The High Court has ruled that a speed camera photograph must be shown to have been given to an accused person before trial, answering a legal question referred by the District Court in a speeding prosecution involving Michael Gilvarry.
President of the High Court Kearns delivered the judgment on 11 July 2014 in a case stated under section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961. The referral concerned the interpretation of section 81 of the Road Traffic Act 2010. It was not a final determination of the speeding charge.
The District Court evidence was that a Go Safe operator detected the vehicle travelling at 93 kilometres per hour in an 80 kilometre zone on the R314 at Cullens, Ballina, on 30 October 2011. An inspector said an image was sent with each summons to the relevant District Office, but could not say whether it was served with the summons in every case. The High Court answered “No” when asked whether there was evidence the photograph had been served on Gilvarry before trial.
Kearns said usual practice or evidence that the image was sent to the District Office was insufficient to establish service. The prosecution needed evidence it had actually been given to the accused before trial. The judgment said this shortfall could be addressed by a service declaration recording that the summons and permanent visual record attached had been served.
The court also considered whether the prosecution had to produce the Go Safe contract with the Minister for Justice. An inspector had testified that he had seen an extant contract and identified its parties, but had not brought a copy to court. The High Court said it was sufficient for a witness familiar with the relevant parts to give evidence that a contract contemplated by the legislation had been made, who the parties were, and that it remained in force. The court did not require every term to be formally proved in this case, while noting that a defendant could raise evidence calling a relevant aspect of the contract into question.
The third question asked whether image enhancement after downloading tainted the photograph. The court said there was no evidence that an alteration had occurred in this case and answered that the question did not arise. It noted that an accused could give evidence that an image had in fact been altered, which the court would consider alongside any prosecution response.
The High Court’s answers addressed the legal questions referred; the judgment does not state the later disposition of the underlying speeding charge.