Ruks v Queensland Police Service

[2009] QDC 178

[2009] QDC 178

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE EVERSON

Appeal No 18 of 2009

ALFONS ALBERT RUKS	Appellant
and
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE	Respondent
MACKAY ..DATE 24/06/2009
JUDGMENT

1-1

HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal against the decision of his

1

Honour Magistrate Dwyer in the Magistrates Court at Mackay on
6th March 2009 when he found the appellant guilty of driving a
motor vehicle over the speed limit, namely 40 kilometres per
hour, applying to the driver for the length of road, namely

Paradise Street, Mackay, in the circumstances where the	10
appellant was found to be driving the vehicle at a speed of 52 kilometres per hour.
The grounds of appeal are that the learned Magistrate erred in
interpreting the traffic sign in question and that due to	20
industrial deafness, the appellant could not defend himself.
These grounds of appeal were somewhat enlarged in his outline
of argument to include that the Magistrate also erred in
allowing the prosecution to introduce three new photographs in	30
circumstances where the appellant was only allowed to see one,
further that the learned Magistrate allowed "doctored" audio
evidence played only in static and thirdly that the learned
Magistrate did not allow the appellant to present his written
statement and defence photographs.	40
I've had the benefit of perusing the transcript of the
proceeding in the Court below and I am satisfied that the appellant was able to fully comprehend and understand the proceeding and the evidence adduced against him despite his	50

assertion that he was suffering from industrial deafness.
I am also satisfied that he was given copies of the 1-2 JUDGMENT 60

1

photographs tendered, although they were only in black and
white, and that he did not take issue with the tendering of
these photographs despite the learned Magistrate specifically
asking him whether he had any objection to them being

tendered.	10
The playing of the tape-recording of the interception of the
appellant by the police officer who issued the infringement
notice occurred in circumstances where the appellant had been
provided with a transcript of that evidence. The appellant	20
was given considerable latitude by the learned Magistrate who permitted him to read a statement by way of evidence.
I am satisfied that there is no merit in the grounds of appeal
other than the assertion that the learned Magistrate	30
misinterpreted the effect of the traffic control sign in question. I am satisfied of this upon a detailed perusal of the transcript of the proceeding below.
Turning to the first ground of appeal, it is contended by the	40
appellant that the position of the sign which indicates that a length of road is within a school zone is confusing. The sign which regulated the appellant's approach to the length of road where the police officer recorded him exceeding the speed
limit prescribed by the sign is positioned at the extreme	50

left-hand side of a three lane carriageway in Milton Street. The sign itself is positioned at the corner of Milton Street 1-3 JUDGMENT 60

1

and Evan Street. Prior to the corner there is a divided lane
marking with left-hand arrows painted on the roadway in white
paint. This has led to the appellant to assert that this
traffic sign only applied to the left-hand turning lane at

this point and not to the balance of the carriageway including	10
the centre lane through which he was travelling.
The appellant acknowledged in the proceeding below that he was
aware that there was a similar sign controlling the same
length of road in which he was intercepted which faced the	20
opposite direction further along the length of road within which he was intercepted.
He contended, however, that the sign in question could not
apply to him given that it was situated at the corner of the	30
three lane carriageway and within that part of the carriageway indicated by a broken white line and left-hand turning arrows. Unfortunately for the appellant, he can point to no legal
basis for this contention.
40
The lawfulness of the sign was not explored in any great
degree in the proceeding below. However, it would appear that
it is governed by the Transport Operations (Road Use
Management-Road Rules) Regulation 1999 which is made pursuant
to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995.	50

1-4 JUDGMENT 60

Of relevance is section 315(2) of the regulation which states

1

that a traffic control device is taken to comply substantially

with this regulation unless the contrary is proved.

below which sought to establish that the sign did not comply	10
substantially with the regulation.
Of particular significance is section 342 of the regulation
which states that a traffic sign that applies to a length of
road and to drivers applies to a driver driving on the length	20
of road if the driver is driving in the same direction as a driver on the road who faces the sign before passing it and that the traffic sign applies to the driver even though the driver does not pass the sign.
30
It is therefore clear that the sign in question governed traffic approaching from the direction which the appellant approached the sign. The question remains whether the sign only applied to any particular part of that carriageway.
40
regulation in the following terms:-

It is significant that no evidence was led in the proceeding

The term "length of road" is defined in schedule 6 of the prescribed a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit for all three lanes of this section of the carriageway and applied to all traffic which approached it. "Length of road includes -

50

(a) a marked lane or a part of a marked lane; and

(b) another part of a length of road."

1-5	JUDGMENT	60
10

Regrettably for the appellant, his assertion is without a legal basis and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Mr Manttan?

MR MANTTAN: I won't be seeking costs. 20

-----

30

40

50

1-6 JUDGMENT 60