Can the Police give you a fine even if they don't show you the speed reading?

[Joe]

This question is raised over aned over again, and after reading in the Spotted thread that the cops are stinging people on the Freeway again this morning, I thought this would be a relevant discussion.

I'm not an expert, so I'm just interpreting what I read in the Road Traffic Act.. I'm hoping to hear from people who have direct experience in these matters though, to get the truth out there.

It used to be said that if they don't show you the reading, then they can't actually fine you.

The Road Traffic Act states In Section 102(1) that:


Where a member of the Police Force or warden has reason to believe that a person has committed any such offence against this Act as is prescribed for the purposes of this section, he may serve on that person a notice, in the prescribed form, (a traffic infringement notice) informing the person that, if he does not wish to be prosecuted for the alleged offence in a court, he may pay to an officer specified in the notice, within the time therein specified, the amount of the penalty prescribed for the offence, if dealt with under this section.

So therefore, they CAN give you a fine if they have reason to believe that you have been speeding. No reading needs to be shown to you.

BUT, this is where it gets a bit grey. If they have reason to believe you were speeding and you take the fine to court, do they then have to PROVE you were speeding?

[AutoPro Innaloo]

Simple answer NO.

[DanWA]

Yeah they can fine you without showing you the reading...

I tried fighting it a couple years back with no success...

[Joe]

OK from anyone who has gone to court to argue a speeding fine, how can they enforce it with no proof to substantiate their reasoning?

[American Dave]

Joe its there word against yours. I went to court and beat the bastards a year ago because I did my home work. Did up a detailed map of the area and detailed my case. It took almost 12 months to get the case to court and of course the cops who stopped me just south of Bullsbrook. On the day of the court case they looked at my statement which included the map and realised they had no memory of what transpired. They decided to offer me a deal which we accepted. Cost me $900 in lawyers fees but saved me 4 points because the offense was during Double Demerit xmas period.

Bottom Line: They verbally told me the speed the got me doing then offered to show me the radar read out in the cop car which was less than they told me I was doing and this is where it got sticky for them. Cops hate going to traffic court at the best of times and these guys were detectives from Midland branch who had been forced out doing traffic during the DD period. There statements were piss weak, facts varied between the two statements and the police prosecutor knew they were likely to get tripped up if the case went before the judge.

[fourseven]

In situations where they don't get you with a radar, they will usually have "paced" your vehicle. For example, I got pulled over the other night doing 20km/h (according to the Police) over the posted speed limit. When I asked the Police officer to see the speed readout (which he is NOT obliged to show me) he informed me he had sat behind me for a good 2 minutes pacing me at 20km/h over the limit. I didn't get an infringement however, but I was definitely doing at least 15km/h over the limit (2am, no other cars on the road etc)

If they haven't pinged you with a radar or paced your vehicle then they are assuming you were speeding. When it comes to court the word of the Police carries a lot of weight.

[DanWA]

Because their word means more then ours...

I even had my speedo checked and provided a speed test and i still lost my argument.

When they pulled me up, after a lengthy argument they also yellow stickered my car for "incorrect speedometer".

[mys1]

It comes down to reasonable doubt, If they cant prove it beyond reasonable doubt then it wont stick in court.

Ie: Conflicting statements, failing o recall circumstances.

Proove the doubt, walk away with some minor court fees.

[_S9_]

I tried to contest this exact thing in court.

Fined for 104 in a 70 zone, radar "locked" at 90km/h
I was doing 90 tops
Asked to see readout (at 90km/h)
Went to court
Officer said "I was doing 104 before, I just locked it in when he decelerated to 90"

I lost.

FTP.

[mys1]

You didnt create reasonable doubt, all it was was your word against a cops. That will never win you a case.

[Ryan1080]

You didnt create reasonable doubt, all it was was your word against a cops. That will never win you a case.

How could you create doubt in that above scenario then?

[Joe]

I'm not a lawyer, but I deal with legal disputes on a daily basis. Many of these are won on evidence collected.. including letters, correspondence and FILE NOTES.

SO, I reckon a good way to go about it would be when you get a speeding fine via a laser reading, note down the time, the conditions of the road, take a camera photo of the area if you can and the traffic conditions at the time (this requires you to get out of your car after the cops drive off and take all the photos you need).

THEN, take a photo of the notes you've written so there is a proof of the time you wrote it, due to the time stamp on the photos.

The photos then open up a whole range of arguments:
- Traffic conditions did not allow you to speed.
- Amount of traffic increases the error factor.
- Speed reading was taken on a bend, which can affect the reading.

