QLD Speeding motorists may get free ride in wake of barrister’s legal challenge

[csv8]

"QUEENSLAND motorists hit with speeding tickets from fixed cameras in coming weeks may be able to exploit an apparent legal loophole.

Tony Morris, QC, the top barrister who has launched the challenge, said many car owners who are fined when they are not behind the wheel may be eligible to “piggy back” on his case.

But only those who have received a ticket but not yet paid it, or who have not been to a court to fight it, can expect to ride on his coat tails.

Registered car owners who elect to go to court can submit to the Magistrate that they were not driving and do not wish to dob in the driver, as it is not mandatory.

Mr Morris said any similar cases to his, that go through the state’s magistrate’s courts, would almost certainly be “stayed” until after his constitutional challenge is decided.

If Mr Morris wins in the Court of Appeal, or the High Court, those motorists would also probably beat their speeding tickets.

Mr Morris’s pale blue Volvo SUV was snapped speeding at 57km/h in a 50km/h zone by a camera in St Lucia early on May 12 last year.

Rather than naming the driver and paying the $146 fine, Mr Morris invoked spousal privilege and argued it was unconstitutional for a Queensland Court to fine him when there was evidence showing he was not driving the car.

Mr Morris said if he wins the landmark case the State Government will be forced to swiftly close the loophole. But if he loses he will have to pay a hefty legal bill and other motorists in his situation will also be out of pocket for their fines.

“I will be arguing the case (myself), but not as a barrister just as a ‘litigant in person’,” Mr Morris said.

No date has been set for the Court of Appeal hearing but it is considered a priority and will be heard within weeks.'"
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1227297730844

[b0son]

I presume spousal privilege would only apply in criminal matters... ?

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

The guy is not too bright for a Barrister or the story is just BS made up by the media, it is written in the Road Transport Act, in NSW, pretty sure QLD would have something similar.

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 2013 - SECT 177

Requirement for responsible person to disclose driver identity
177 Requirement for responsible person to disclose driver identity

(1) If the driver of a motor vehicle is alleged to have committed an offence against the road transport legislation:
(a) the responsible person for the vehicle, or the person having the custody of the vehicle, must, when required to do so by an authorised officer, immediately give information (which must, if so required, be given in the form of a written statement signed by the responsible person) as to the name and home address of the driver, and
(b) any other person must, if required to do so by an authorised officer, give any information that it is in the person’s power to give and that may lead to the identification of the driver.

I am pretty certain that Spousal Privilege is an old Common Law thing that no longer exists as it has been overturned by the High court some time ago.

[buggerlugs]

Must ask my missus if I am eligible for "Spousal Privilege"............. I'll post the photo of the black eye............

[noddy383]

As I recall it, Spousal Privilege means that a person cannot be compelled to testify for/against their spouse in court.
He's pushing the boundaries, but that's what its all about.

In Vic, you can state that you don't know who was driving, but you're then required to state what you've done to find out who was driving. Then they can slug you with a fine (but no demerit points) anyway. Taxi drivers used to use it all the time to avoid losing their licence, but I think the powers that be are clamping down on it.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by noddy383

As I recall it, Spousal Privilege means that a person cannot be compelled to testify for/against their spouse in court.
He's pushing the boundaries, but that's what its all about.

Yes that is what it means but it no loner exists, it's an old common law thing.

QUOTE:
In Australian law, both the common law privilege of confidentiality between married people and the privilege of spouses not to testify against each other were assumed to have continued with the "reception" of English law

On 30 November 2011, the High Court of Australia decided that neither privilege existed in common law.

[Cav]

Don't they photograph the car and driver?

Can the court simply subpoena the wife and ask he if it is she who was driving?

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by Cav

Don't they photograph the car and driver?

Can the court simply subpoena the wife and ask he if it is she who was driving?

They could I guess, but couldn't she then refuse to answer for fear of incriminating herself?

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Cav

Can the court simply subpoena the wife and ask he if it is she who was driving?

They don't have to and it's not the Courts job to investigate the offence, the Court simply evaluates the evidence presented by the prosecution.

It is up to the prosecution to show who was driving, and they do this by making the owner of the vehicle responsible, someone has to be responsible, or it would be too easy to just say I don't know who was driving and then no one gets prosecuted.

That might sound good for traffic matters, but what about hit and run drivers??

[MITCHAY]

So he has evidence that proves he was not driving the car but is invoking spousal privilege so he does not have to name them.

Doesn't that imply his spouse was driving the car without him dobbing them in

[GS608]

Why are all traffic matter assumed guilty till proven innocent?

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by GS608

Why are all traffic matter assumed guilty till proven innocent?

You mean 'matters' and 'until' But anyway they aren't.

An offence is alleged and it's then up to the driver to either:
1. admit guilt or
2. defend the allegation

How do you propose it work?

[Trump]

Originally Posted by xxx000

You mean 'matters' and 'until' But anyway they aren't.

An offence is alleged and it's then up to the driver to either:
1. admit guilt or
2. defend the allegation

How do you propose it work?

1. Everyone that receives a traffic infringment "notice" needs to elect to have it dealt with in the Magistrates Court.

2. Enjoy the fireworks.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

1. Everyone that receives a traffic infringment "notice" needs to elect to have it dealt with in the Magistrates Court.

2. Enjoy the fireworks.

Sounds just like the 'only buy your fuel from BP for one day' email that came around years ago

Just as implausible and revolutionary.............read NOT

[Trump]

Originally Posted by xxx000

Sounds just like the 'only buy your fuel from BP for one day' email that came around years ago

Just as implausible and revolutionary.............read NOT

Unllike the "BP email" you speak of, everyone using the right to have the matter dealt with in court can actually accomplish something. The system would be completely overwhelmed and would collapse under the weight of its own making.

Also, unlike the "I'm a good little citizen pleb, I'll take in the bottom because I know my government is doing what is best" attitude, actions such as the above can make a difference.

[Iggle Piggle]

Amazing how fast loopholes that get you out of paying a fine can be closed, yet issues in other legislation that does not generate income can take years to be addressed.

Back in the early 90s here in SA you had 60 days to pay a TIN (Traffic Infringement Notice), which for an offence detected by camera would be issued between one and two weeks after the offence.

Some that received a camera fine realised they could wait til the end of that 60 days then submit a stat dec declaring they were not driving their vehicle that day and that it was one of 2 other people: "Pretty sure it was person A, but there is a chance it was person B".

It would take them a few weeks to process the reply and re-issue the fine to person A. Person A would then wait til the end of the 60 days they had to pay and would then submit a stat dec that they were not driving the vehicle...therefore it must have been person B.

By the time they processed person A's reply they could not re-issue the TIN to person B as it was now more than 6 months since the offence was committed (statute of limitations for a speeding offence back then in SA was only 6 months).

As soon as a few clued up people ran this several times the loophole was closed pretty much overnight.

[Itsme]

Just another waste of taxpayers money for a legal loophole fight, the barrister is just grandstanding.

[EDManual]

Problem with everyone taking everything to court is that this will make the system change where there will ve a different quick cheap court where you go and you have no chance.

[Road Games]

Did you know that according to law you cannot drive at night unless someone is walking in front of your vehicle with a kerosene filled lantern?

True story... Its still in the legislature , police could legally fine everybody for driving at night if they wanted too :P

Sorry carry on...