Robinson v RMS

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Robinson v RMS [2016] NSWDC 277
Hearing dates:15 February 2016
Date of orders: 15 February 2016
Decision date: 15 February 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

Appeal dismissed

 Appellant to pay Respondent’s costs of $6,118
Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Road Transport Legislation – Costs – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Conviction appeal abandoned – Appeal against sentence dismissed – Application by respondent for costs

CRIMINAL LAW – Speeding offence – Camera detected – Driving at 60kph in 50kph zone – Penalty notice for $109 – Contested by motorist – Motorist sought to argue, unsuccessfully that speed camera did not comply with National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth) – Conviction recorded and motorist fined $109 and ordered to pay RMS’s costs of $1,771 – Appeal initially limited to imposition of costs order but appellant sought and granted leave to appeal against conviction – Appeal against conviction later abandoned – Appeal against sentence dismissed – Appellant to pay RMS’s costs of $6,118
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Cases Cited: Anastasiou v The Police [2013] SASC 112
Crabbe v The Queensland Police Service [2013] QDC 122
Director General of Department of Agriculture v Temmingh [2003] NSWSC 598
Kuipers Lloyd v The Police [2013] SASC 137
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Ohn v Walton (1995) 36 NSWLR 77 at 79
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Garry Robinson (Applicant)
Roads & Maritime Services (NSW) (Respondent)
Representation: In person (Applicant)
Mr A Wozniak (NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s):2015/75227
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: This is an application under s 28(3) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 by a successful respondent in an appeal under that Act for costs against the unsuccessful appellant. The appellant, Mr Garry Robinson, I shall refer to hereafter as the motorist. The respondent to the appeal is Roads and Maritime Services to whom I shall refer hereafter as RMS.

  2. On Sunday, 7 December 2014 the motorist was driving his motor vehicle, a silver Subaru panel van, registered number BIX 09E, on Macpherson Street, Mosman. On that section of Macpherson Street, between Montague Road and Ourimbah Road, an RMS speed camera detected the motorist’s car being driven at 60 kilometres per hour in a zone where the speed limit was 50 kilometres per hour. There is no dispute that not only was the motorist the owner of the Subaru panel van, but he was also its driver at the relevant time. The offence is alleged to have occurred at 11.11am.

  3. On 12 December 2014 the Office of State Revenue sent a penalty notice to the motorist imposing a penalty of $109. The notice issued on 12 December 2014 was due to be paid by 9 January 2015. The motorist sent a lengthy letter of two and a half pages to the State Debt Recovery Office (SDRO) on 4 January 2015. On 29 January 2015 the SDRO advised the motorist that the penalty notice had, in its…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Robinson v RMS and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] NSWDC 277
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Robinson v RMS, the appellant contested a speeding offence detected by a speed camera, which recorded him driving at 60kph in a 50kph zone. The motorist sought to argue, unsuccessfully, that the speed camera did not comply with the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth). Consequently, he was issued a penalty notice for $109, which he contested. The court found in favour of RMS, imposing a fine of $109 and ordering the motorist to pay RMS’s costs of $1,771. The motorist appealed against the conviction and the costs order, seeking to argue that the speed camera did not comply with the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth). The appeal was initially limited to the imposition of the costs order, but the appellant later sought and was granted leave to appeal against the conviction. However, the conviction appeal was abandoned, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court was required to determine whether the speed camera complied with the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth) and whether the conviction and the costs order were justified. The court found that the speed camera was properly calibrated and complied with the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth). The conviction was therefore upheld, and the costs order was justified.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay RMS’s costs of $6,118. The court found that the appeal was frivolous and that the appellant had no reasonable prospect of success. The court also found that the appellant had acted unreasonably in abandoning the conviction appeal and pursuing the appeal against sentence. The court therefore ordered the appellant to pay the full costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Appellant to pay Respondent’s costs of $6,118

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.