So I take it you lost. I get pissed off when that happens
Well yes and no. Over here we have these fixed speed cameras on our freeways and the previous labour government changed the "margin of error" (for speedo innaccuracy etc) from 10% down to 3%, so in a 100 KPH zone, (100 Kph =60 MPH, or thereabouts) I was clocked @ 108KPH, which was reduced to 105.
I elected to have it dealt with in court (long story) and I was sent out some court documents, including a "test certificate" for that speed camera, which stated that it'd been tested 5 months before my alleged offence. I did some research via google and found an article where the Assistant Police Commissioner stated that for accuracy, all speed cameras are tested every three months.
I then created a defence that, as my speed camera was 2 months overdue for testing, it could not be considered "Proof beyond reasonable doubt" that I was speeding, because the camera's accuracy may well have been impeded over that 2 month interval. That put a cat amongst the pigeons, the judge asked the police prosecutor what the testing intervals were, and he didn't know, so the judge stopped the proceedings, while he went back to his chambers to research the speed camera act.
The police prosecutor was a nice bloke, so we had a chat while we waited for the judge to return. The judge took ages to come back, but he told us that he had to do a family violence intervention interview and apologised to me. Cool. He'd done his research, and according to section 37 of the act, the testing interval is 12 months. Damn. The judge explained that the only way I could be found "Not Guilty" is if I could either prove that the camera was innaccurate, or, if I could prove that I was not speeding. Of course, I could not do either.
However, the judge went on to say that even though he was satisfied that the charge was proven, due to my excellent driving record, (that's another story, thank God for lazy stupid public servants) he would not record a conviction, which means my "excellent" (cough, cough, bull#$%*) driving record would stay as such, I wouldn't attract any demerit points against my license, and I wouldn't have to pay the fine (150 bucks) or court costs. (unknown) Woohoo!
That was the good news. The bad news is that he ordered me to make a $100.00 donation to the Road Trauma Unit of the Alfred Hospital (no biggie) BUT he also placed me on a "Good Behavior Bond" for 6 months, which means that if I re-offend between now and June next year, I can still be made to pay the original fine and attract a demerit point etc. I'm still not happy about that, because it will curtail my riding of unregistered bikes, and I'll have to be extra careful while driving the car too.
I must admit I did enjoy my time in the court room though, and I reckon the judge was soft on me because he liked my approach a lot better than the standard "my speedo was broken yer honor" defence. The only thing that pisses me off is that I created my defence around a statement made publicly by our most senior traffic cop, and he doesn't know what he's talking about! Cheers, Terry.
