|Sanderson v Warren  QDC 131
Devereaux SC DCJ
|ORDER:||1. The Magistrate’s decision is confirmed2. No order as to costs|
|CATCHWORDS:||MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW –QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – where appellant convicted of speeding – where LIDAR device used to track speed – where appellant was recorded at a speed of 62 to 61 kph in a 40 kph zone – where appellant appeals under section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – whether various grounds of appeal made outCriminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AC(2), s 590ADJustices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222, s 223, s 225Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 112, s 124
Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld), s 20
…Exhibit 1 was a certificate that one A.N. Ellacott attended and satisfactorily completed a “Police Speed Detection Operator‘s Course” in September 2000 and is authorised to use a particular device. Skywalker gave evidence that he was A.N. Ellacott but he changed his name “by the registrar’s office, legally, yeah, in the year 2005, I think it was”. His name is now Zen Skywalker. Leaving aside the wisdom of the name change, it was open to the learned magistrate to accept the witness’s oral evidence of it. That done, there was, and is now, no basis for labelling the certificate a false document.
David Cormack – Brisbane Barrister