SANTAMARIA v Police

[2006] SASC 64

Supreme Court of South Australia

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

SANTAMARIA v POLICE

Judgment of The Honourable Justice White (ex tempore)

6 March 2006

MAGISTRATES - APPEALS FROM AND CONTROL OVER MAGISTRATES - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT

TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - PARTICULAR OFFENCES

Appeal against conviction for the offence of driving a vehicle on a road without having a clearly visible number plate attached to the vehicle contrary to reg 12 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 1996 - whether evidence of the police officer sufficient to allow the magistrate to reach the requisite degree of satisfaction to make a finding of guilt - where respondent concedes appeal against conviction ought to be allowed.

Held: the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the number plate of the appellant's vehicle was not compliant with the requirements of reg 12 - the magistrate was in error - appeal allowed, orders made by magistrate set aside and complaint against appellant dismissed.

Motor Vehicles Regulations 1996 reg 12, reg 54; Motor Vehicles Act 1959 s 47, referred to.

SANTAMARIA v POLICE
[2006] SASC 64

Magistrates Appeal (ex tempore)

1. WHITE J               On 11 January 2006 the appellant was found guilty by a magistrate of the offence of driving a vehicle on a road without having a clearly visible numberplate attached to that vehicle.

2. The complaint charging the appellant alleged a contravention of regs 12 and 54 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 1996. Those regulations are made under the Motor Vehicles Act1959. Regulation 12, to which I will refer in more detail shortly, contains a specification of the requirements for numberplates attached to vehicles. Regulation 54(1) provides that a person who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of the regulations is guilty of an offence and provides for a maximum penalty of $1250. However, reg 54(2) provides that sub-reg (1) does not apply if a penalty has been otherwise fixed for the contravention.

3. It is at least arguable that s 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 itself fixes a penalty for the offence of driving a motor vehicle without having attached to it a numberplate which complies with the requirements of reg 12. Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides:

   A person must not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle to stand on a road, unless a numberplate or plates:

   (a) that conform to the specifications and design for numberplates of a class established under s 47A; and

   (b) that bear the number allotted to the vehicle under this Act;

   are attached to the vehicle in accordance with the regulations.

4. Section 47(1) specifies a fine of $250 for a contravention of its provisions. It is arguable that that specification of a penalty renders reg 54 inapplicable.

5. However, I consider it unnecessary for the determination of this appeal to consider that question any further.

6. On 5 November 2004 the appellant was stopped by a police officer in daylight hours while he was driving his vehicle along Currie Street in the City of Adelaide. The police officer considered that the numberplate did not comply with the requirements as to visibility contained in reg 12 of the Motor Vehicle Regulations. Regulation 12 contains specifications as to the location of the numberplate at the front and rear of a vehicle and requires that the numberplates be visible. It also contains a standard by which that visibility is to be assessed. It provides, relevantly for the purposes of this appeal, that:

   Every letter and figure on a numberplate must be:

   (i)clearly visible in daylight to a person standing on the same plane as the vehicle at any point not less than 3 m or more than 18 m from the plate looking at the plate along an imaginary line approximately at right angles to the plate;. and

   (ii)legible from left to right on a plane level with the ground; and.

   (iii)plain and legible at all times.

7. The magistrate accepted the evidence of the police officer and concluded that the degree of visibility of the rear plate was not compliant with the requirements for visibility. The magistrate then entered a conviction without penalty but ordered the appellant to pay court fees, the Victims of Crime Levy and prosecution costs in the sum of $150.

8. The appellant submits that the evidence of the police officer was not sufficient to allow the magistrate to reach the requisite degree of satisfaction. The respondent does not contest that view of the evidence.  The respondent concedes that the appeals against conviction should be allowed.  In my opinion, that concession is appropriately made.

9. The requirements of visibility contained in reg 12 are that, in daylight, the numberplate must be clearly visible to a person who is in a position approximately perpendicular to the plane of the numberplate and who is between 3 m and 18 m from it.

10. The standard for the assessment of visibility contained in reg 12 has no requirement as to visibility at nighttime, nor any requirement as to visibility from a distance of more than 18 m.

11. The effect of the police officer’s evidence was that, while the letters and numbers on the numberplate were visible in daylight, they would not have been so visible at nighttime. Even if the police officer’s opinion be correct, it can be seen that it is not relevant to the requirements of visibility contained in reg 12.

12. In addition, the effect of the police officer’s evidence was that in daylight hours, it was only at a distance of approximately 18 m or more that any difficulties in reading the numberplate were experienced. The police officer’s estimate of 18 m was evidently an approximation made by him when the requirements of reg 12 were put to him in the witness box. It does not seem that, at the time when he stopped the appellant’s vehicle, he had made any measurement, or marking out, of the distance at which he experienced difficulties with visibility of the numberplate. That meant, in my opinion, that there was at least a reasonable possibility that the numbers and letters were clearly visible within the prescribed distance of 18 m.

13. For these reasons I consider that the evidence at trial was not sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the numberplate of the appellant’s vehicle was not compliant with the requirements of reg 12. I conclude therefore that the magistrate erred in finding the appellant guilty.

14. I make the following orders:

    (1)The appeal is allowed;

    (2)The conviction and orders of the magistrate are set aside;

    (3)The complaint against the appellant is dismissed.