R v David Robert Baldock [2006] NSWDC 37

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v David Robert Baldock [2006] NSWDC 37

HEARING DATE(S): 21st August 2006

JUDGMENT DATE: 22 August 2006

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 11/09/2006

JURISDICTION: District Court Appeal

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholson SC DCJ; ; ;

DECISION: Held: There is no evidence from the prosecution establishing the speed as measured was the speed travelled. Appeal upheld. See para 36,37.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Conviction Appeal from Local Court - Exceed Speed - Speed Camera - approved speed measuring device - approved digital camera recording device - certificates and photographs authorised by statute - limited evidential scope of.

s 46 and 47(5) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act, s 230 of the Road Transport (General) Act LEGISLATION CITED: s 221 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act s 248(4) of the Road Act 1993 s 46 and 47 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act of 1999 s 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

CASES CITED: RTA v Nichols unreported [2005] NSWSC 946 22 September 2005, Hoeben J RTA v Mitchell [2006] NSWSC 194 22 March 2006, Adams J

PARTIES: Roads & Traffic Authority (Respondent) David Robert Baldock (Appellant)

FILE NUMBER(S): 06/12/0484

JUDGMENT [SUBJECT TO APPEAL]

1 HIS HONOUR: On 12 June 2005 the appellant was travelling east bound in the M5 Motorway at Bardwell Park. There are speed cameras situated in the Motorway. One of those speed cameras took a photograph of Volkswagen NXF-768 as it was travelling through the tunnel. There is no dispute the appellant was driving this vehicle at the time it was photographed. Some time after the photograph was taken the appellant received a traffic infringement notice (at least I have assumed that) alleging he was travelling at 93 kilometres per hour in the M5 Motorway on 12 June, in circumstances where the speed limit was 80 kilometres per hour. The appellant opted to have the matter heard in the Local Court.