How to really win against a speeding ticket or police speeding fine in Australia.
What lengths must you go to ensure a victory against an unjust speeding fine? Unfortunately due to current legislation you actually need to be in defence mode constantly. Fortunately, there is an easy way to automate this process for the every day motorist with our Video Drive Recorder. Simply relying on some "expert" or "e-book" is a recipe for disaster. A good quality radar detector is also a sensible investment as this case proves that Multanova cameras are not always accurate, even when presumably setup and used correctly.
"but I'm left with a reasonable doubt essentially on the basis of the video, and therefore the accused is acquitted" Midland Magistrate's Court finding. 2008.
First of all, everybody with a web page is an expert, just ask them. Some radar detector web pages will direct you to free or paid e-books with methods to either evade speeding tickets, fight a speeding ticket or delay prosecution of a speeding ticket. If you are going to follow this course, delaying the court process is the most effective method; if you are lucky. These systems may or may not work - who really knows. Some people are self proclaimed experts and will charge tens of thousands of dollars to appear in court to provide "expert evidence" on your behalf. Have any of these self proclaimed experts ever actually won in court? I doubt it. Regardless, 99% of this information is available online for free - much of it is based on US laws that have little relevance in Australia. This still does not guarantee you victory, but it does guarantee that you will be massively out of pocket even if you do win your case. It is an urban legend that if you win in court the losing party must pay your fees. They may be ordered to pay SOME of your fees, usually only about 1/3 of what you have actually spent on LEGAL costs. Your own time and own personal costs are not included in legal expenses. Therefore, anything involving a court will cost your both time and money. The police rely on this deterrent and expect that 99.9% of people will simply pay a speeding infringement and be done with it. Once again, this goes against the motorist by;
- a speeding fine is a criminal conviction, it will stay on your criminal record for life
- once you have a speeding conviction, you have no chance to defend a future ticket
- your insurance premiums will increase as you are now a "dangerous driver"
- you are accepting a guilty plea to a criminal accusation without any real justification
An expert is required in court to provide evidence other than what you own or can provide yourself. Therefore any evidence that you have created can be submitted in court personally. Do not think that by reading an e-book that spouts revelations about Australian Standards for Radar, Laser or Measurement you will be granted a pardon for your speeding infringement. If you plan to present these documents as evidence, you need the AUTHOR of these documents so they can be cross examined. You may however, refer to these documents when cross examining the police witness and have them enter facts you highlight as evidence by reading and then agreeing with them. Hope this will get you off the hook? Think again. Sections of the road traffic act in Western Australia (presumably in other states too) allow the police evidence to be taken as GRANTED, meaning without any evidence the police simply have to state their camera is;
- setup correctly
- calibrated correctly
- functioning correctly
- used correctly
- maintained correctly
Essentially, this means that you are actually GUILTY of the infringement and that you need to prove yourself INNOCENT. And basically anything you raise about any user's guide, Australian Standard or other procedure means nothing - it will be dismissed as speculation. If pressed, the police will likely produce an expert witness from the camera company to state the camera was functioning correctly. So unless you can prove the camera was not you do not have a leg to stand on. Nothing like living in a dictatorship hey? So much for the "Fair Go" Australian image. That went out the door long ago.
What can everybody do to send a message they are fed up with un-Australian revenue raising policies? We encourage all motorists who receive a speeding infringement to elect to have the matter raised in court. You can go to court, represent yourself and once you see the evidence either continue to defend yourself or of course, you can also plead guilty. Seeing the police will not give any further evidence unless you elect for the matter to be heard in court, you are simply following their guidelines. If only 5% of motorists who receive a speeding fine take the matter to court, the system will be so inundated with paper work, that many infringements will simply expire. If the matter is not prosecuted or dismissed within 12 months, it is automatically dismissed. Not to mention that each person will chew up the time, cost and resources of a police prosecutor and also take a camera operator out of duty for at least 1/2 a day, as the camera operator will be required to give evidence he can't be operating a camera at the time. Safety in numbers, so rather than complaining, do something about it, and encourage others to do so.
