RTA v Addario - [2011] NSWSC 1285

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: RTA v ADDARIO [2011] NSWSC 1285
Hearing dates: 25 May 2011
Decision date: 21 December 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: RS Hulme J
Decision:
The Summons is dismissed.
The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant's costs.

Catchwords: STATUTES - interpretation "assertion"
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995, s.69, s.147
Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Evidence) Act 2006
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Baldock [2007] NSWCCA 35; (2007) 168 A Crim R 566
Norvill v Stokes [2006] NSWLEC 622
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Gian Franco ADDARIO
The Roads and Traffic Authority
Representation: P: T Lynch
D: P Hamill SC
P: Hunt & Hunt
D: Maurice Marshan

File Number(s): 2011/24819

Judgment

In these proceedings the Roads and Traffic Authority (hereinafter referred to as "RTA") challenges a decision of Magistrate O'Sullivan to dismiss a charge of exceeding the speed limit, an offence said to have occurred on 14 December 2009. Particulars of the offence alleged were exceeding the speed limit by travelling at 50 kilometres per hour at 9:16:11 am in a school zone on the Hume Highway at Ashfield.

The evidence adduced by the RTA in the Local Court consisted of a statement by an RTA officer, Ms McKelvey to the effect that an approved speed measuring device and, interfaced with it, an approved digital camera recording device was installed with the relevant approvals at the location where the Defendant was said to have offended and that a photograph of vehicle WWX 394 had been taken by that camera recording device, certificates under s 46(1) and s 47(5) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, some further certificates that it is unnecessary to detail, and a certificate under s 230 of the Road Transport (General) Act indicating that the Defendant was the registered operator of the vehicle with plate number WWX 394.

There were three photographs, at least one of which shows clearly the number plate WWX 394. Two included the following notations:-

Speed limited: 40km/h vehicle speed: 50km/h lane: 3

REDFLEX Monday 14 December 2009 09:16:11

The third bore an identical notation except that the time was stated to be 09:16:12.

The Defendant gave evidence to the effect that on the relevant morning he was driving to a train station, that some 200 metres from the camera was a service station, that he entered the service station and stopped there for a period. He said that he filled his car with petrol, receiving two dockets, one when he started and one when he paid for the petrol. The dockets were tendered. Both are obviously machine generated and bear the heading "Mobil". One is described on its face as a tax invoice. The purpose of the second is not clear although both contain provision for signature, both bear the date 14/12/09 and refer to a sum of $27. Disregarding seconds, one bears a time notation 09:23 and the…

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 RTA v Addario

Details

AGLC: RTA v Addario [2011] NSWSC 1285
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1285
Decision Date: 21 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of RTA v Addario, the dispute arose from an incident where the respondent, Addario, was caught driving with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The Road Traffic Authority (RTA) sought to impose penalties against Addario under the relevant legislation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the statutory language, which referred to a person "asserting" they had not been drinking, could be interpreted to include instances where the person had not explicitly stated this fact but the circumstances indicated otherwise.

The court considered whether the term "asserting" should be interpreted narrowly, requiring a direct statement by the driver, or more broadly, to encompass situations where the circumstances imply a denial of drinking. The RTA argued for a narrow interpretation, contending that the statute required a clear and unambiguous denial by the driver. Conversely, Addario's position was that the broader interpretation would be more consistent with the legislative intent to address all instances of driving under the influence. The court ultimately determined that the term "asserting" should be interpreted broadly, recognising that the circumstances in which a driver might be caught with a high blood alcohol concentration could imply a denial of drinking even without a direct statement.

In reaching this decision, the court emphasised the importance of considering the overall purpose of the legislation, which was to ensure road safety by penalising those who drive under the influence of alcohol. The broader interpretation aligned with this purpose by encompassing all relevant circumstances that might suggest a driver had denied drinking. The court's decision thus allowed for a more effective enforcement of the law against driving under the influence. As a result, the penalties imposed on Addario were upheld.

Orders