Crossley v Auld - [2011] QDC 270

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Crossley v Auld [2011] QDC 270

PARTIES:

DENNIS ALAN CROSSLEY
(Appellant)

AND

DONALD JAMES BEAUMONT AULD
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal 113/11, INGH-MAG 274/10

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Ingham

DELIVERED ON:

17 November 2011.

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2011

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC – Driving Offences – speeding – whether speed limit sign legally effective – whether speed detection device used in accordance with Australian Standard

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 ss 68, 69, 72, 75, 112, 124(4).

Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 ss 21, 315, 316.

Day v Grice [2011] QCA 178 – cited.
Maybir v Bone [2005] QCA 344 – cited.
Mbuzi v Torcetti [2008] QCA 231 – cited.
R v Hester [1973] AC 296 – cited.
Robinson v R (1999) 197 CLR 162 – cited.
Rowe v Kemper [2008] QCA 175 – cited.

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared in person

B. Clark (solicitor) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant was not represented

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

On 3 June 2011 the appellant was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Ingham after a summary trial of one count of driving a vehicle at a speed over the speed limit. The magistrate imposed a fine of $600, in default 12 days’ imprisonment, and allowed two months to pay the fine. A conviction was not recorded. The appellant has appealed to this court against his conviction pursuant to the Justices Act 1886 s 222. This is an appeal by way of rehearing under s 223 of the Act, and I am required to review and weigh the evidence and draw my own conclusions, affording respect to the decision of the magistrate and bearing in mind any advantage the magistrate had in seeing and hearing the witnesses give evidence.[1]
[1]Rowe v Kemper [2008] QCA 175; Mbuzi v Torcetti [2008] QCA 231 at [17].

Evidence at the trial

The prosecution led evidence from a senior constable in the Ingham traffic branch that at about 4.28 pm on the day on question he was driving a marked police vehicle fitted with a mobile speed detection device south on the Bruce Highway in the vicinity of Eastern Creek, Yuruga, in an area where there were roadworks: p 4. There was a length of road where there was an 80 kph marked speed zone about three to four kilometres long for the roadworks. He saw approaching a line of at least six vehicles, activated the mobile speed detection device and noticed a speed of around 80 kph. He then saw a red vehicle approaching which appeared to be speeding: p 8. It overtook the other north-bound vehicles, and as it got ahead of them he activated the device and a detected speed of 117 was displayed: p 8. At that time there were no other vehicles between the police vehicle and the approaching red car: p 9.

He…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Crossley v Auld

Details

AGLC: Crossley v Auld [2011] QDC 270
Case: [2011] QDC 270
Decision Date: 17 November 2011.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crossley v Auld involved the appellant, Crossley, contesting a speeding conviction issued by the respondent, Auld. The dispute centred on the legality of the speed limit sign and the compliance of the speed detection device used in this case with the Australian Standard AS 1742.4-1998. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: firstly, whether the speed limit sign in question was legally effective and, secondly, whether the speed detection device was used in accordance with the Australian Standard. The appellant argued that the sign was not legally effective and that the device was not compliant with the standard, thereby invalidating the evidence obtained from it. The respondent contended that the sign was legally effective and that the device was used in accordance with the standard.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. In relation to the speed limit sign, the court found that it complied with all relevant legislative requirements and was, therefore, legally effective. Regarding the speed detection device, the court determined that it was used in accordance with the Australian Standard. The appellant's arguments were not sufficient to establish non-compliance with the standard or to render the evidence inadmissible. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

There were no further orders made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal. The conviction against the appellant remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Crossley v Auld [2011] QDC 270
PARTIES:	DENNIS ALAN CROSSLEY (Appellant) AND DONALD JAMES BEAUMONT AULD (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal 113/11, INGH-MAG 274/10
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Ingham
DELIVERED ON:	17 November 2011.
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 October 2011
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC – Driving Offences – speeding – whether speed limit sign legally effective – whether speed detection device used in accordance with Australian Standard Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 ss 68, 69, 72, 75, 112, 124(4). Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 ss 21, 315, 316. Day v Grice [2011] QCA 178 – cited. Maybir v Bone [2005] QCA 344 – cited. Mbuzi v Torcetti [2008] QCA 231 – cited. R v Hester [1973] AC 296 – cited. Robinson v R (1999) 197 CLR 162 – cited. Rowe v Kemper [2008] QCA 175 – cited.
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared in person B. Clark (solicitor) for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant was not represented Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent