Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Supreme Court appeal pays off for $291 traffic fine

By johnboy - 14 May 2010 20

The Supreme Court has posted the outcome of taxi driver John Williams’ heroic battle against the police who had pinged him for speeding on Clift Crescent.

Thanks to GPS records from head office he’s been able to prove on appeal that he couldn’t have been drivng the car clocked going 90.

But it does seem like a lot of effort for $291

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
20 Responses to
Supreme Court appeal pays off for $291 traffic fine
Spideydog 6:51 pm 17 May 10

dvaey said :

Interestingly, the respondant in this case was the officer who pulled Mr Williams over for speeding, not the DPP or the police department or any other agency.

WRONG. The officer does not pay. The respondent is the prosecution, even thought the officer is named as the respondent.

p1 5:19 pm 17 May 10

Interestingly, the respondant in this case was the officer who pulled Mr Williams over for speeding, not the DPP or the police department or any other agency.

Really? Without being specific to this case, is it expected that individual officers pay court costs in all events where decisions are overturned? That seems a bit weird.

dvaey 4:37 pm 17 May 10

farq said :

How much did it cost to win?

$6-$10k to beat a $291 fine? Something obscene about that.

From the first paragraph at the top of the page:

> THE COURT:
>
> 5. ORDERS THAT the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal,
> excluding the costs of the application for leave to appeal out of time.

Unless the cost of appealing out-of-time (interestingly, an appeal 13 weeks after a conviction is considered out-of-time) are $6-$10k, then no.

Interestingly, the respondant in this case was the officer who pulled Mr Williams over for speeding, not the DPP or the police department or any other agency.

The judgement suggested that perhaps it was another vehicle the police clocked travelling at 90km/hr.. Dont all police vehicles these days have video recording devices? Surely those involved would have viewed that footage and if it supported their case, it would have been presented, but it was not.. why?

Spideydog 9:58 am 17 May 10

Tooks said :

caf said :

To all doubting the accuracy of the records, the Supreme Court judge had this to say:
The material sought to be put before the Magistrate is now available to me and in a form in which it appears to be admissible, probably under s 147 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

That doesn’t convince me at all. DPP should’ve challenged that GPS report.

In part, the Evidence Act reads:

It is presumed (unless evidence sufficient to raise doubt about the presumption is adduced), in producing the document on the occasion in question, the device or process produced that outcome.

You can bet if a Taxi GPS report was used as part of a prosecution case, the defence would be looking to challenge it in any way they could.

Bloody oath !!!

Tooks 9:10 am 17 May 10

caf said :

To all doubting the accuracy of the records, the Supreme Court judge had this to say:
The material sought to be put before the Magistrate is now available to me and in a form in which it appears to be admissible, probably under s 147 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

That doesn’t convince me at all. DPP should’ve challenged that GPS report.

In part, the Evidence Act reads:

It is presumed (unless evidence sufficient to raise doubt about the presumption is adduced), in producing the document on the occasion in question, the device or process produced that outcome.

You can bet if a Taxi GPS report was used as part of a prosecution case, the defence would be looking to challenge it in any way they could.

caf 9:15 pm 16 May 10

To all doubting the accuracy of the records, the Supreme Court judge had this to say:

The material sought to be put before the Magistrate is now available to me and in a form in which it appears to be admissible, probably under s 147 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

The records were accompanied by an affidavit of their accuracy from the Aerial Taxis employee who generated them.

It appears that the taxi driver tried to tender the records in the Magistrates Court, but didn’t have the accompanying affidavit or call the employee who produced them as a witness; likely because he was representing himself at that stage and so wasn’t aware of what would be needed for the records to be admissible evidence.

Pork Hunt 2:33 pm 16 May 10

A speeding Cabbie?

How come I always get stuck behind some Thomas, Rickard or Harald who couldn’t drive a greasy finger up a cats bum?

Tooks 10:37 am 16 May 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Well, there was a police car on Clift Cres 😉

(And I kid, Tooks. The data should’ve been challenged on the spot by the DPP. Quite an amazing defence:

“A computer says I’m innocent!”
“Really? What’s it’s evidence?”
“These print outs that anybody could’ve knocked up or changed in MS Word!”
“Case dismissed!”)

🙂

The other point with the GPS records I was wondering about was are they used in cases where taxi drivers are assaulted, or drivers are accused of sexually assaulting a passenger? If not, you’d really have to wonder how legit they are.

farq 10:10 am 16 May 10

How much did it cost to win?

$6-$10k to beat a $291 fine? Something obscene about that.

Woody Mann-Caruso 3:51 pm 15 May 10

Well, there was a police car on Clift Cres 😉

(And I kid, Tooks. The data should’ve been challenged on the spot by the DPP. Quite an amazing defence:

“A computer says I’m innocent!”
“Really? What’s it’s evidence?”
“These print outs that anybody could’ve knocked up or changed in MS Word!”
“Case dismissed!”)

Tooks 11:28 am 15 May 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

“…both officers were firm in their evidence that they had seen Mr Williams’ vehicle approaching them from beyond the intersection of Clift Crescent and Deamer Crescent…On the basis of this evidence…it cannot have been the taxi being driven by Mr Williams.”

Now I get it. ‘Porkies’ is when police officers tell fibs.

Hmmm maybe, but I would think the taxi driver had more motive to lie. Was the accuracy of the GPS records challenged in any way by the DPP? Doesn’t sound like it.

“I note that although the GPS records suggest that Mr Williams’ taxi was travelling at speeds considerably in excess of the likely speed limits before he turned back into Clift Crescent, his speed along Clift Crescent is shown at under 60 kilometres per hour.”
– Penfold

So he was exceeding the speed limit considerably throughout Richardson/Chisholm, but suddenly slows right down on Clift Cr?

Woody Mann-Caruso 6:39 pm 14 May 10

“…both officers were firm in their evidence that they had seen Mr Williams’ vehicle approaching them from beyond the intersection of Clift Crescent and Deamer Crescent…On the basis of this evidence…it cannot have been the taxi being driven by Mr Williams.”

Now I get it. ‘Porkies’ is when police officers tell fibs.

eh_steve 3:48 pm 14 May 10

I guess when driving is your sole source of income, the motivation is somewhat greater.

Given that he was cross examined about his previous record and ‘the GPS records suggest that Mr Williams’ taxi was travelling at speeds considerably in excess of the likely speed limits before he turned back into Clift Crescent’ he m,ay have been close to losign his licence anyway.

Jim Jones 3:32 pm 14 May 10

A bit sad that the man who wrote the score to Star Wars is now driving a taxi.

PM 3:26 pm 14 May 10

Good on him for proving a point I say.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site