ROBYN IRONSIDE
THE COURIER-MAIL
SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
ZAP AND SNAP: Far north Queensland police officer Senior Constable Greg Rose demonstrates
the TruCam speed camera on the Kuranda Range. Source: News LimitedTENS of thousands of speeding fines issued by the latest police enforcement device have been placed under a cloud by two court rulings calling into question their legality.
TruCams allow police officers to take video of vehicles at the same time as clocking their speed in areas not suitable for mobile speed camera vans to operate.
Since being rolled out statewide in mid-2012, the devices have caught an average of 13.83 vehicles an hour - more than three times that of mobile speed vans (4.03), and almost twice as many as covert speed cameras (7.89).
Sunshine Coast-based speed camera consultant Scott Cooper said the images issued by police from the TruCams did not comply with their own legislation because they were not imprinted with any data.
Twice now he has tested this in court, and on both occasions the magistrate found in favour of the motorist.
The Queensland Police Service has now requested an appeal of the decision in the Brisbane District Court.
In the first case, Bob Ebert was snapped allegedly doing 71km/h in a 60km/h zone on Mt Mee Rd at Ocean View last December. Mr Ebert said when the infringement notice arrived, it looked different to previous fines he and his wife had received, and he decided to seek legal advice.
"When you receive the photo there is no block in the corner with information like the date and time, the site number and the speed," he said.
"The only information is the red and white circle over the registration number. There's also a close up of your rego plate but that could be taken anywhere."
He appeared in Pine Rivers Magistrates Court on August 20 and was found not guilty of the speeding offence, which carried a $145 fine.
Another motorist who challenged his TruCam fine but did not want to be identified was also cleared of doing 124km/h in a 100km/h zone on the Gateway Motorway after the magistrate found the details of the offence were added to the photograph at a later time.
"For the Prosecution to rely on the contents of the data block to prove the speed of the vehicle then the data block must be made by the photographic detection device," said the ruling by Magistrate Sheryl Cornack.
"Clearly the photographic detection device did not make any writing on that image as it is not shown in the notice. Clearly the writing has been added at a later time."
Mr Cooper said he was being inundated with queries from motorists about the TruCam fines which he believed were unenforceable.
"Not only did we win these cases, we annihilated them," Mr Cooper said.
"Here is a magistrate pointing out all the deficiencies - enhanced photographs and a photographic device that cannot and does not imprint the correct information."
Police Commissioner Ian Stewart said he had asked for a report on "all the circumstances" surrounding the TruCam devices.
"It is my understanding the legislation is sound but it's going to be tested," Mr Stewart said.
"We now have two matters that've been knocked back by magistrates so we should be looking at appealing this latest ruling so we can get an indication of the legislation that sits behind the use of our TruCam technology."
Police Minister Jack Dempsey said he had full confidence in how the police service administered the TruCam devices, but if legislative "improvements" were needed that would happen.
"The matter is currently being appealed and we'll wait obviously for the appeal period and I know that the judicial system will sort that out," Mr Dempsey said.
"If there are ways that we can improve, we will do that. We're certainly not fearful of what will come forth."