Your best chance of fighting a speeding ticket in Western Australia is to provide your own evidence. This needs to be gathered at the time the ticket is taken, preferably BEFORE and AFTER the ticket was issued. Finally, consumer technology is catching up with out dated police equipment at a price that is very affordable, check out our Video Drive Recorder for the best protection against unjust speeding fines available. Obviously if you were not speeding, video and speed evidence gathered before, during and after the speeding infringement was issued has already been PROVEN in the West Australian Magistrate's Court. How do we know this? Because we did it in court and won!
Some important extracts from the court transcript.
"I rely on the provisions under 98A in relation to the Multanova being - unless it's rebutted - it's a prima facie evidence of an electronic or recording device." This is referring to section 98A of the Road Traffic Act.
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1974 - SECT 98A. Certain measuring equipment
(3) In any proceeding for an offence against this or any other Act or the regulations evidence may be given of the use of speed measuring equipment by an authorised person in relation to a vehicle and of the speed at which that vehicle was moving as ascertained by the use of that equipment, and that evidence is prima facie evidence of the speed at which that vehicle was moving at the time of the use of that equipment in relation to that vehicle.
"The only evidence put before the court is a video or digital video recognise of a car going past a Multanova on the day." So clearly the police now consider video as acceptable evidence.
"In relation to the video that he took - I accept his evidence that he took that video or that DVD that was played while he was travelling in his car. It's quite obvious that he did. What it shows is a panning from what I accept is a radar detector located in the centre of his dashboard onto his speedometer and onto a distance display as well on his motor vehicle, and it also shows a car that was travelling past..... What the camera does show is that there was another car going past... the car before he got to the camera, and whether the images and the sounds - visual and audio images of the video, that is to say the radar detector making a lot of noise - but even ignoring that, the shot of his speedo and the shot of his car going past the camera being the camera in question, whether that's enough to cause me to have reasonable doubt as to whether the camera operated correctly at the time. The prosecutor is quite correct when he says the evidence has to be cogent. It certainly can't be evidence that simply raises some speculative possibility that the camera might be wrong, but at the end of the day I am left with reasonable doubt. I accept his evidence that he only went through once. The photograph shows him holding something and I accept..... (was a camera.) At the end of the day I am just left with reasonable doubt, accepting as I do that he took that film at the material time, and what the film shows is a speedo showing something less..... another car going past him.... given that I accept he took that film with the camera as described, that it's his speedo that's being shown on the disc, it's his car that it's taken from - I accept that - there's no evidence to contradict that, given there is another car passing him at what could be a time..... I'm just left with reasonable doubt as to whether or not the camera operated correctly at the time... unusual case..... And let me say this, I don't base that decision of reasonable doubt on anything connected with the presence of other metallic objects around the place other than the other car, and certainly don't base it on anything connected with Australian Standards or the operator's manual or another of that nature at all, but I'm left with a reasonable doubt essentially on the basis of the video, and therefore the accused is acquitted." Extracted from the magistrate's findings.
From this it is blatantly obvious without additional evidence, user guides, Australian Standards and basically any other evidence is next to useless. Therefore people who simply direct you to some standards and user guide information are setting you up to fall flat on your face in court. Any reference made to these documents is purely considered as speculation and not evidence.
The Evidence Required to win a speeding infringement
Below is an image of the infringement notice, in this notice you will clearly see a camera being used. This all happened late 2007 and was a manual and co-incidental happening. With new technology, this type of evidence can be gathered automatically without any effort by the driver using GPS based continual video recording technology. It is significantly easier and cheaper to be PREPARED for an unjustified speeding ticket than have to defend a case without any evidence gathered at the time.
Above: Original speeding infringement notice, a camera is visible in the photograph.
Above: An enlargement of the evidence in question.
Above: Here is a screen image of the footage taken from the camera shown in the infringement notice, the vehicle speed is clearly ~44km per hour. The trip computer also shows the distance travelled.
Above: Here is a screen image of the footage taken from the camera shown in the infringement notice, with another vehicle travelling in the second lane passing the primary vehicle. In this image there is clear indication of a radar detector alerting to the presence of the police speed camera.
Above: Here is a screen image of the footage taken from the camera shown in the infringement notice, with another vehicle travelling in the second lane is clearly travelling at a faster speed and is now adjacent the speed camera that is now obscured by the radar detector mount. The radar detector is now showing a stronger alert signal.
