MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Road Transport Authority v Candy |
Citation: | [2025] ACTMC 5 |
Hearing Dates: | 15 November 2024 |
Decision Date: | 24 February 2025 |
Before: | Magistrate Temby |
Decision: | The Defendant is not guilty of the offence charged |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – exceed speed limit – validity, effect and admissibility of evidentiary certificate issued pursuant to s 25 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 |
Legislation Cited: | Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017, s 13, 20 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, s 16, 24(1), 24(2)(b), 25, 25(4) - (5), 25(9), 33 Road Transport (General) Act 1999, s 16, 16(2) -(3), 17(1)-(3), 56, 72 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2017, s 13 Legislation Act 200,1 s 40,104, 242 Public Sector Management Act 1999, s 21, 21(5), 21(7) Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth), s37, 43, 43(2), Schedule 4 |
Cases Cited: | Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584 Gibbons v Perkins [2021] ACTSC 254 Pappas v Mirenda [2021] ACTSC 329 Hijazi v Orr (1997) 26 MVR 26 Clark v Bluett [2016] ACTSC 312 Lewis v Chief Executive Department of Justice and Community Safety & Ors [2013] ACTSC 198 |
Text Cited: | Administrative Arrangements 2016 (No 3), Schedule 2, Part 2.4, s 5 Public Sector Management (Head of Access Canberra Functions) Declaration 2016 Road Transport Legislation (Access Canberra) Delegation 2017 (No 1) Administrative Arrangements 2016 (No 3), Schedule 2, Part 2.4 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Traffic Offence Detection Device Approval 2023 (No 1) The Constitution of the Australian Capital Territory (Federation Press, 2021), Mossop J |
Parties: | Breeze Mojel (Informant) Chantelle Candy ( Defendant) |
Representation: | Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions (Defendant self-represented) |
File Numbers: | CC 40715/ 2024 |
MAGISTRATE TEMBY:
Facts
1․On 31 December 2023, the Defendant and her partner drove their cars along Ginninderra Drive, through the intersection with Aikman Drive in Belconnen (the Intersection). Ginninderra Drive is a road in the Australian Capital Territory. The speed limit on Ginninderra Drive through the Intersection was (and remains) 80 km per hour.
2․A speed measurement device recorded the speed of the Defendant’s car as it drove through the Intersection as being 98 km per hour. As a result, the Defendant was issued with a traffic infringement notice. The Defendant disputed liability and she was subsequently charged with exceeding the speed limit, contrary to s 20 of the Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017 (Road Rules Regulation).
What is in issue?
The parties’ positions
3․The Defendant does not dispute that she was the driver of a motor vehicle on a road. Accordingly, the first two elements of the offence with which she is charged are not in issue. The Defendant disputes the allegation that she exceeded the speed limit that applied to Ginninderra Drive at the Intersection.
4․The Defendant…
Continue reading Road Transport Authority v Candy
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Police v Candy [2025] ACTMC 5
- Case
- [2025] ACTMC 5
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory framework and the procedural requirements for issuing the certificate. It considered the legislative intent behind section 25 and whether the certificate adhered to these requirements. The court found that the evidentiary certificate did not comply with the statutory provisions, as it failed to meet the necessary criteria for admissibility. Consequently, the certificate was deemed inadmissible, and the prosecution's case could not be substantiated without it. Given the inadmissibility of the crucial evidence, the court ruled that the defendant was not guilty of the offence charged.
As a result of the court's decision, Candy was acquitted of the charge. The court's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when issuing evidentiary certificates and highlighted the consequences of non-compliance. The final orders of the court were that Candy was not guilty of the offence of exceeding the speed limit due to the inadmissibility of the evidentiary certificate issued under section 25 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Defendant is not guilty of the offence charged
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.