Farkas v Thomason

In the case of Farkas v Thomason, the appellant was convicted of speeding in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The respondent alleged that the speed measuring equipment used was not proven to be accurate. The appellant sought to argue that the respondent was required to tender a certificate proving the accuracy of the equipment and that the presumption under s 117(4) of the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA) did not apply. Additionally, the appellant argued that the court should have allowed the introduction of additional evidence in an inadmissible form and that they were denied procedural fairness due to the inability to cross-examine on an issue of law.

The legal issues before the court included whether the magistrate erred in law by not requiring the respondent to tender a certificate as to the accuracy of the speed measuring equipment and whether the presumption under s 117(4) of the Act applied. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the application to adduce additional evidence not in an admissible form was justified and whether the appellant's right to procedural fairness was breached due to the denial of cross-examination on a legal issue.

The court found that the magistrate did not err in law by not requiring the respondent to tender a certificate as to the accuracy of the speed measuring equipment, as the presumption under s 117(4) of the Act applied. The court held that the presumption was sufficient to establish the accuracy of the equipment without the need for additional evidence. Additionally, the court ruled that the appellant was not denied procedural fairness as the cross-examination on the issue of law did not relate to the facts of the case, but rather to the interpretation of the law. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The court found no error in the magistrate's decision and upheld the presumption under s 117(4) of the Act. The court also held that the appellant was not denied procedural fairness and that the additional evidence was not admissible. The conviction for speeding was therefore affirmed.