Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Prolaser III, Prolaser IV, Prolite+
a11djr
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:52 pm

Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby a11djr » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:25 pm

G'day all

I was travelling on the Western Hwy near Burumbeet in Jan when I was pulled over allegidly doing 68 in a 40 zone in Roadworks.
I told the officer I wasn't speeding and how to appeal and nearly colapsed when he told me $400 and ONE MONTH SUSPENSION of my licience.

I travel 45000 kms a year with work and just don't speed. In 28 years (last four here in Oz) not had one accident nor received one demerit point.
I chose to take this to court and recently had the case upheld by a Judicial Registrar......
I submitted evidence showing no signs on my side of the road and also the fact they were not set out correctly, and signs missing on my side of the road. I also mentioned that the only 40 kms sign on the opposite side of the road was CLEARLY NOT VISIBLE, and also could be obscured by traffic going in the opposite direction. The informant even stated that the signage could not be errected on my side of the road as there was concrete safety bollards. :shock:

I was apparently pinged at 238 metres from where the officer was sat stationary and given the pics i submitted you can guesstamate the following. Givern the average car is 4.12 metres in length, and at 238 metres it equates to approx 57 car lengths. He agreed his position in the picture so between the first 40 Kpm sign (on the opposite side of the road to the way I was travelling) there is KNOW WAY you can fit 57 cars end on end in that distance........

What I would like to know is, As I appealed, and this got granted on the day by a different Magistrare. My Re Hearing is on Monday what should I base my defence on,
Should I question the officers ability with the Lidar Pro Laser III
Or leave all that well alone and concentrate on the signs not comlying with AS1742.3 (MUTCD) and being Not Visible? it states in S322 that signs must be errected correctly and be visible to ALL ROAD USERS AT ALL TIMES......
Or even question the distance with the pictures submitted as evidance thus still travelling in an 80 zone?

I have 38 questions for the Informant and getting confussed. And truely believe I have been hard done by.

Any thought as to the best way to defend myself. As an external sales Rep my vehicle is my tool of trade.
I could lose my job and my livelyhood for an offence I strongly deny :cry: .

Thanks in advance

Boki
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby Boki » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:39 pm

a11djr wrote:there is KNOW WAY you can fit 57 cars end on end in that distance

Man there is soooo much juiciness in this case that I don't NO where to start.

It seems like you strongly claim there was no requirement for you to do 40km/h, since you say you have evidence showing no 40 signs were applicable to you along with the informant confirming that then you are bound by the speed limit of the last sign (or defualt speed limit) that was on that strip of road before the police lasered you.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8239
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby Hardy » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:48 pm

Assuming you decide to give evidence, what speed are you going to say you were doing?

Without a lawyer all you can do is argue that you were not in a 40 zone, or that the 40 zone signs were not clearly visible. A lawyer would take a different approach, but that would require several days of tutorials to learn, and even then may not result in a win. There are plenty of police reading this, so maybe some of them can offer you ideas on where they face weaknesses in their case! For starters, you should wait to see whether the police prove that the work zone signs were erected in accordance with a vicroads memorandum. Also give the magistrate this http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /3263.html

a11djr
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:52 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby a11djr » Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:32 am

Boki wrote:
a11djr wrote:there is KNOW WAY you can fit 57 cars end on end in that distance

Man there is soooo much juiciness in this case that I don't NO where to start.

It seems like you strongly claim there was no requirement for you to do 40km/h, since you say you have evidence showing no 40 signs were applicable to you along with the informant confirming that then you are bound by the speed limit of the last sign (or defualt speed limit) that was on that strip of road before the police lasered you.


No what I'm saying is I'm a very law abiding driver who would never intentionally speed. I always follow reduced speed signage. What I'm saying is I believe that the signs were not erected correctly and therefore not visible at all times.
That said to state this in court then I would be definitely stating I was going over the reduced speed.

Upon my appeal, I spoke to the prosecutor from the (firearms case) that was being held as this was the magistrate who was able to listen to my case.
This prosecutor was stunned and shocked and asked about the informant, who needless to say was well known for hi behaviour.
Anyway that's not relevant I guess. What she did say to me was they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. So I im really trying to establish my best form of defence.
If I start questioning his accuracy and whether the unit had been dropped or mishandled since its last operation (I've read this can get the magistrate off side)
I honestly did not see the only sign allegedly passed. Again that is no excuse, however it does point back to S322 and clearly visible? Doesn't it.......... :?

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8239
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby Hardy » Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:51 am

So I im really trying to establish my best form of defence.

Sounds like you are looking for the best form of attack. To defend you don't actually try to prove anything - you prevent things being proved.

This is just another speeding case. No different to a hundred thousand others.
We can't run it for you online. Unfortunately Legal Aid does not yet publish a pamphlet called "How to win a Speeding Case", and nor do I.

richard_m_h
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:09 am

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby richard_m_h » Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:06 am

best way to defend yourself might be to pay a lawyer.

a11djr
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:52 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby a11djr » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:26 pm

Hardy wrote:
So I im really trying to establish my best form of defence.

Sounds like you are looking for the best form of attack. To defend you don't actually try to prove anything - you prevent things being proved.

This is just another speeding case. No different to a hundred thousand others.
We can't run it for you online. Unfortunately Legal Aid does not yet publish a pamphlet called "How to win a Speeding Case", and nor do I.


Thank you Hardy

But all I was after was some advice. Not someone to tell me online how I was going to win my case.
As I was self representing myself thought somebody could (as you mentioned in an earlier post) give me an idea as to what the polices weakness would be in this case. :?

Mode100
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:43 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby Mode100 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:27 pm

Last I heard - legal aid don't defend speeding cases. Unsure of the intent of your reference.
Another thread
Hardy wrote:Legal aid does not assist people with traffic issues.

