Mbuzi v Smith

[2005] QDC 225

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mbuzi v Smith [2005] QDC 225

PARTIES:

JOSIYAS ZIFANANA MBUZI

Appellant

V

GLENN FRANCIS SMITH

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

D3752 / 2004

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Petrie

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2005

JUDGE:

Judge Alan Wilson SC, DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal Dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SUMMARY CONVICTION – speeding offence – Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999

Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999

COUNSEL:

Appellant self-represented
Mr M Hungerford-Symes for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Appellant self-represented
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Respondent

1. The appellant was convicted after a summary trial in Petrie Magistrates Court on 21 September 2004 of the offence of speeding, in contravention of s 20 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999.  He was fine $150 and ordered to pay $61.40 costs of court and allowed two months to pay, in default eight days’ imprisonment.

1. The grounds shown in his Notice of Appeal are as follows:

(1)           There was no evidence produced about the alleged offence.

(2)           The Magistrate relied upon doctored tape-recording and transcripts.

(3)Certificates about the state of the radar were irrelevant and should not have been accepted.

1. The police case was that at about 5.30 p.m. on 14 November 2003 an officer in a marked police vehicle using a mobile radar machine detected the Ford taxi driven by the appellant travelling at 96 kph in an 80 kph zone at Eatons Crossing Road between Eatons Hill and Yugar.  The officer, Senior Constable Brindell, gave evidence that the taxi was travelling towards him and he flashed his headlights but the taxi continued without slowing.  The police officer performed a U-turn and activated his lights and siren and came up behind the taxi at a red light at the intersection of Eatons Crossing Road and Queen Elizabeth Drive.  The ensuing conversation between the police officer and the appellant was recorded and the recording and a transcript of it were played and produced during the trial.

1. Otherwise the police case consisted of certificates tendered pursuant to s 124 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management)Act 1995 which, under that legislation, became prima facie evidence that the speedometer of the police vehicle had recently been tested; that the mobile radar machine had, similarly, been tested and found to be producing accurate results; and, that the machine had been properly used by the officer.

1. In his Outline of Argument filed 4 February 2005 the appellant alleged the speed recording device was not produced to him, and he did not see one; and, that no evidence of recording by a speeding device was produced to the court.  It was also submitted the learned Magistrate was wrong to rely upon the evidence of the very police officer who originally apprehended the appellant.

1. The Reasons given by the learned Magistrate show he carefully considered the question whether or not he…