This creates doubt.

Put it this way.. if you get copped for speeding fair and square, its your bad luck. But I believe that when they're sitting there on the fwy stinging people for doing 10km/h over the limit and banging them out one after the other i.e. sitting on a bridge, pinging someone and sending a cop bike after them to issue the fine, this is pure revenue raising.

If they want to be like that, then you should make as much noise as you can to show them that its worth showing a bit more concern towards the bad drivers, the drivers who can't merge, can't change lanes, can't fuckin drive in general, instead of those who are caught doing 10km/h over the limit when they're merely flowing with the traffic or doing something similarly mundane at the time.

[_S9_]

^ +1 creating doubt is sometimes a difficult thing.

Obviously my car choice didn't help (modded '33) - The prosecutor even said "I put it to you, that your vehicle is well and truly capable of reaching that speed in the distance you just specified"

*sigh*

[charger1234567]

ecu log? lol

[Joe]

Obviously my car choice didn't help (modded '33) - The prosecutor even said "I put it to you, that your vehicle is well and truly capable of reaching that speed in the distance you just specified"

*sigh*

As is every single car sold in Australia.

Take a Wheels magazine with you and show them the 0-100 times :D

[fsbk]

so if they can fine you without a speed reading for speeding, what threshold do they select to fine you under? do they just guess and say "you were doing 36km/h? or would it be another offence which doesn't require an official reading?

[fourseven]

so if they can fine you without a speed reading for speeding, what threshold do they select to fine you under? do they just guess and say "you were doing 36km/h? or would it be another offence which doesn't require an official reading?

Educated guess. Imagine after writing tickets for 3 months, pinging people with a laser... you start to get an idea of how fast someone is going by observing.

[Boza]

went to court few weeks back for similar thing, cops tried judging mates speed off there speedo in there unmarked car from a distance, mate got pinged for hoon law & some other crap on the spot..

took to court & mate won, cops had to pay all costs & a couple of grand for our time away from work...:-)

[American Dave]

In my particular case it was a question of where did they get me on the Brand Hwy. Leaving Bullsbrook it goes from 60 to 80 to 100 in the space off about 300 metres. The cops were coming from the other direction. I made note when they stopped me exactly where I was and then took my wife back to the spot and we made notes of distances between signs, roads, etc. In the end my version of the events (statement) was extremely well documented and written while I suggest the officers version of the events was far less detailed and perhaps not consistent in some respects. They only seemed to remember the day when they heard me speaking prior to entering the court.

Remember if you decide to take them to court the process can take some time and getting the officers to make full statements takes even longer and will work in your favour sometimes.

PS: My wife is a Jewish Lawyer as well.

[mys1]

^ +1 creating doubt is sometimes a difficult thing.

Obviously my car choice didn't help (modded '33) - The prosecutor even said "I put it to you, that your vehicle is well and truly capable of reaching that speed in the distance you just specified"

*sigh*

Mate thats the prosecutors job, to prove that its not reasonable doubt.

It doesnt matter the vehicle, there are plenty capable of doing the same, its just another element you have to consider about the whole case!


If your not confident enough to object to there statements or counter them, then Hier a lawyer who is confident!, because youll never win if thats the case!

I dont know your case or all of its conditions so I dont know how id prove resonable doubt but generally you can pick most stories to pices.

Have a mate that drives a Modded 33, who went to court and won for a simmilar offence, He won because he proved the cops had conflicting statements about the events!


Haveing sad all that thought, If youve done the crime then do the time, no one to blame but yourself if you were doing something wrong! Revenue rasing or not!

[fsbk]

Educated guess. Imagine after writing tickets for 3 months, pinging people with a laser... you start to get an idea of how fast someone is going by observing.

yeah i guess they could get pretty good at it, but what i'm getting at, is an "educated guess" good enough to be able to fine someone and does that give too much discretionary power to the officer to be able to misuse it?

[fourseven]

yeah i guess they could get pretty good at it, but what i'm getting at, is an "educated guess" good enough to be able to fine someone and does that give too much discretionary power to the officer to be able to misuse it?

Police are well within their power to hand out speeding tickets estimating how much someone was over the speed limit. Handing out infringements in the absence of a speed measurement device makes for a difficult charge to prove and is the most likely to be dismissed because of a technicality. You would find that this usually prevents the misuse of this power as spending time in court trying to prove a charge is something a Police officer wants to avoid if they can.

