Lekich v Dixon

[2009] QDC 111

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lekich v Dixon [2009] QDC 111

PARTIES:

BILYANA LEKICH

Appellant

AND

JEFFREY ARTHUR DIXON

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

Appeal 2702/08, MAG: 00114843/08(3)

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Criminal appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Caboolture

DELIVERED ON:

8 May 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2009

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed, conviction and penalty set aside, verdict of acquittal entered.

CATCHWORDS:

VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC – Offences – speeding – speed camera – evidentiary effect of certificates – whether offence proved

EVIDENCE – Documentary evidence – certificate – statements in certificate not covered by statutory provisions not admissible evidence.

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 ss 59, 60, 118, 120, 124.

Police Service Administration Act 1990 ss 4.10, 10.12(4).

Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1 – cited.
Re Amos [1964-5] NSWR 1489 – cited.
Barton v Csidei [1979] 1 NSWLR 524 – cited.
Bendels v Lilley [2001] QDC 79 – considered.
Clarke v Japan Business Machines (Aust) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404 - applied.
G v G [1970] 2 QB 643 – applied.
Hindson v Ashby [1896] 2 Ch 1 - applied.
Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] AC 1001 – applied.
R v Cartman [1940] NZLR 725 – cited.
R v Harbach (1973) 6 SASR 427 – cited.
R v Sitek [1988] 2 Qd R 284 - cited.
Smith v R (2001) 206 CLR 650 – cited.
Thompson v Kovacs [1959] VR 229 – cited.
Trezise v Stephenson [1968] SASR 174 – applied.
United States Shipping Board v The Ship St Albans [1931] AC 632 – cited.
Walker v Davlyn Homes Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 565 – applied.

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared in person

K. Overell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant was not represented

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

1. This is an appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 from the conviction of the appellant in the Magistrates Court at Caboolture on 4 September 2008 following a summary trial of one count of driving a vehicle on a road at a speed over the speed limit applying to the road, contrary to s 20 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1995.  The prosecution case was that the appellant was the driver of a vehicle detected travelling at 114 kilometres per hour by the fixed speed camera on the Bruce Highway at Burpengary.

The trial

1. No witnesses were called in the prosecution case, the evidence for the prosecution being in the form of eight documents which were made exhibits.  After the close of the prosecution case the defendant said she wanted to give evidence, but then clarified that as wanting to tender a document.  The appellant sought to tender a letter from the Traffic Camera Office; the admissibility of the letter was challenged, the letter was admitted for identification, and ultimately the Magistrate[1] said that he was prepared to look at the letter but was not…