Police v Cooke - [2010] SASC 357

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
POLICE v COOKE
[2010] SASC 357
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
24 December 2010
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES RELATING TO INTERSECTIONS AND JUNCTIONS - OTHER MATTERS
Police appeal against dismissal of a complaint - defendant and respondent charged on complaint that whilst driving a motor vehicle, he failed to comply with instructions applicable to his vehicle, namely those indicated by the traffic lights applicable to his direction of traffic - Magistrate excluded photographic evidence of the alleged offence on basis that regulation 17(2) of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 1999 (SA) required all traffic lights towards which a vehicle is facing when proceeding towards an intersection to be shown in a photograph taken by camera, and not all traffic lights were so displayed in that photographic evidence - as a consequence, Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the basis that there was no evidence of commission of the offence charged - whether Magistrate erred in construction of regulation - admissibility of evidence discussed.
Held: appeal allowed - Magistrate erred in construction of Regulation 17(2) - nothing in the terms of the regulation that requires the words “traffic lights” to refer to all traffic lights towards which a vehicle is facing when proceeding towards an intersection - in addition, photographic evidence would be admissible in any event under general common law principles of evidence.
Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 1999 (SA) r 15 and r 17; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 79B, referred to.
Le Poidevin v Police [2005] SASC 314, considered.

POLICE v COOKE
[2010] SASC 357
Magistrates Appeal
GRAY J.
Introduction

This is a Police appeal against the dismissal of a complaint.
Peter Cooke, the defendant and respondent, was charged on complaint that whilst driving a motor vehicle, he failed to comply with instructions applicable to his vehicle.[1] Those instructions were indicated by traffic lights applicable to his direction of traffic.
[1] Contrary to Rule 59 of the Australian Road Rules. On the 10TH day of July, 2009 at FULHAM in the said State being the registered owner of a vehicle were it appears from evidence obtained through the operation of a photographic detection device that the vehicle has been involved in the commission of a prescribed offence, that is being on a road namely HENLEY BEACH ROAD and failed to comply with instructions applicable to that vehicle which were indicated by traffic lights.
Rule 59(1) of the Australian Road Rules and Section 79B of the Road Traffic Act 1961.
And the complainant alleges that the said traffic lights and photographic detection device complied with the requirements of this Act.
This is a summary offence.
The complaint was dismissed following a trial before a Magistrate on the basis that there was no evidence of the commission of the offence charged. This conclusion of the Magistrate was a consequence of his exclusion of photographic evidence of the alleged offence. The basis for this exclusion rested…

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 Police v Cooke

Details

AGLC: Police v Cooke [2010] SASC 357
Case: [2010] SASC 357
Decision Date: 24 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Cooke involves a dispute regarding the admissibility of photographic evidence in a traffic law matter. The defendant, Cooke, was charged with failing to comply with traffic light instructions while driving. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint, finding that the photographic evidence did not meet the requirements of regulation 17(2) of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 1999 (SA). The Police appealed against this decision. The key legal issue was whether the Magistrate correctly interpreted regulation 17(2) and whether the photographic evidence should have been admitted.

The appeal court found that the Magistrate erred in interpreting the regulation. The regulation does not require that all traffic lights faced by a vehicle must be shown in the photograph, but rather that at least one of the traffic lights must be depicted. This interpretation aligns with the general common law principles of evidence, which allow for the admissibility of photographic evidence if it is relevant and probative. The court concluded that the Magistrate's exclusion of the photographic evidence was in error and that the evidence should have been admitted.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Magistrate were set aside. No further orders were made as counsel for the Police accepted that the matter should not be remitted for rehearing. This decision clarifies the interpretation of the relevant regulation and reinforces the admissibility of photographic evidence in traffic law cases, provided it meets the criteria of relevance and probative value.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

To understand the Magistrate’s reasons, it is important to set out the relevant terms of regulation 17 of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations:Operation and testing of photographic detection devices referred to in regulation 14(1)(a) for offences committed at intersections, marked foot crossings or level crossings(1) In this regulation—(b) red traffic light means a red traffic light or red traffic arrow as defined in the Australian Road Rules;(c) relevant offences means—(i)red light offences committed at an intersection or marked foot crossing; or(ii)speeding offences committed at an intersection, marked foot crossing or level crossing; or(iii)red light offences and speeding offences arising out of the same incidents committed at an intersection or marked foot crossing; or(iv) level crossing offences.(2)Where a photographic detection device referred to in regulation 14(1)(a) is used to provide evidence of relevant offences, the following provisions must be complied with:(a) the camera or cameras forming part of the device must be positioned and aimed so that when vehicles are proceeding into the intersection, or over the marked foot crossing or level crossing, as the case may be, a photograph or series of photographs may be taken of the vehicles from the rear, at least 1 of which will depict the traffic lights or warning lights towards which the vehicles are facing when proceeding towards the intersection or crossing;(b) the induction loop vehicle detector (induction loop) must be installed—(i)in the case of an intersection or marked foot crossing—under the road surface on the intersection or crossing side of the stop line before which vehicles must stop if the traffic lights referred to in paragraph (a) are showing a red traffic light; or(ii)in the case of a level crossing—under the road surface on the crossing side of the entrance to the crossing;[Emphasis added] It is to be observed that regulation 17(2) outlines provisions that must be complied with. Regulation 17(2)(a) specifically relates to the positioning and aiming of a camera that forms part of a device and requires that the camera be so positioned and aimed so as to permit photographs to be taken of vehicles from the rear, at least one of which will depict the “traffic lights” towards which the vehicles are facing when proceeding towards the intersection. The Magistrate construed the legislation to require all traffic lights being faced by an approaching vehicle to be shown in a photograph taken by the camera. He drew this conclusion having regard to the definition of “traffic lights” in the Australian Road Rules. He reached the conclusion that the plain language of regulation 17(2)(a) does and is intended to refer to all traffic lights governing the relevant path of the vehicle when proceeding towards the intersection; that is, all traffic lights which that vehicle is facing. He then drew the conclusion that this had not occurred in the present proceeding and so regulation 17(2)(a), as he construed it, had not been complied with.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GRAY J

There is nothing in section 79B(10) of the Road Traffic Act as earlier extracted which seeks to exclude the evidence of the photographs. The section is designed to address the circumstances in which photographic evidence “will be admitted”. The section provides that if a number of conditions are met, the photographic evidence “will be admitted”. However, the section does not limit the admissibility of the evidence in the event that those conditions are not met. It does not address the question of the relevance or probative value of the evidence. The photographs remain admissible if shown to be relevant and probative. Additionally the principle known as the Bunning v Cross[5] principle would appear to have application. [5] Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54.Conclusion The appeal is allowed and the orders of the Magistrate set aside. However, no further order is made. In particular, counsel for the Police accepted that in all the circumstances the proceeding should not be remitted for rehearing.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.