Writing speeding tickets is only the highlight of a traffic officer's job, most coppers can't stand it. Chances are that if you end up in court trying to prove a couple of TEG coppers wrong you don't stand much of a chance as they live, breath and shit the Road Traffic Act.

[Brockas]

went to court few weeks back for similar thing, cops tried judging mates speed off there speedo in there unmarked car from a distance, mate got pinged for hoon law & some other crap on the spot..

took to court & mate won, cops had to pay all costs & a couple of grand for our time away from work...:-)

And that's the problem with confiscation. Your mate was punished (loss of car) before being proven guilty.

Absolute joke of a law.

[fourseven]

went to court few weeks back for similar thing, cops tried judging mates speed off there speedo in there unmarked car from a distance, mate got pinged for hoon law & some other crap on the spot..

took to court & mate won, cops had to pay all costs & a couple of grand for our time away from work...:-)

There have been cases where pacing a vehicle has fallen on it's ass in court because of traffic flow, congestion and whether or not the defendant changed lanes or merged in traffic etc. 9 times out of 10 though these cases stand up because Police vehicles are kept in good shape and people being paced are usually given enough rope to hang themselves with.

[Drift_R32]

There have been cases where pacing a vehicle has fallen on it's ass in court because of traffic flow, congestion and whether or not the defendant changed lanes or merged in traffic etc. 9 times out of 10 though these cases stand up because Police vehicles are kept in good shape and people being paced are usually given enough rope to hang themselves with.

sure pacing is a way to estimate a persons speed..
but(in most cases)...cops will spot you, speed after you from either a corner or within traffic, catch up to you and pull you over instantly and then say you were speeding. To catch someone you obviouslly have to accelerate heavily to catch up to them if they are passing you at say 70 and your stationery or moving at 20kmph behind a slowing car.

i was under the impression the law is innocent until PROVEN(without a doubt) guilty, not maybe guitly maybe innocent..

[POTTER]

OK from anyone who has gone to court to argue a speeding fine, how can they enforce it with no proof to substantiate their reasoning?

well seeing i have had this experience a few times

they can issue you a fine if they want to

they are supposed show you the reading
if they do not then they have shown you no evidence of speeding and you can contest in court. (good lawyer will almost always win this type of case)
usually if you bring up the point that you want to see the speed gun and they don't show you then you can usually argue your way out by telling them that you don't believe them

if you have an AV highway patrol vehicle with higher ranking officers then it proves a little more difficult to win but it can be done

i love speed checks
if you get a fine from a speed check take it straight to court
it is the most unreliable form of checking speed and is very difficult to prove what speed you were doing

if all else fails and they still want to issue you a ticket make sure that you mention you feel discriminated against and ask them to include that information in writing for the police prosecutor to bring up

eg, you gave me the fine because im black

[Brute]

if all else fails and they still want to issue you a ticket make sure that you mention you feel discriminated against and ask them to include that information in writing for the police prosecutor to bring up

eg, you gave me the fine because im black

Awesome. I'm gonna try that next time.:lol:

[Joe]

LOL Potter, works for some... it wouldn't quite work for me though :D

[Ryan1080]

LOL Potter, works for some... it wouldn't quite work for me though :D

You can always do a Sam Newman... rock up to court with a black facepaint lol!

[Chris138]

As some have stated, if you've done the crime, you do the time. In this case, it's accepting the loss of points and paying the fine. A few months back when I had my old car ('05 Corolla Ascent), I was speeding down Albany Hwy in Maddington. I got caught doing 91 km/h (they were pacing me but also showed me the detector inside their vehicle). After speaking to the cops when they pulled me over, I straight away admitted I was speeding and apologised because I'm aware of the dangers etc etc sweet-talk bullshit etc.

The officer then told me he would change my speed to 89km/h to reduce the loss of points and reduce the fine. The officer then handed me the Traffic Infringement Notice. This is where things got messy.

The infringement stated i was doing 89km/h in a 60 zone. However, this particular stretch of Albany Hwy is a 70 zone. I politely informed the officer of his mistake on the notice. He refused to accept that it was a mistake and said Albany hwy through the metropolitan/built-up area is a 60 zone all the way through. I told him that I've grown up my whole life in the area and I know for a fact that where they were pacing me was a 70 zone. They further refused to accept my statement and bearing in mind that they could easily change my fine back to 91km/h, I decided arguing at this point in time wasn't the best decision so I accepted the fine and went home.

I knew 100%, without a doubt, that where I got caught was a 70 zone. I wrote a letter to MainRoadsWA.

"To Main Roads WA,
I was recently given an infringement notice concerning speeding in a particular section of Albany Highway in Maddington.