Slattery
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:24 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby Slattery » Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:17 pm

"you should wait to see whether the police prove that the work zone signs were erected in accordance with a vicroads memorandum."

Interesting. I thought if there was an authorised sign erect and clearly visible it was applicable regardless of any memorandum.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8239
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby Hardy » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:31 pm

Mode100, the point is that you can not look up a recipe for acquittal.

FYI, Legal Aid does not represent people charged with traffic offences, but they have a website that gives people pointers for dealing with traffic offences:
http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-leg ... peed-limit
http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-leg ... c-offences
http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-leg ... ic-matters

The best defence is to argue non-compliance, but to do that you need to find something the police have not complied with, and to do that you need to know every single thing that the police need to comply with, and to know all that you probably need to defend or prosecute traffic offences every day for a couple of years or spend a couple of years reading every court decision and text book relating to traffic offences and court process and procedure.

As for the memorandum, if it does not cover the date of the offence then you can argue that the speed limit signs were required to be removed by that date and that the road works speed limit signs were in place without authority and have no application. I know there are far better ways to win than that, but at least that point is capable of being summarised in 2 lines on a forum.

a11djr
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:52 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby a11djr » Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:35 pm

Hardy wrote:Assuming you decide to give evidence, what speed are you going to say you were doing?

Without a lawyer all you can do is argue that you were not in a 40 zone, or that the 40 zone signs were not clearly visible. A lawyer would take a different approach, but that would require several days of tutorials to learn, and even then may not result in a win. There are plenty of police reading this, so maybe some of them can offer you ideas on where they face weaknesses in their case! For starters, you should wait to see whether the police prove that the work zone signs were erected in accordance with a vicroads memorandum. Also give the magistrate this http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /3263.html


Thanks for the link Hardy, Can you tell me what a UK Court Case will be able to offer me?

I'm going to go down the route of incorrectly errected signage and those errected being Clearly Not Visible.
How can they prove they were errected in accordance with a Vicroads Memo? :?:

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8239
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby Hardy » Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:59 pm

Have you read the UK case? It addresses the point you raise, so it should help your argument.

How can they prove they were errected in accordance with a Vicroads Memo?

Your job is to see whether they do or not. Why would you want me to publish here a check list for the police to follow in prosecuting you?

a11djr
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:52 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby a11djr » Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:48 pm

:( well they didn't prove they were erected in accordance with a vic roads memo, I raised that point and was duely told by the prosecution it is up to me the defendant not the prosecution to provide this.

They also provided some new evidence (in car video) which was not in the Police brief of evidence, nor at the previous hearing how can that be allowed :?:
I raised that and the magistrate allowed it.






Hardy wrote:Have you read the UK case? It addresses the point you raise, so it should help your argument.

How can they prove they were errected in accordance with a Vicroads Memo?

Your job is to see whether they do or not. Why would you want me to publish here a check list for the police to follow in prosecuting you?

Chef
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby Chef » Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:05 pm

So what was the wash up?

Day
Posts: 1595
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby Day » Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:06 pm

a11djr wrote::( They also provided some new evidence (in car video) which was not in the Police brief of evidence, nor at the previous hearing how can that be allowed :?:
I raised that and the magistrate allowed it.


It is effectively their notes. If you suggest something that infers they are lying then they are allowed to show they are not.

What was the outcome?

a11djr
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:52 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby a11djr » Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:10 pm

Day wrote:
a11djr wrote::( They also provided some new evidence (in car video) which was not in the Police brief of evidence, nor at the previous hearing how can that be allowed :?:
I raised that and the magistrate allowed it.


It is effectively their notes. If you suggest something that infers they are lying then they are allowed to show they are not.

What was the outcome?


But surely under the rules of disclosure, all evidence
to be used against a defendant must be given to you as part of the brief and surely
they failed in that disclosure legislation?

The decision was upheld, however I have appealed to the CC and this was granted by the Magistrate.

Chef
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby Chef » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:01 pm

Evidence can be with held for a variety of reasons and I have no doubt that if a magistrate upheld the decision then it was considered. It sounds to me that the police lead evidence and/or video to the signage and you couldn't overcome it.

a11djr
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:52 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby a11djr » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:56 pm

The only sign they mentioned was that placed just where a safety barrier had a gap at low level. It was strategically placed were you still would not see this until you were upon it. this was argued it was clearly not visible and therefore non compliant. There was no way you would be able to brake safely to drop to this new speed limit before you entered the reduced speed zone.

Day
Posts: 1595
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby Day » Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:50 pm

a11djr wrote:The only sign they mentioned was that placed just where a safety barrier had a gap at low level. It was strategically placed were you still would not see this until you were upon it. this was argued it was clearly not visible and therefore non compliant. There was no way you would be able to brake safely to drop to this new speed limit before you entered the reduced speed zone.


How far were you into the changed speed zone before you got pinged.

a11djr
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:52 pm

Re: Alleged 68 in a 40 Hwy Roadworks Defence

Postby a11djr » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:02 pm

Day wrote:
a11djr wrote:The only sign they mentioned was that placed just where a safety barrier had a gap at low level. It was strategically placed were you still would not see this until you were upon it. this was argued it was clearly not visible and therefore non compliant. There was no way you would be able to brake safely to drop to this new speed limit before you entered the reduced speed zone.


How far were you into the changed speed zone before you got pinged.


That was unclear, going off the photos of the area I tendered and also taking into account the informants agreed position it's to hard to guesstimate. If you take the distance claimed by the officer he locked onto the vehicle, and work out it equates to 59 car lengths then I would be safely still be in the 80 zone.
I don't think that could be put forward as an argument though.


Return to “Lasers”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest