RTA v McNaughton - [2006] NSWSC 115

CITATION: RTA v McNAUGHTON [2006] NSWSC 115
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 20 and 23 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
23 February 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 02/23/2006

DECISION: Appeal dismissed; Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs

CATCHWORDS: Appeal from Magistrate - speed camera - meaning of text on photograph - mere question of fact - opinion as to identified vehicle - expertise required

LEGISLATION CITED: The Road Traffic (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 ss 45, 46, 47

CASES CITED: Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Limited (1985) 4 NSWLR 139

PARTIES: Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
v
Stephen McNaughton (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 15460/05

COUNSEL: P Boulton SC with T Lynch (Plaintiff)
M Thangaraj (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: B C Hearnden (Plaintiff)
Phillip Gibson (Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Giles LCM

Ex tempore - checked

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

THURSDAY 23 FEBRUARY 2006

15460/05 - ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v STEPHEN MCNAUGHTON

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal by the Roads and Traffic Authority against the decision of a Magistrate acquitting the defendant of the offence of exceeding an applicable speed limit. The Authority submits that the acquittal was itself, or was otherwise based upon, an error of law.

2 The evidence tendered by the prosecution in the Local Court comprised two photographs taken by a camera which was an approved camera recording device within the meaning of s 45 of The Road Traffic (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999. Such a device is designed to take photographs of vehicles being driven in excess of speed limits and to record on such photographs the vehicle's speed, the date and time on which, and the place at which, the photograph was taken, the relevant speed limit, and "the direction in which the vehicle is travelling (that is, towards or away from the device)…".

3 Section 46 of the Act makes provision for the certification of the accurate and proper operation of the device at the material time. A certificate to this effect was tendered. Under s 47 a photograph taken by the device and tendered in evidence is evidence of the matters shown and recorded on it unless evidence to the contrary is adduced.

4 Two photographs were tendered in evidence, one being a close-up of a portion of the other. Both photographs contained the same text. Included in that text is the following:

"Location Code: 9603. Location Desc: President Avenue, Gymea. Direction: Towards operator: 052."

5 In addition to 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 McNaughton

Details

AGLC: RTA v McNaughton [2006] NSWSC 115
Case: [2006] NSWSC 115
Decision Date: 23 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Registrar of the Transport Authority (RTA) seeking an appeal against a decision of a magistrate who dismissed a charge against the respondent, McNaughton, for exceeding the speed limit in a speed camera zone. The dispute arose from a photograph taken by a speed camera, which was used as evidence in the proceedings. The court of appeal, consisting of Gilmour JA, Bennett JA and Weinberg J, was tasked with determining whether the magistrate erred in his interpretation of the photograph's text and whether expert evidence was necessary to identify the vehicle in the photograph.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate was correct in determining that the photograph did not provide clear evidence of the vehicle's speed. The court had to consider whether the interpretation of the text on the photograph was a question of fact or required expert evidence. The RTA argued that the magistrate should have accepted that the photograph clearly showed the vehicle's speed, while McNaughton contended that the photograph was inconclusive and required expert evidence to identify the vehicle.

The court found that the magistrate was correct in his interpretation of the photograph's text. The court held that the meaning of the text on the photograph was a question of fact and did not require expert evidence. The court noted that the photograph was not clear enough to provide conclusive evidence of the vehicle's speed, and that the magistrate's decision to dismiss the charge was not erroneous. The court also held that the magistrate's opinion as to the identified vehicle was sufficient, and that expert evidence was not necessary. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, and the decision of the magistrate was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the decision of the magistrate be upheld. The charge against McNaughton for exceeding the speed limit in a speed camera zone was dismissed. The court held that the photograph was not clear enough to provide conclusive evidence of the vehicle's speed, and that the magistrate's decision was not erroneous. The court also held that expert evidence was not necessary to identify the vehicle in the photograph, and that the magistrate's opinion was sufficient.

Orders