District Court Judge defends himself on speeding charge

A well-known Brisbane judge has come out of retirement to conduct his own defence on a minor speeding charge. He’s 78, but he did a pretty good job of it.

Former District Court Judge Walter Tutt outside Holland Park Magistrates Court, where he conducted his own defence on a minor speeding charge.

It has been eight years since he retired as a District Court Judge, but Walter “Wally’’ Tutt, 78, showed he still has what it takes after defending himself on a speeding charge.

Mr Tutt last made headlines when he challenged the State Government in the Court of Appeal for “short changing’’ him over his pension entitlement, after he was forced to retire at the age of 70.

The well-known and respected legal figure, who first took his articles in 1960, initially pleaded not guilty to driving at 67kmh in a 60kmh zone on Bapaume Rd, Holland Park West, on March 22.

He had challenged the accuracy of the speed camera but, after confirmation it was tested only three months before the offence, changed his plea this morning to guilty.

However, he also challenged the tendering of his modest two-page driving history.

Police prosecutor Lauren Archer then withdrew the document.

OTHER HOLLAND PARK COURT STORIES

Grammar Old Girl’s jail sentence for latest drink driving bust

Can I get a discount? Man tries to bargain down magistrate

Virgin stand down’s devastating impact on veteran pilot

Rats**t to roaches: Coopers Plains noodle shop’s gut-churning breaches

Glam hairdresser’s Carina Heights heroin deal lands her in court

Mr Tutt argued that he was a careful driver but at the time of the offence there were no other drivers and he had therefore not endangered the public.

“It was a Sunday afternoon. Holland Park State School is on the right, there are no residences whatsoever on the other side of the road,’’ he told Magistrate Simon Young in his submission.

“I was on my way to the coast and there was not a soul in sight.

“I understand why there’s a device there — it’s adjacent to a school so it is important the correct speed is (adhered to) during school hours.

“In the circumstances I submit I was entitled to satisfy myself that the reading device was accurate.’’

He also said it was a “technical breach’’ and asked that the minimum penalty be imposed.

Mr Young said it was every defendant’s right to test the evidence against them and Mr Tutt had changed his plea upon realising the speed camera was within its 12-month testing period.

“Bapaume Rd is well known to this court for this sort of offence,’’ Mr Young said.

“Mr Tutt has no traffic history before the court, so that can’t be considered to be aggravating.’’

However, he said courts were obliged to impose the minimum ticketable amount, unless there were exceptional circumstances, to discourage defenders from turning up to court in the hope of receiving a lesser penalty.

He fined Mr Tutt $177 (the maximum penalty is $2600) and ordered he pay $105.65 in court costs.

Mr Tutt said outside the court that he had been enjoying his retirement, but was disappointed he could not continue serving due to the “judicial senility’’ laws requiring judges to step down at age 70.

“Retired judges could step in on a parttime basis when there is a shortfall,’’ he said.

In his first appearance on the other side of the bench in 2013, shortly after his retirement, Mr Tutt argued that he was entitled to an extra $21,000 a year for his pension as he had been required to step down 12 days before completing a full eighth year on the bench.

He argued he could have rightly served out the additional 12 days writing judgments, however due to his efficiency he had cleared his work backlog.