Dreger v Tepper - [2014] VSC 6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2012 03980

Between:

HARALD EDMUND DREGER	Plaintiff
and
MARK JASON TEPPER	First Defendant
and
COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 & 22 August 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 January 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Dreger v Tepper & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 006

---

JUDICAL REVIEW – Finding by County Court judge, on appeal from Magistrates’ Court, that plaintiff guilty of driving car in excess of speed limit – Application for certiorari in respect of judge’s decision – Grounds for relief claiming failure of police officer to comply with Australian Standards for operating the prescribed speed detector, absence of evidence, apprehended bias and a denial of procedural fairness – Grounds not made out – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the First Defendant	Ms F Dalziel	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Second Defendant	Submitting appearance	Victorian Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 8 November 2010, Senior Constable Mark Jason Tepper issued Harald Edmund Dreger with an infringement notice for driving his car in excess of the applicable speed limit on Romsey Road between Woodend and Romsey. The prescribed speed detector in S/C Tepper’s patrol car indicated that Mr Dreger’s car was travelling at 119 kilometres per hour (“kph”). The applicable speed limit was 100 kph. When intercepted, Mr Dreger told S/C Tepper he did not think he was speeding.

On 12 September 2011, Mr Dreger, representing himself, disputed the charge in the Magistrates’ Court at Kyneton. The magistrate found the charge proved.

Mr Dreger appealed to the County Court. The matter was heard by a judge sitting at Bendigo on 16 May 2012. Mr Dreger represented himself, again. S/C Tepper and Mr Dreger both gave sworn evidence. The judge found the charge proved and gave reasons for his decision.

By way of originating motion in this Court, Mr Dreger sought certiorari of the judge’s decision to find the charge proved. Again, Mr Dreger represented himself. Ms Dalziel appeared for the first defendant. Solicitors for the second defendant filed a submitting appearance.[1]
[1]In accordance with R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman & Ors (1980) 144 CLR 13 at 35-36.

Mr Dreger’s grounds for relief comprise claims of failure by S/C Tepper to comply with Australian Standards for operating the prescribed speed detector, an absence of evidence, apprehended bias and a denial of procedural fairness.

In my opinion, the grounds are not made out and the application must be refused.

Proceedings and evidence before the judge and his findings

Introduction

Before turning to the submissions of the parties and the reasons for my decision, I shall summarize the proceedings and the evidence before the County Court and set out the judge’s reasons for his decision.

I had the benefit not only of reading a transcript of the proceedings before…

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 Dreger v Tepper

Details

AGLC: Dreger v Tepper [2014] VSC 6
Case: [2014] VSC 6
Decision Date: 29 January 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dreger v Tepper involved the plaintiff challenging the County Court's decision affirming his conviction in the Magistrates' Court for exceeding the speed limit. The plaintiff applied for judicial review, seeking to quash the County Court decision. The plaintiff's grounds for relief included the argument that the police officer did not comply with Australian Standards when operating the speed detector, the absence of evidence supporting his conviction, the apprehended bias of the County Court judge, and a denial of procedural fairness. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's claims were sufficient to warrant the relief sought.

The court examined each of the grounds for relief in turn. Regarding the compliance with Australian Standards, the court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a failure to comply. In relation to the absence of evidence, the court noted that the conviction was based on the sworn testimony of the police officer, which the court considered reliable. The court also dismissed the claim of apprehended bias, finding that there was no basis to support the plaintiff's apprehension of the judge. Finally, concerning procedural fairness, the court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any procedural irregularity that would undermine the conviction.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's grounds for relief were not made out. The application for judicial review was refused, and the conviction was upheld. The court found no error in the County Court's decision to affirm the Magistrates' Court's conviction. The court emphasised the importance of the police officer's sworn testimony and the reliability of speed detection devices when properly operated. The plaintiff's claims of bias and procedural unfairness were also found to be without merit.

The final orders of the court were that the application for judicial review be dismissed, and the conviction affirmed. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application. The court's decision underscored the high threshold for judicial review in cases involving convictions, particularly where the evidence is based on the sworn testimony of a police officer and the operation of a reliable speed detection device.

Orders