Hamilton v Bennett

[2011] QDC 16

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hamilton v Bennett [2011] QDC 16

PARTIES:

PAUL ALEXANDER HAMILTON
(Appellant)

AND

TREVOR CHARLES BENNETT
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal 2356/10; MAG00110296/10 (0)

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 February 2011

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC – Offences – speeding – speed camera – whether appellant entitled to dispute that camera properly operated – whether offence proved

Traffic Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 ss 118, 120, 124(4)

Al Shakarji v Mulhern [2010] QDC 476 – cited.
Amies v Dixon [2009] QDC 110 – cited.
Parsons v Raby [2007] QCA 98 – followed.

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared in person

S.J. Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant was not represented

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

1. On 28 December 2009 a speed camera was operating on Old Northern Road, Everton Park.  At about 10 am the appellant drove his motor vehicle past the camera.  As a result, on 12 August 2010 he was convicted of exceeding the speed limit contrary to s 20 of the Traffic Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999 and a fine was imposed.  He appeals from that conviction, on the ground that the magistrate interpreted the legislation incorrectly.

1. In his outline and in oral submissions, the appellant complained about the failure of the respondent to call the camera operator as a witness, and the fact that crucial evidence was not provided in relation to the way in which the camera was operated that day, nor was he allowed to put before the court crucial evidence relevant to that issue.  He wished to assert at the trial that the camera had been operated contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions, and contrary to official police guidelines.

The trial

1. At the trial the prosecuting sergeant advised that no notice had been given under s 118 or s 124 of the Traffic Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (“the Act”) and indicated that therefore he was going to be relying on certificates, though he would call one witness, from the Traffic Camera Office, to give evidence that it was the appellant’s vehicle that had been detected by the device:  p 3.  No adjournment was sought by the appellant for the purpose of giving a notice in the correct form.[1]  There was some discussion then about what the appellant was contesting, and at the foot of p 7 he indicated that what he was contesting was the way in which the detection device was set up on this particular occasion.  There was then some discussion about the effect of s 124(4).  The appellant seems to have conceded that that involved challenging the way in which the device was used (p 10) and said at p 11 that he was assuming that the officer who was operating the device would have been giving evidence.[2]

   [1]Under the Act the notice has to be in the approved form.…