Millington v Police
Case
•
[2015] SASC 52
•23 March 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Millington v Police [2015] SASC 52
[2015] SASC 52
23 March 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Millington v Police is a case that involved the defendant, Millington, being charged with exceeding the prescribed speed limit. The dispute was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The defendant contested the charge on the basis that the speed camera device used to measure his speed was not calibrated and therefore the evidence was not reliable.
The court was required to decide whether the calibration of the speed camera device was a necessary condition for the evidence to be considered reliable and whether the defendant had discharged the onus of proving the unreliability of the evidence. The court also had to consider whether the failure to calibrate the device constituted a fatal flaw in the evidence provided by the prosecution.
The court found that the calibration of the speed camera device was a necessary condition for the evidence to be considered reliable. However, the court held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the device was calibrated and working correctly. The court further found that the failure to calibrate the device constituted a fatal flaw in the evidence provided by the prosecution. As a result, the charge against the defendant was dismissed.
The court held that the failure of the prosecution to prove that the speed camera device was calibrated meant that the evidence provided by the device was unreliable and therefore insufficient to prove the charge. The court ordered that the charge against the defendant be dismissed.
The court was required to decide whether the calibration of the speed camera device was a necessary condition for the evidence to be considered reliable and whether the defendant had discharged the onus of proving the unreliability of the evidence. The court also had to consider whether the failure to calibrate the device constituted a fatal flaw in the evidence provided by the prosecution.
The court found that the calibration of the speed camera device was a necessary condition for the evidence to be considered reliable. However, the court held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the device was calibrated and working correctly. The court further found that the failure to calibrate the device constituted a fatal flaw in the evidence provided by the prosecution. As a result, the charge against the defendant was dismissed.
The court held that the failure of the prosecution to prove that the speed camera device was calibrated meant that the evidence provided by the device was unreliable and therefore insufficient to prove the charge. The court ordered that the charge against the defendant be dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Traffic Law
Legal Concepts
-
Allegation in Information or Complaint as Prima Facie Evidence
-
Proof of Speed
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Millington v Police [2015] SASC 52
Most Recent Citation
Rossiter v Adelaide City Council [2020] SASC 61
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Rossiter v Adelaide City Council
[2020] SASC 61
Pawlak v Police
[2017] SASC 40
Police v Dinovitser
[2016] SASC 77
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
1
Police v Young
[2012] SASC 210
Police v Young
[2012] SASC 210