Thousands of speeding fines thrown into doubt after Supreme Court questions laser gun accuracy

THOUSANDS of speeding fines are in doubt after an Adelaide man successfully challenged the accuracy of a laser camera gun that clocked him at more than 50km/h above the limit. FULL JUDGMENT HERE

Thousands of speeding fines are in doubt after an Adelaide man successfully challenged the accuracy of a laser camera gun that wrongly clocked him at more than 50km/h above the limit..

• READ THE FULL JUDGMENT HERE
• Think tank: Speeding fines not being used for better driver education
• State’s most lucrative mobile speed camera locations
• Apprentice wins case involving ‘exaggerated traffic fine’

THE validity of thousands of speeding fines is in doubt after an Adelaide man successfully challenged the accuracy of a laser camera gun that clocked him at more than 50km/h above the limit.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court upheld Adam Dean Butcher’s acquittal on charges of driving at 102km/h in a 50km/h zone in Adelaide’s north almost four years ago.

Legal experts say the ruling has significant ramifications for police handheld device used across Australia, urging motorists to challenge their fines in court.

Police, however, denied the judgment created a legal precedent, despite the court ruling that internal testing failed Australian standards.

Latest figures show that the government reaped almost $52 million annually from speeding fines generated by mobile and fixed cameras as well as “other” means such as handheld laser guns.

Mr Butcher, 27, was recorded by Senior Constable Stephen Goldsmith, using an Ultralyte laser speed gun, in a “built up area”, near his Burton home at 8.08pm on September 14, 2012.

He was subsequently charged with one basic count each of driving at a speed dangerous to the public and driving at a speed of 45km/h or more in excess of the speed limit.

The charges were dismissed following an Adelaide Magistrates Court trial in August 2013 despite Mr Butcher admitting he was speeding. He faced a maximum two years in jail and a 12-month licence ban if convicted.

Prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court, which ordered a retrial after finding Magistrate Melanie Little had made errors over a legal argument linked to a certificate of accuracy.

During a retrial last year before Magistrate David McLeod, police argued that the testing on the day showed that the speed gun was accurate.

Mr McLeod accepted evidence from Sen-Constable Goldsmith — whom he described as an “experienced traffic police officer” — that he correctly tested the device using internal procedures.

Under road laws, officers are required to examine speed guns before and after each shift, which the officer stated he did, using a series of exercises including a “fixed distance velocity test”.

Defence lawyers, however, questioned those procedures and whether they proved the device was accurate.

They also challenged the certificate of accuracy, signed off by Chief Inspector Alby Quinn, then at Elizabeth Police station, which “proved” the device’s “margin of error” was correctly between +2 and -3km/h. Devices are also subjected to annual “calibration” testing.

Magistrate McLeod found Mr Butcher not guilty in May this year, ruling he could not prove “beyond reasonable doubt” the precise speed the accused was travelling.

Police lodged a second appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing the magistrate made concluding errors about the speed gun certificate’s accuracy.

But in a judgment published online, Justice Tim Stanley dismissed the police appeal, ruling they had “failed to demonstrate” the magistrate was wrong.

Justice Tim Stanley.

He found the evidence was sufficient to prove the internal police testing was not capable of proving accuracy within the margin of error and that it failed to comply with Australian standards.

“…I am satisfied that there is evidence which establishes that the testing did not show the Lidar device to be accurate within the stated limit of error,” he concluded.

“I am further satisfied that in the absence of evidence of limit of error I cannot find proved beyond reasonable doubt the precise speed, or range of speed of the vehicle.

“Further, while (Mr Butcher) admitted to speeding, the nature of the charges to which he has pleaded requires a precise speed or a range of speeds to be able to be calculated.”

He added: “Such matters cannot be proved from (his) admission of speeding or from imprecise observations of the vehicle contained in the evidence.

“Without reliable evidence from which the speed or range of speed of the vehicle can be calculated both counts are incapable of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

Mr Butcher declined to comment. His lawyer, Karen Stanley, from Websters Lawyers, told The Advertiser that the ruling had “huge ramifications” for motorists.

“The devices police use to detect speed are not 100 per cent accurate,” she said.

“There is always a margin of error. However, that margin of error can result in a driver losing their licence, their job or their house.

“If you have been charged with a speeding offence or have received an expiation notice for a speeding fine, you may wish to challenge them.”

Police on Thursday night declined to say whether officers would change testing procedures.

In a statement, a spokesman said: “Police have considered the full judgment and its implications.

“It is our view that the matter should stand alone and does not create precedent.”

Road Safety Minister Peter Malinauskas is travelling through the APY lands, in the state’s far north, and was unavailable for comment.

SA Police have not launched a third appeal.