14 May 2010

Supreme Court appeal pays off for $291 traffic fine

| johnboy
Join the conversation
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

Join the conversation

20
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The AFP pays all the costs concerned, #13 once again doesn’t know what they’re talking about

Well, it is pretty hard to know what you are talking about, when it appears that the actual meaning of a legal document is different from the literal meaning.

“Dont all police vehicles these days have video recording devices?…. No they don’t Einstein

Interesting. How do they decide which get them? Or are we in the process of adopting them and the role out is incomplete? The two times I have been pulled over by the NSW Police (both last year), I was informed that I was being videoed (from the car) and my voice was being recorded (from a device on the cop).

vg said :

“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?”

No they don’t Einstein

Well it’s about time they got cameras installed in every vehicle. The footage would certainly be useful next time there is a fatal pursuit.

p1 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.

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.

They don’t. Is is stock standard appeal language. The respondent always will be the original officer unless they applicant is going the whole of the AFP.

The AFP pays all the costs concerned, #13 once again doesn’t know what they’re talking about

“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?”

No they don’t Einstein

dvaey said :

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?

Some of the traffic cars have on board video, but not sure how many. Presumably, in this case, they didn’t.

The DPP did challenge the GPS data when the defendant tried to put it into evidence (in an inadmissible state) in the Magistrates court; however they did not do so in the Supreme Court when it was presented in an admissible manner.

I would guess that this is a good indication that the DPP didn’t feel that they had sufficient evidence to raise doubt about its presumed accuracy, under the part of the Evidence Act that you quoted. (Such evidence wouldn’t simply be other, contradictory, evidence; it would seem to have to be direct evidence of indicating that the GPS data had been deliberately altered or otherwise corrupted).

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.

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.

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?

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 !!!

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.

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.

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?

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.

How much did it cost to win?

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

Woody Mann-Caruso3:51 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!”)

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-Caruso6:39 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.

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.

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

Good on him for proving a point I say.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.