The attached infringement notice clearly states that I committed the offence on Albany Highway near Helm Street in Gosnells and that it was a 60 km/h zone. The officers have made two mistakes here. Firstly, that particular section of Albany Highway is classified as Maddington, not Gosnells and secondly, the 70 km/h zone commences well before Helm St on the left. As I live in Maddington, I have driven along this road for over 15 years (with family and individually) and know for sure that the 70 zone commences well BEFORE the railway crossing* and therefore that would result in the Albany Highway/Helm St turn off as a 70 km/h zone.
* I was travelling south (towards Armadale) from the Kelvin Rd/Albany Highway intersection.

If possible, I would be highly grateful if you could please provide me with some written proof that; when heading south towards Armadale, the 70km/h zone of Albany Highway in Maddington commences well before the railway crossing (the 70 km/h signs are exactly in line with the Tint-A-Car building to be precise) and also state where Albany Highway returns back into a 60 km/h zone coming into Gosnells (just before Gosnells Road West, Maddington).
Many thanks for your assistance."

I received a reply from MainRoadsWA within the week. The letter approved that my statements were correct and was hand signed by Colin De Costa.
I then sent a letter to Infringement and Management Operations.

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to your General Traffic Infringement Notice, H393236 4 , which alleges that I was speeding at 89 km/h in a 60 km/h zone.

The location at which I was speeding was recorded by Officer Brown (No. 10340) as Albany Highway, near Helm St, Gosnells.

The officer recorded this to be a 60 zone, when in fact it is a 70 zone. Further to the Officer’s error, this particular location is in the suburb of Maddington and not Gosnells like Officer Brown recorded.

Attached, I have a signed letter from Colin De Costa of MainRoads WA. The letter clearly states that the particular section of Albany Highway is indeed a 70 km/h zone and it is also in Maddington, not Gosnells.

I sincerely request that you amend the speeding fine accordingly to the appropriate penalty given for 89 km/h in a 70 km/h zone. Should you not be willing to rectify the error, I wish for this matter to be dealt with by a Court.

Please contact me on XXXX XXX XXX at anytime if you require any further information.

Thank you for your time."

2 days later I received a phone call. It was the Officer that handed me my fine. He apologised prefusely, and thanked me for my letters to prevent him from making the same mistake in the future. The fine was rectified.
So from what should have been a $700 fine plus points, it was initially changed to a $300 fine plus points. After my letter to the Police, it was then a $150 and no points.

RE: The vehicle. As some have said, it doesn't matter what car you drive as you can speed in any car. 2005 Corolla 5SP Manual Wagon, 100kw of 4-cyl Fury ftw.

[RICEY]

As some have stated, if you've done the crime, you do the time. In this case, it's accepting the loss of points and paying the fine. A few months back when I had my old car ('05 Corolla Ascent), I was speeding down Albany Hwy in Maddington. I got caught doing 91 km/h (they were pacing me but also showed me the detector inside their vehicle). After speaking to the cops when they pulled me over, I straight away admitted I was speeding and apologised because I'm aware of the dangers etc etc sweet-talk bullshit etc.

The officer then told me he would change my speed to 89km/h to reduce the loss of points and reduce the fine. The officer then handed me the Traffic Infringement Notice. This is where things got messy.

The infringement stated i was doing 89km/h in a 60 zone. However, this particular stretch of Albany Hwy is a 70 zone. I politely informed the officer of his mistake on the notice. He refused to accept that it was a mistake and said Albany hwy through the metropolitan/built-up area is a 60 zone all the way through. I told him that I've grown up my whole life in the area and I know for a fact that where they were pacing me was a 70 zone. They further refused to accept my statement and bearing in mind that they could easily change my fine back to 91km/h, I decided arguing at this point in time wasn't the best decision so I accepted the fine and went home.

I knew 100%, without a doubt, that where I got caught was a 70 zone. I wrote a letter to MainRoadsWA.

"To Main Roads WA,
I was recently given an infringement notice concerning speeding in a particular section of Albany Highway in Maddington.

The attached infringement notice clearly states that I committed the offence on Albany Highway near Helm Street in Gosnells and that it was a 60 km/h zone. The officers have made two mistakes here. Firstly, that particular section of Albany Highway is classified as Maddington, not Gosnells and secondly, the 70 km/h zone commences well before Helm St on the left. As I live in Maddington, I have driven along this road for over 15 years (with family and individually) and know for sure that the 70 zone commences well BEFORE the railway crossing* and therefore that would result in the Albany Highway/Helm St turn off as a 70 km/h zone.
* I was travelling south (towards Armadale) from the Kelvin Rd/Albany Highway intersection.

