MARTELLI v Police - [2007] SASC 21

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
MARTELLI v POLICE
[2007] SASC 21
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Anderson
1 February 2007
MAGISTRATES - APPEALS FROM AND CONTROL OVER MAGISTRATES - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - PRINCIPLES ON WHICH COURT ACTS - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - WITNESSES - POWERS OF JUDGE - LEAVE TO RE-OPEN CASE AND RECALL WITNESSES
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING IN MANNER DANGEROUS TO PUBLIC
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - EVIDENCE - PROOF OF SPEED
Appeal from a decision of a magistrate – appellant convicted of driving in a manner dangerous to the public.
Use of document to certify accuracy of speed detection device – whether particular document capable of proving accuracy of speed detection equipment.
Prosecution case concluded without tender of document – magistrate granted leave to prosecution to re-open case and tender further evidence – whether magistrate erred in exercising discretion to re-open case and allow further evidence – whether document properly certified.
Held: appeal allowed – conviction quashed – that document was capable of proving accuracy of speed detection equipment – document certified and signed appropriately – magistrate erred in allowing prosecution to re-open case – discretion of magistrate miscarried.
Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 175, referred to.
McDonald v Camerotto (1984) 36 SASR 66, distinguished.
Middleton v Rowlett [1954] 1 WLR 831, considered.

MARTELLI v POLICE
[2007] SASC 21
Magistrates Appeal
ANDERSON J
Introduction

The appellant appeals from a conviction for driving in a manner dangerous to the public following a hearing before a Magistrate. A certificate pursuant to s.175 (3)(ba) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) (the Act) was tendered as to the accuracy of the laser speed detection device which was used to establish the speed at which the appellant was driving at the time in question. The application to tender the certificate was made by the police prosecutor after she had closed the prosecution case. Defence counsel objected to the tender of the certificate.
The questions raised in the appeal are whether the learned Magistrate erred in granting leave to the respondent to re-open its case and call further evidence about the accuracy of the speed measuring device after it had closed its case and, in addition, whether the learned Magistrate erred in finding that the document required by s 175, which in this matter was titled "Certificate of Accuracy of Traffic Speed Analyser" (the document), amounted to evidence capable of proving the speed alleged by the prosecution.
The Document
Section 175 (3)(ba) provides that:
"In proceedings for an offence against this Act a document produced by the prosecution and purporting to be signed by the Commissioner of Police, or by any other member of the police force of or above the rank of inspector, and purporting to certify that a specified traffic speed analyser had been tested on a specified day and was shown by the test to be…

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.

Continue reading MARTELLI v Police

Details

AGLC: MARTELLI v Police [2007] SASC 21
Case: [2007] SASC 21
Decision Date: 1 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Martelli v Police, the appellant contested his conviction for driving in a manner dangerous to the public, an offence under South Australian traffic law. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court from a decision rendered by a magistrate. The crux of the appeal lay in the magistrate's decision to allow the prosecution to re-open the case and introduce further evidence concerning the accuracy of the speed detection device used.

The legal issues addressed by the court included whether the magistrate had the authority to permit the prosecution to re-open the case and introduce new evidence, and if so, whether the magistrate exercised this discretion correctly. The primary focus was on the admissibility and certification of a document intended to authenticate the accuracy of the speed detection equipment, which was not tendered by the prosecution during the initial trial.

The Supreme Court found that the document in question was indeed capable of proving the accuracy of the speed detection equipment and had been appropriately certified and signed. However, the court held that the magistrate erred in exercising the discretion to allow the prosecution to re-open the case and present this additional evidence. The court concluded that the magistrate's discretion had miscarried, leading to an unfair trial. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

Orders