California courts are not alone in questioning the validity of red light camera and speed camera photographs as valid legal evidence. On Friday, the Queensland, Australia Court of Appeal ruled that automated ticketing cases require more than a pair of images in a folder to make a speeding case that will stick. The motorist, a non-lawyer, won her case against the government with only the help of her husband.
A camera accused Bilyana LeKich of driving 114 km/h (70 MPH) in a 100 zone (62 MPH) on Bruce Highway in Burpengary on September 4, 2008. Lekich pleaded not guilty in Caboolture Magistrate’s Court where a judge did little more than look at the photos and declare that she was guilty and must pay A$200. LeKich appealed to a district court which overturned this conviction on the grounds that the photos should not have been entered as evidence.
Under Australian law, the police commissioner must certify the photographs as “properly taken” at the time and location stated on the citation. The commissioner can delegate this power to another police officer, but the prosecution never offered any evidence that the power had been properly delegated — other than the fact that a police officer’s signature on the ticket was proof that the power had been delegated. The lower court judge did not buy the argument.
“The starting point, of course, for any criminal prosecution is that the evidence is to be given orally,” the Brisbane District Court judge ruled last year. “Evidence in writing is prima facie hearsay and is inadmissible unless it comes within a statutory exception to the rule against hearsay…. There is certainly nothing in s. 120 of the act which permits the delegate to certify to the existence of the delegation where the commissioner’s power has been delegated.”
As hearsay, the photographs were inadmissible and Queensland Police Service was left with nothing to prove a case against LeKich. Court of Appeal Justice Hugh B. Fraser, writing for the three-judge panel, agreed with the district court findings because proper procedure is important when a signature constitutes automatic proof.
“The consequences of a delegation by the commissioner are by no means insignificant,” Fraser wrote. “It arms a police officer with power to provide prima facie proof of an offense merely by signing a certificate which s. 120 otherwise requires to be signed by the commissioner. It does not seem unduly pedantic to insist upon proof of such a delegation where as the primary judge explained, the applicant [Queensland Police Service] could have taken advantage of the simple mode of proof which the legislature has provided.”
A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Dixon v. LeKich (Court of Appeal, Queensland, Australia, 8/13/2010)
[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]
A camera accused Bilyana LeKich of driving 114 km/h (70 MPH) in a 100 zone (62 MPH)…
An eight mph margin for error isn’t much. Just how bankrupt is Australia?
Typical vehicle build regulations require speedometer accuracy in the range of 0 to +10-percent. It must never under-read but may over-read. Manufacturing cost for a 0-percent error speedometer is prohibitive, so they all over-read by a few percent. Even if speed is measured correctly the display may read inaccurately, so speedometer error is tolerated.
The Association of Chief Police Officers have an official formula for calculating a speeding offence. It allows a leeway of 10-percent plus two mph. For practical reasons most speed traps are triggered at higher speeds than this because if they were set bang-on the required paperwork would negate police revenue generation, which is almost always its only purpose.
7-8 KPH (~4-5 MPH) is the usual margin for cameras down here, the hand-held lasers are even lower, despite as you say the accuracy of speedos which even Australian Design Rules state have to be no worse than 10% off.
The counter-argument usually offered to this particular line of reasoning is manufacturers ‘tend’ to make their speedos read higher rather than lower.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t sound like a fundamental flaw in the practice of using a photograph as evidence instead requiring the testimony of the police officer who observed the infraction. All the police commissioner has to do is attach a statement that he has delegated this power to the police officer who signed the ticket.
Although this method is controversial, it does decrease the amount of speeders which is one goal of these cameras. Sure the gov income is nice, but maybe they expected to lose some cases.
What the Qld Gov’t will now worry about is the fact a precedent has been set, giving people in the same set of circumstance a stronger case, I’d expect the decision to be challenge or more likely the legislation changed.
Got any evidence to support that unlikely-sounding assertion?
you Americans will probably be quite bemused to find that people in the state of Victoria are often put under a 4km/h leeway… that is if you do 64km/h in a 60 zone, you will receive a fine.
for you imperial folk that is 2.5 mph margin of error
that is of course amazing
you will also find that many European cars often calibrate their speedos to 30-50-70-90km/h increments which makes this margin impossible to gauge
That’s actually not quite correct, in a 60kph zone they will set it to trigger at 67kph, the 64kph confusion comes do to how they process it.
When you receive your fine you will see two speeds listed, your ‘Detected Speed’ which will be at least 7kph over, and your ‘Alleged Speed’ which they derive by knocking a 3kph ‘leeway’ off, so THAT will be at least 4kph over.
The manufacturers claim a properly calibrated and setup photo radar is accurate to 1kph, so chances are if you get a ticket in a 60 zone, you were going at least 10% faster than signed.
However do the math in a 90 zone, if you were going 96 and got fined, the margin drops below 7%. In a hundred zone or higher they lop 4kph to arrive at your Alleged Speed, which keeps things around the 7% mark.