Roads and Maritime Services v Addario

The case of *Roads and Maritime Services v Addario* concerned an appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales regarding a speeding offence. The dispute arose when the respondent sought to challenge the accuracy of a speed camera recording by adducing evidence that contradicted the time recorded by the device. The primary legal issue before the court was whether non-expert evidence could be admitted to challenge the accuracy, reliability, or proper operation of an approved camera recording device, and if so, whether the respondent's evidence was sufficient to raise a doubt within the meaning of section 73A of the *Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999* (the Act).

The court considered the evidentiary framework established by the Act, particularly sections 47 and 73A. Section 47(5) provides that a certificate stating an approved digital camera recording device was operating correctly constitutes prima facie evidence of its accuracy. The court held that such prima facie evidence is only rebuttable by evidence sufficient to raise a doubt as to the device's accuracy, reliability, or proper operation. Crucially, section 73A dictates that any assertion contradicting or challenging the accuracy or reliability of information derived from such a device must be made by an expert witness. The court found that the respondent's evidence, which consisted of an assertion about their whereabouts on the date in question, did not constitute an assertion about the accuracy or reliability of the camera device itself, but rather an assertion of fact about their own location. Therefore, it did not satisfy the requirements of section 73A for expert evidence.

The court reasoned that while the respondent's evidence might be admissible in defence of the prosecution, it was not sufficient, in the absence of expert testimony, to overcome the prima facie evidence provided by the section 47 certificate. The magistrate's assessment of whether other evidence was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt would depend on the content of the certificates and the nature of the evidence adduced. In this instance, the certificate provided under section 47(5) lacked specificity regarding the checks performed on the device's time recording accuracy. Despite this, the court concluded that the respondent's evidence did not meet the threshold for challenging the device's operation under section 73A.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Supreme Court and the Local Court, and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal proceedings. Leave to appeal was granted on the condition that the appellant discontinue separate Local Court proceedings against the respondent.