COURT RULES SPEEDING SAVED LIFE

COURT RULES SPEEDING SAVED LIFE

Victorian motorcyclist and former traffic cop, Peter Culpan has
successfully defended a speed camera violation on the basis that he
exceeded the speed limit in order to avoid injury to himself and
another road user.

The outcome of the case is seen as a crucial victory for road users in
a state that is now heavily reliant on the revenue raised from
contentious speed monitoring devices. More significantly, it paves the
way for other motorists to use the same defence in both speed and red
light camera cases.

The outcome is a slap in the face for the Bracks Government's
insistence that speeding -- no matter the circumstances -- is
indefensible. With record numbers of speeding notices now being handed
out in the State, which has a tolerance of just 3km/h over the posted
limit, many Victorians will welcome Murphy's decision.

The verdict -- theoretically at least -- means that other motorists
who believe that they are in imminent danger may use judicious speed
to avoid a collision. In other words, exceeding the speed limit can be
justified if it can be successfully argued that the rider/driver did
it to avoid injury or loss.

The case was heard in the Mansfield Magistrates Court, north-east of
Melbourne on Wednesday, November 5. Magistrate John Murphy heard that
in November last year Culpan, a Melbourne safety consultant, was
riding his BMW motorcycle near Mansfield when a ute pulled out from a
side street, almost colliding with him. Culpan maintained the he was
forced to accelerate beyond the posted limit to prevent injury to
himself and the driver of the ute.

Rather than accept the fine of $125 and loss of one licence point on
the charge of doing 65km/h in a 60km/h zone, Culpan was determined to
have his day in court and fight what he saw as a blatant injustice.

"I feel that in this case I have to put my side to a court," Culpan
told CarPoint in an interview days prior to the case (see Court case
challenges Speed Kills). "I was within a whisker of getting T-boned
and injured and it was the only way I could avoid a collision," said
Culpan, whose previouse appeal to the State's Civil Compliance Office
had been denied.

Barrister John Lavery argued that Culpan deserved to be excused from
the charge using the defence of necessity which, in effect, states
that illegal actions were needed at a specific time and place to
prevent injury or loss.

Magistrate Murphy agreed, dismissing the charge and awarding all costs
to the defendant. Mr Murphy was also critical of the prosecution's
position, commenting that the incident may well have resulted in an
"inquest" if it hadn't been for Culpan's actions.

The defence of necessity has never been tested against a speed camera
before and is similar to the argument of self defence.

"The interesting aspect of the necessity defence is that the onus is
on the prosecution to rebut it," explained Lavery. "In this case, the
only evidence they could present was the speed camera photo, which
only showed the rear of Peter's bike after the near-collision. I
believe there is no reason why this defence cannot be used in other
camera offences.

Lavery sites a couple of possible scenarios: "If a motorist was
photographed by a red light camera, they could argue that they were
forced to drive through the intersection to avoid a car behind them
running into the rear of their car. Or you could argue that you had to
speed up to avoid an aggressive motorist tailgating you on the
freeway. In both of these cases a plausible necessity defence could be
used and the authorities would have to present evidence to rebut it.

"Another interesting aspect is that the government continues to
maintain that its speed cameras are set up in accident 'black spots',
which are inherently locations where emergencies take place. The
implication is that anywhere there is a speed camera, the location is
more likely to cause people to increase their speed to avoid
collisions or emergencies."

In summing up, Magistrate Murphy told the court that he was "appalled"
that the case had come before him and condemned the widespread use of
speed cameras specifically in situations where a police officer would
exercise discretion.

"This is a win for what is right and honest," said an elated Culpan.
"I'm delighted that honesty and commonsense prevailed."

Senior Constable Sam Ireland, prosecuting, indicated that a recording
of the proceedings and Mr Murphy's comments would be passed to the
Victorian Police Assistant Commissioner.

 

Did someone just fall through a time hole, or is that a terribly slow post
from the 4ax.com server?

j

 

WELCOME TO LAST WEEK!! HAH! GOT YOU AGAIN!!

*snigger*

 

welcome to last week biggus
third time this story has been posted
plus twice in aus.cars

 

Do you have a link to this case?

Boxer

 

http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au/news/blankstory.asp?ID=5511