Appeal of David Keene [2006] NSWDC 73

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Appeal of David Keene [2006] NSWDC 73

JUDGMENT DATE: 18 May 2006

JURISDICTION: District Court Appeal

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholson SC DCJ

DECISION: The conviction appeal in respect of the speeding offence is confirmed. ; The penalty imposed by the learned magistrate confirmed. ; The penalty imposed by the learned magistrate confirmed. ; The period of disqualification imposed by the learned magistrate confirmed. ; That period of disqualification will now have expired.; The conviction in respect of drive under the influence of alcohol is quashed. ; The period of disqualification and the fine in respect of the drive under the influence of alcohol conviction are quashed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Conviction Appeal from Local Court - DUI - Exceed Speed - use of teape recorder by investigating police officer "as practice" - Listening Devices Act - taped prejudicial convcersations and remarks between officers - admisibility - issues of credit.

LEGISLATION CITED: s 5, s11 Listening Devices Act 1984

Regina (Respondent) PARTIES: David Keene (Appellant) David Keene

FILE NUMBER(S): 05/22/0450

SOLICITORS: Fw: Self Represented Cr: Mr Khlentzos

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 3 May, 15 July, and 15 September last year the appellant was before his Honour Magistrate Gordon Lerve upon four charges. I understand he was acquitted of one, as to another I have not been informed of its outcome. He does however appeal against the findings of guilty and conviction recorded in respect of a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and a further charge of exceeding the speed limit by greater than 45 kilometres per hour.

2 These two offences were said to have occurred at the same time on 7 February 2004. The appeal is by way of a re-hearing on the transcript and evidence before his Honour in the court below. On that occasion the appellant did not give evidence. He has been granted leave to adduce his own evidence and evidence from his wife. I gave leave to the Crown to adduce evidence in reply so it could deal with allegations that had not been made in evidence by the appellant that had not been put in the court below. The appellant was unrepresented and appeared in person.