Above: Here is a screen image of the footage taken from the camera shown in the infringement notice, the current speed is now ~51km per hour, the camera has just been passed and the other vehicle has continued to move away at a faster speed. The trip computer also shows the distance travelled.
Evidence Tendered by Police seemed to miss vital components
At first glance, the evidence provided by the police seems very convincing. Statements of currency for training of the camera operator with an amazing (read brain numbing) 10 years experience setting up speed cameras. From the police evidence some important notes should be mentioned here;
- Multanova cameras can read speeds between 20~250km per hour
- Vehicles are photographed 5~10m in front of the camera
- A Multanova should not be within 150m of a speed sign with a change of speed
- once you have a speeding conviction, you have no chance to defend a future ticket
- the Multanovas range is approximately 15 meters x 40 meters, and apparently the "beam is pencil thin" which is clearly not the case as it can be detected up to 1.2km away and up to 300m in the opposite direction
- the camera is lined up parallel to the road visually, using sights and a spirit level
- the camera is checked against an obsolete Kustom Falcon k-band hand radar gun
- the only RFI test conducted is an internal test in the Kustom Falcon device, on a different frequency as the Multanova - another weakness to be exploited in the future?
- Metal obstacles more than 100m from the camera are not considered obstacles by the operators - on what grounds?
Above: As part of the police evidence, the camera operator produces a hand drawn map of the area, that is not even to scale and neglects to indentify several objects that are documented causes of interference to police radar including power transformers, large metal sea freight containers and multiple massive power lines. How convenient! This is outlined in the user's guide for the equipment and reiterated in the Australian Standards for radar usage.
Above: The Multanova camera in a direct line in front of 2 power transformers marked "Warning High Voltage." In his evidence the Camera Operator incredibly claimed to not know about nor have noticed this obstacle, despite the fact they easily fall within the scope of his hand drawn map. Police at first tried to brush this off as possibly 12v transformers, fortunately other photographs showed them in more detail.
Above: The Multanova camera points across the road straight to a massive metal sea freight container. In his evidence the Camera Operator incredibly claimed to not know about nor have noticed this obstacle, despite the fact they easily fall within the scope of his hand drawn map.
Radar Rebel - Today Tonight 22/9/08, Perth Australia
Reporter: Graeme Butler
Nick Balgowan fought the law and won, convincing a Magistrate that maybe a Multanova speed camera fine was wrong.
Nick is a radar rebel of sorts. He makes no secret of his dislike of speed cameras and makes no secret of the fact he earns money from selling radar detectors. He's so convinced the cameras can be wrong that he drivers around with a video camera recording questionable set-ups and that's what he was doing on the he was snapped by a Multanova.
Hudson De Cerqueira also took his gripe over a speeding ticket to court and won. He was charged with reckless driving for allegedly hitting 120km/h...the trouble is Hudson says he wasn't doing anything like it.
Police sitting at this petrol station in Scarborough watched the two cars rev and take-off. They caught up with Hudson and claimed he had been travelling at 120km/h. The police had no but no radar but they still confiscated his car for 2 days under anti-hoon legislation.
The situation then went from bad to worse. A mix over the court date saw a bench warrant issued and Hudson arrested and locked up.
After the shock of spending a night in jail Hudson hired a lawyer and private detective to help prove his case. He won.
Despite winning the court case it was a costly exercise. Hudson won court costs but he was still hugely out of pocked. His victory was bitter sweet.
Just for a Laugh
This is what a camera operator does for 4 hours when called to give evidence for a speeding fine infringement. Much better than having them operate another questionable speed camera for the afternoon. I can not imagine there are people lining up for the position.
Where to from here?
A stitch in time saves nine. Be prepared to defend yourself before it happens, otherwise it may cost you $50,000 and you are still not guaranteed a victory. A Video Drive Recorder will provide the evidence required to dispute an unjustified speeding fine and a quality Radar Detector will help avoid the situation in the first place.
Have you received an unjust or false speeding fine? We would love to hear from you. The police stated publically in the media they would appeal this case, nothing like a sore loser. However, no appeal was lodged which is a clear admission of DEFEAT. |
Contact Now
(+61) 08 9370 4038 
(+61) 08 9271 4305