DONNELLAN v R [2010] NSWDC 315

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: DONNELLAN v R [2010] NSWDC 315

HEARING DATE(S): 15 -16 December 2010

JUDGMENT DATE: 16 December 2010

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: Find the offence proved and dismiss the appeal against conviction.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Conviction appeal - Exceed speed limit - LIDAR detection - Fresh evidence - Expert witness

PARTIES: John Michael Paul Donnellan The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2009/211243

COUNSEL: Mr A Hourigan - Appellant

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions - Respondent

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: I have before me an appeal against a conviction by a Magistrate in which the appellant, Dr Donnellan, was found to have exceeded the speed limit by more than forty-five kilometres per hour whilst driving his motor vehicle along Southern Cross Drive.

2 The evidence in the Local Court consisted of, for the prosecution, the two police officers who say they detected Dr Donnellan as a speeding driver and Dr Donnellan, who gave evidence himself that he was not speeding. In the Local Court the case was run on the basis that the police may have made a mistake as to the identity of the car and falsely concluded that the car they eventually stopped, which was driven by Dr Donnellan, was the car they had seen speeding some time before. It will be necessary later in this judgment to explain a bit more about the circumstances in which police made the various observations that they say they did.

3 After the Magistrate made his finding, Dr Donnellan appealed to this Court. He sought leave to adduce fresh evidence. A different judge granted that leave and so I heard evidence from a Roy Zeegers, an expert in various aspects of police speed detection, and the two police officers gave further evidence in response to matters raised by Mr Zeegers. I then heard submissions from Mr Hourigan as to why it was that I should allow the appeal. He submitted that I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt in the light of both the evidence adduced in the Local Court and the evidence adduced in this Court that his client was guilty of the offence.