KUIPERS-LLOYD v Police - [2014] SASC 73

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
KUIPERS-LLOYD v POLICE
[2014] SASC 73
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Kelly
17 June 2014
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - EXCEEDING PRESCRIBED SPEED LIMITS - GENERALLY
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - GROUNDS - OTHER MATTERS
PROCEDURE - INFERIOR COURTS - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - MAGISTRATES COURT
Appeal against conviction. The appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of speeding contrary to Rule 20 of the Australian Road Rules. The allegation was that the appellant drove at 98 kilometres per hour in an 80 kilometres per hour zone.
Whether the Magistrate erred in not allowing proper disclosure.
Held: Allowing the appeal. There being doubt as to whether proper disclosure was made and whether that non-disclosure resulted in any miscarriage of justice, the conviction of the appellant is quashed and the matter remitted to the Magistrates Court for retrial.
Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 175(3), referred to.
Police v Bulgin [2010] SASC 143, discussed.

KUIPERS-LLOYD v POLICE
[2014] SASC 73
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal
KELLY J.

The appellant appeals a conviction and penalty recorded in the Mount Barker Magistrates Court on 22 November 2013. The appellant was charged under Rule 20 of the Australian Road Rules with an offence of speeding, the particulars being that on 29 September 2012 at Woodchester he drove a vehicle on Strathalbyn Road at a speed of 98 kilometres per hour, in a zone to which the speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour applied.
The appellant pleaded not guilty. A trial took place at the Mount Barker Magistrates Court on 19 September 2013 and in due course the appellant was convicted. The appellant appeared unrepresented both at the trial and again on appeal.
The notice of appeal was filed out of time on 18 December 2013 thus the appellant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal.
The appellant conceded at trial that he was the driver of the relevant motor vehicle on 29 September 2012 and that he was driving on Woodchester Road at the relevant time. His defence was first that his speed at the time was 98 kilometres per hour but that he was travelling in a 100 kilometres per hour speed zone at the time when his car was detected. Second, he questioned the accuracy and reliability of the radar device. The appellant contested that his vehicle was not travelling at 98 kilometres per hour on the particular section of road alleged by the prosecution.
The prosecution case was that the appellant was detected travelling at the speed of 98 kilometres per hour in an 80 kilometre per hour zone, however by the time the vehicle was stopped by the police officer the vehicle had travelled to a speed zone which was 100 kilometres per hour.
The prosecution tendered certificates and documents and relied upon evidentiary aides and statutory presumptions in s 175(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA).
In rejecting…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read KUIPERS-LLOYD v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] SASC 73
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted of speeding by a Magistrate under Rule 20 of the Australian Road Rules. The conviction was based on an allegation that the appellant drove at 98 kilometres per hour in an 80 kilometres per hour zone on 29 September 2012. The appellant pleaded not guilty and contested the accuracy and reliability of the radar device used by the police, as well as the speed zone in which he was detected. The prosecution relied on certificates, documents, and statutory presumptions under section 175(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). The appeal against the conviction was based on three grounds, with the primary focus being on whether the Magistrate allowed proper disclosure of certain documents.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the Magistrate erred in not allowing proper disclosure of three documents: the manufacturer’s manual, a police operations manual, and a copy of the relevant Australian Standard. The appellant claimed to have requested these documents at the pre-trial conference but was denied access to them. The court had to determine if proper disclosure was made and whether the non-disclosure resulted in any miscarriage of justice. The court also had to consider whether the appellant was sufficiently equipped to adequately cross-examine the police officer or to adduce any independent evidence of his own in order to rebut the presumption of accuracy which arises under section 175(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA).

The court allowed the appeal, finding that there was doubt as to whether proper disclosure was made and whether that non-disclosure resulted in any miscarriage of justice. The court accepted the appellant's assertions that he had requested the documents and was denied access to them, and it found that the appellant must be given the benefit of the doubt. As a result, the conviction was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for retrial. The court considered that the appellant should have been given the opportunity to review the documents in question to adequately prepare his defence, and in the absence of a clear record of the events at the pre-trial conference, it was prudent to give the appellant the benefit of the doubt.

The court's final orders were to quash the conviction and to remit the matter to the Magistrates Court for retrial. This decision highlights the importance of proper disclosure in criminal proceedings and the potential consequences when such disclosure is not provided. The court underscored the necessity for the prosecution to make available all relevant material that might assist in establishing the guilt or innocence of the appellant, and it emphasised that the appellant should be given the opportunity to review such material to adequately prepare his defence.

Orders