If possible, I would be highly grateful if you could please provide me with some written proof that; when heading south towards Armadale, the 70km/h zone of Albany Highway in Maddington commences well before the railway crossing (the 70 km/h signs are exactly in line with the Tint-A-Car building to be precise) and also state where Albany Highway returns back into a 60 km/h zone coming into Gosnells (just before Gosnells Road West, Maddington).
Many thanks for your assistance."

I received a reply from MainRoadsWA within the week. The letter approved that my statements were correct and was hand signed by Colin De Costa.
I then sent a letter to Infringement and Management Operations.

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to your General Traffic Infringement Notice, H393236 4 , which alleges that I was speeding at 89 km/h in a 60 km/h zone.

The location at which I was speeding was recorded by Officer Brown (No. 10340) as Albany Highway, near Helm St, Gosnells.

The officer recorded this to be a 60 zone, when in fact it is a 70 zone. Further to the Officer’s error, this particular location is in the suburb of Maddington and not Gosnells like Officer Brown recorded.

Attached, I have a signed letter from Colin De Costa of MainRoads WA. The letter clearly states that the particular section of Albany Highway is indeed a 70 km/h zone and it is also in Maddington, not Gosnells.

I sincerely request that you amend the speeding fine accordingly to the appropriate penalty given for 89 km/h in a 70 km/h zone. Should you not be willing to rectify the error, I wish for this matter to be dealt with by a Court.

Please contact me on XXXX XXX XXX at anytime if you require any further information.

Thank you for your time."

2 days later I received a phone call. It was the Officer that handed me my fine. He apologised prefusely, and thanked me for my letters to prevent him from making the same mistake in the future. The fine was rectified.
So from what should have been a $700 fine plus points, it was initially changed to a $300 fine plus points. After my letter to the Police, it was then a $150 and no points.

RE: The vehicle. As some have said, it doesn't matter what car you drive as you can speed in any car. 2005 Corolla 5SP Manual Wagon, 100kw of 4-cyl Fury ftw.

Awesome.

[Blueraven]

Astonishing, They tried to pull tthat same crap on me on albany hwy, telling me i was doing 80+ in a 60, at which point i told them "sorry, but this is a 70 section leading into an 80kph section, so if i was speeding then it would have been barely over 80, can i see the reading?"

asks for my license(tells me to stay in the car and does not offer to show me the alleged reading), comes back and say's "Look I am going to let you off just this once, but the fact remains you were doing over 80 in a 60 and you should slow it down"

Ok so i got let off, hooray(er..for not doing anything?). But even when being let off the douche still wanted to insist it was a 60?

[mr_mike]

where is albany hwy 80kph? or are u talkin about past Armadale?

[Blueraven]

whoops...albany hwy /orrong rd same same.

[iluv2moan]

would suck to get pinged for a cop estimating u were doing 21 ks over when you were doing 19....

[Macca]

would suck to get pinged for a cop estimating u were doing 21 ks over when you were doing 19....

i do believe they were trying to ping him for 29/31 over.......

[Jiri Styles]

i went to court with a 700 dolla and 5 demerit point fine they failed, i won because they couldent prive shite te he teh tehe LD

[Macca]

i went to court with a 700 dolla and 5 demerit point fine they failed, i won because they couldent prive shite te he teh tehe LD

or they couldn't understand what you wrote in your defence, and just gave up thinking you had enough punishment

[fourseven]

^^ LOL!

[shifted]

So could I argue mine because he didn't show me a reading??

[fourseven]

No. They aren't obliged to show you a reading. You can argue it if you weren't actually speeding though.

:)

[Chris138]

i do believe they were trying to ping him for 29/31 over.......

Yeah, they were trying to get me for 29/31 over the limit when it was really 19/21 over the limit.

[Sciflyer]

well seeing i have had this experience a few times

they can issue you a fine if they want to

they are supposed show you the reading
if they do not then they have shown you no evidence of speeding and you can contest in court. (good lawyer will almost always win this type of case)
usually if you bring up the point that you want to see the speed gun and they don't show you then you can usually argue your way out by telling them that you don't believe them


My understanding (correct me if im wrong) is that you are entitled to see the evidence on which you are being convicted in order to defend yourself, remember recieving a ticket is not 'evidence' nor proof of guilt!

[American Dave]

cops are required to provide a statement prior to your court date