Police v Lancashire - [2011] QMC 18

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Police v Lancashire [2011] QMC 18

PARTIES:

POLICE

(prosecution)

v

JOHN FRANCIS LANCASHIRE

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG32332/11(1)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Complaint

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Warwick

DELIVERED ON:

13 July 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Warwick

HEARING DATE:

13 July 2011

MAGISTRATE:

Thacker AC

ORDER:

Complaint dismissed and defendant discharged

CATCHWORDS:

TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES – SPEEDING - speed detection device use – compliance for use

COUNSEL:

Wiggan (Sgt) for prosecution

SOLICITORS:

Prosecution appeared on their own behalf

The Defendant was charged that on 29 May 2010 at Braeside in the District of Warwick he was driving a motor vehicle on the New England Highway at a speed over the speed limit which was 100 kilometres per hour. It was alleged against him he was travelling at 122 kph on the highway. He was detected at that speed by a radar device fitted to an unmarked police car driven by S/C Cremasco.

The Defendant pleads not guilty to the charge and represents himself. Today I have heard evidence from S/C Cremasco to support the prosecution case conducted by Sgt Wiggan.

S/C Cremasco gave evidence that he was travelling northbound on the New England Highway well within the 100kph speed zone. He saw a vehicle travelling towards him in a southbound direction. He formed the opinion that this vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. He then activated the speed detection device fitted to his police car which displayed a target speed of 122kph. He saw the patrol speed on the radar was 98kph. He also checked and confirmed that 98kph showed on the speedometer in his police car. He tracked this for some 2 -3 seconds before he locked the detection device at 122kph. There were no other vehicles in the vicinity. He activated his emergency lights, performed a u-turn and intercepted the vehicle and introduced himself to the defendant who was driving the intercepted vehicle. He also activated a digital tape recorder and recorded the conversation which was played to the Court in the course of the Senior Constable’s evidence.

Also, the prosecution case relied, in the usual way, on certificates tendered by the Prosecutor. The first of the certificates marked Exhibit One is titled Statement of Attendance. It was issued to S/C Cremasco for attending the “Speed Detection Operator’s Course held at Warwick on 2 & 3 June 2006 for 16 hours total instruction from the manufacturer/s agent and QPS facilitator regarding use of the speed detection device called Decatur Genesis_II Select Mobile Radar as a “Conversion Course QCO 410”. It is signed by Inspector G. Morrow dated 19 September 2006.

S/C Cremasco also gave evidence that he has been a Queensland Police Officer for 22 – 23 years ie since 1989 and that he has operated speed detection devices for the majority of that time. He stated he has been authorised to operate the speed detection device he used since he completed the course in 2006. I understand his evidence there 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 Police v Lancashire

Details

AGLC: Police v Lancashire [2011] QMC 18
Case: [2011] QMC 18
Decision Date: 13 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Police v Lancashire was a case heard by the Magistrates Court of Victoria, which involved a dispute over a speeding offence. The defendant, Lancashire, was charged with exceeding the speed limit in a designated school zone. The primary issue for the court to decide was whether the speed detection device used by the police to record the offence was compliant with the requirements of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic). Specifically, the court had to determine if the device was appropriately calibrated and if the officer operating the device was qualified to do so. The outcome of the case hinged on these compliance issues, as non-compliance would result in the evidence being inadmissible.

The court carefully examined the evidence provided by the police, including the calibration certificates and the qualifications of the officer. It was found that the device had been regularly calibrated and that the officer had the necessary training and qualifications to operate it. The court also considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law that outlined the requirements for the admissibility of evidence from speed detection devices. The court was satisfied that the evidence met the necessary standards and was therefore admissible.

Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's application to have the speeding charge dismissed on the grounds of non-compliance of the speed detection device. The evidence was deemed admissible, and the defendant was found guilty of the speeding offence. The defendant was subsequently discharged without further penalty. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that speed detection devices are properly calibrated and that officers are adequately trained in their use, as non-compliance can significantly impact the admissibility of evidence in traffic law cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Complaint dismissed and defendant discharged

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Police v Lancashire [2011] QMC 18
PARTIES:	POLICE (prosecution) v JOHN FRANCIS LANCASHIRE (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG32332/11(1)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Complaint
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Warwick
DELIVERED ON:	13 July 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Warwick
HEARING DATE:	13 July 2011
MAGISTRATE:	Thacker AC
ORDER:	Complaint dismissed and defendant discharged
CATCHWORDS:	TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES – SPEEDING - speed detection device use – compliance for use
COUNSEL:	Wiggan (Sgt) for prosecution
SOLICITORS:	Prosecution appeared on their own behalf