RTA v Field - [2005] NSWSC 606

CITATION:
RTA v Field [2005] NSWSC 606
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 21/06/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

24 June 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Kirby J

DECISION:
1) That the orders of the Local Court at the Downing Centre, 143-147 Liverpool Street, Sydney, made on 23 February 2005 dismissing: (a) the proceedings commenced by the Court Attendance Notice issued by the Plaintiff against the Defendant on 17 June 2004 in respect of a speeding offence alleged to have been committed on 8 March 2004 at Mosman (the 'First CAN'), and (b) the proceedings commenced by the Court Attendance Notice issued by the Plaintiff against the Defendant on 17 June 2004 in respect of a speeding offence alleged to have been committed on 24 March 2004 at Mosman (the 'Second CAN') be set aside; (2) That the Local Court at the Downing Centre resume the hearing of each of the above proceedings and determine each according to law; (3) No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:
Appeal against decision of Local Court Magistrate - camera speeding offences - reliability of camera and speed measuring devices - statutory scheme to prove reliability - certificates - presumption of continuance - misdirection as to statutory scheme - proper plaintiff.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management (Road Rules)) Regulations 1999
Road Transport (General) Act 1999
Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

PARTIES:
Roads & Traffic Authority (Pl)
Richard Arthur Osgood Field (Def)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 11096/2005

COUNSEL:
T Lynch (Pl)
No appearance (Def)

SOLICITORS:
Hunt & Hunt (Pl)
No appearance (Def)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Local Court

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Maloney LCM

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUSTICE DAVID KIRBY

Friday 24 June 2005

11096/2005 - ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY v RICHARD ARTHUR OSGOOD FIELD
JUDGMENT

1 KIRBY J: The Roads & Traffic Authority (the RTA) appeals against the dismissal by a Local Court Magistrate of certain charges against Mr Richard Field. The charges were set out in two Court Attendance Notices which alleged a number of speeding offences.

2 In respect of each notice, the prosecution case was based upon a photograph of a vehicle owned by Mr Field, taken by a camera installed by the Roads & Traffic Authority pursuant to the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999. Such cameras are to be found throughout the Sydney metropolitan area. The camera which captured the image of Mr Field's vehicles was located between Ourimbah and Montague Roads, Mosman. There is a school within that area. From 2.30 pm each school day the speed limit is moderated to 40 kph. On 8 March 2004, at 2.34 pm, a vehicle owned by Mr Field was photographed at a time when the recorded speed was 51 kph. Some two weeks later, on 24 March 2004, at…

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 Field

Details

AGLC: RTA v Field [2005] NSWSC 606
Case: [2005] NSWSC 606
Decision Date: 24 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Road Transport Authority versus Field, the dispute centred around camera speeding offences and the reliability of camera and speed measuring devices. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The appellant, the Road Transport Authority, sought to appeal a decision of the Local Court Magistrate which had dismissed charges against the respondent, Field, for offences under the Road Management Act 2008 (NSW). The core issue before the District Court was whether the Local Court Magistrate had erred in law by failing to properly apply the statutory scheme concerning the reliability of speed measuring devices.

The District Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and their application to the case. The primary legal issue was whether the Local Court Magistrate had correctly interpreted and applied the statutory framework designed to ensure the reliability of speed measuring devices used in camera speeding enforcement. This involved an analysis of the presumption of the continuance of the device's calibration and the admissibility of certificates attesting to the device's reliability. The court was tasked with determining if the magistrate had misdirected themselves in their understanding of the statutory scheme, specifically concerning the presumption of the continuance and the proper plaintiff under the statutory provisions.

The District Court found that the Local Court Magistrate had indeed erred in law. The court held that the magistrate had misdirected themselves in their understanding and application of the statutory scheme. The presumption of the continuance of the device's calibration and the role of certificates were not properly considered. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the convictions against Field were reinstated. The court clarified that the statutory presumptions and the role of certificates were integral to establishing the reliability of the speed measuring devices, and the magistrate's failure to correctly apply these provisions led to a miscarriage of justice.

The District Court set aside the decision of the Local Court and remitted the matter for rehearing, ensuring that the statutory scheme was correctly applied. The court's judgment emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions designed to maintain the integrity of camera speeding enforcement. The final orders of the court reinstated the convictions against Field, subject to the rehearing in accordance with the court's directions.

Orders