer alleges the reading was of her vehicle.

1. In his evidence SC Wykes said that at approximately 2:02pm on 26 April 2008 he was performing traffic duties and was checking vehicle speeds travelling on Mango Hill in the southbound direction.  He was in a marked police vehicle parked on Boundary Road on the ramp facing south targeting traffic travelling south on the Bruce Highway.  He was using a Lydar device Serial Number UL002790.  He had tested that device prior to leaving the station and again after he returned to the station before termination of the shift.  At about that time the traffic was light to moderate.  He saw two yellow gold motorcycles travelling in lane two or the middle lane of the Highway at a very fast rate of speed which he estimated at 150K to 160K mark.  He aimed the Lydar at the first motorcycle and got a speed of 160 which showed up in the display of the Lydar.  He then targeted the second…