KUIPERS-LLOYD v Police

The defendant, Kuipers-Lloyd, was charged with being the owner of a motor vehicle involved in the commission of a prescribed offence, specifically failing to comply with a red traffic arrow. The conviction arose from an incident on 25 December 2011, where the defendant’s vehicle entered an intersection in Adelaide when a red arrow was showing. The defendant pleaded not guilty and appeared unrepresented both at the trial and on appeal. The prosecution presented evidence including photographs taken by an approved photographic detection device and a certificate certifying that the device was tested and operated in accordance with relevant legislation. The defendant’s appeal raised several issues including whether the proceeding was civil rather than criminal, the fairness of the procedure under section 79B(10) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA), the applicability of Commonwealth law, and whether the evidence provided was sufficient to prove the offence to the contrary.

The court found that the proceeding was indeed a criminal matter, involving a summary offence. The court rejected the argument that the procedure under section 79B(10) was unfair, noting that there are various types of evidence a defendant may use to challenge the presumption created by a certificate. The court also concluded that there was no requirement for the photographic detection device to be certified under the National Measurements Act 1960 (Cth). Finally, the court found that the defendant had not provided any evidence capable of constituting “proof to the contrary” of the facts asserted in the certificate. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the defendant's conviction.

The Supreme Court of South Australia, in dismissing the appeal, upheld the conviction of the defendant, Kuipers-Lloyd, for being the owner of a motor vehicle involved in a prescribed offence. The court's decision emphasised the statutory framework allowing the prosecution to tender evidence under section 79B(10) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) and the requirement for the defendant to provide proof to the contrary.