I feel I have no choice other than to submit a guilty plea with regard to this hearing. I was under the impression that the hearing did not require me to attend personally and my defence would be heard in my absence. I am petrified at the prospect of having to attend court personally. I wanted my husband to speak on my behalf as he presented my defence but am told that this is not allowed. As he is the expert in this area I feel totally intimidated at the prospect of being cross-examined about something I know nothing about.
I want to make it clear that this is not about speeding as I totally disagree with it. If I was over the limit at the time it is regrettable.
I plead guilty to the reading given on the radar unit however I would ask that the following be taken into consideration and that the accusation dismissed due to the following:
Facts
The officer was travelling at speed (up to 60kph) having just rounded a bend. I was also travelling with traffic in the opposite direction. The officer fired their radar through a number of roadside obstacles including but not limited to road signs, moving vegetation, and large roadside electrical boxes, salt laden atmosphere and parked metal cars.
HAVING LOOKED AT THE OFFICER’S NOTES AT THE TIME WRITTEN IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO TAKING THE READING:
- The officer did not calibrate the equipment for that particular reading. Due to the vulnerability of radar it needs to be calibrated prior to every reading.
- The officer did not establish that the antenna was in the was in the correct position – it was ‘assumed’ that it had not moved yet the Stalker manual states that this is an issue
- She cannot state if the fan was on in her car or mine, an established interferer of radar
- She cannot state if ‘tone’ from her radio or telephone affected the reading.
- She did not take into account that the road is bounded by ‘metal stock’ fencing
- She did not establish if there was interference from the huge electrical transformers in that area
- She did not make sure the window wipers were not in the radar path
- The officer does not state if the radar was in largest or Fastest Speed mode?
- The officer did not establish a proper tracking history before taking enforcement action
- Certification
She claims that she went back to her car and then presented her certificates to me. I don’t know if this is a legal requirement or why it is in her statement but this is simply untrue. It is not noted in her book and she would not remember each case that length of time in the past. I have never heard of or seen an officer stop someone for speeding and then go to the length of producing documents to show proficiency. I believe that this is an offence as it is a false statement.
I BELIEVE THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES A RELIABLE READING CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED AND THEREFORE THERE SHOULD BE NO CASE TO PLEASE GUILTY TO
ROAD WRONGLY MARKED
Please see the attached photo – the posted speed limit on that section of road is marked as 70kph. The road is illegally marked if there are conflicting markings.
Subclause 4.5(1) of the TCD Rule requires that, except in specific circumstances ‘a traffic sign must not be installed with another sign on the same pole or in the same location’. In this case we have two conflicting signs.
The officer took photos several months after the event. During that time the road has changed and marking renewed. It appears that by the time the officer took her pictures and attempt has been made to erase the 70 mark. However, at the time of my photo the 70 was very clear and I believe the road was illegally marked.
Under the circumstances it is HIGHLY PROBABLE that the reading was not enforceable and in this allegation should be dismissed.
