8/13/2019 HUGE Win in Court Over SPEEDING Infringement

1/2

Home About Us FAQs Posts Contact us

GoSearch...

Membership Testimonials Philanthropy Join now

HUGE Win in court over SPEEDING Infringement

As posted earlier below as a teaser by Mark Darwin, we can confirm that YES we had aTruthology member WIN in the magistrates court here in Queensland yesterday when arguingthe legitimacy of a traffic camera speeding fine.This victory could potentially have wide ranging effects as a precedent. Why? Because it showswhat we have suspected: it is highly unlikely that the Queensland Police are unable to issue anytraffic camera infringement notices in the manner they have been doing so for as long as canwork out ...... perhaps since inception! That said, sadly, it will probably be short lived as Imcertain that they will move VERY quickly to shut this down without doubt!

But nevertheless, it is a significant win, and perhaps the beginning of the winds of change inbringing reform to our system.

The man challenging the infringement issued to him, and doing the arguing, was no other than WA Lawyer Warren Black, a fellow Truthteacher and Truthology member, and we can assure you that he was on fire yesterday in the court !Let me tell you, it takes big balls to walk into THEIR court and challenge them head on, especially when it has to do with their lawful andlegal ability (under their interpretation) as to whether or not they have the right to do so, and especially as he has so much to lose being alawyer presently licensed under their system. He performed admirably to say the least, I was there, and enjoyed every minute of it.

The alleged infringement was issued by the QLD Police, and was for the sum of $150 and a loss of 3 points, for allegedly exceeding the postedspeed limit by only 14kms per hour.

It was quite amusing that in the early stages of the trial, a young police prosecutor spoke directly to Warren. He tried belittling the attempt asa complete waste of time and resources for all concerned, that Warren should just pay the fine and be done with it, and had little chance ofsuccess, and the result for the effort did not warrant Warrens outcome! Needless to say, Warren let that slide and continued on with thematter at hand.Now in this instance, Warren was arguing a number of points. The main issue that Warren was arguing was that the infringement was issuedunder the personal name of the officer concerned, a local Police Sergeant, supposedly on behalf of the Queensland Police force. However, asWarren pointed out, there is currently NO AUTHORITY or LEGISLATION in Queensland of any sort in place the grants this person, the right todo so, and even if it did, it must be clear that the police officer is doing the prosecution on behalf of the relevant authority, eg. QueenslandPolice, the Crown or State.An example or analogy of this argument is, as the magistrate pointed out to the police during the trial, what would stop me as themagistrate, Mr Bloggs, from going to a Justice of the Peace and stating that i saw you doing 75km per hour in and 60km zone, and thenissuing a summons against you? There has to be some authority or head of power to do this!

The Police tried to duck and dive, and circumvent this in every way possible, bringing up other issues, but to the Magistrates credit, heremained firm and told the Police to answer Warrens question and provide the relevant proof.Warren also raised some other points.He raised the point that the Queensland Police, SPUR, the Crown, the Queensland Government, are separate entities, yet somehow allinvolved in the issued infringement. He raised the point that for an entity or Government to raise an infringement, it had to be written in

TweetShareShare Recommend Send 224 people recommend this. Be the first of your friends.

http://www.truthology.org.au/http://www.truthology.org.au/http://www.truthology.org.au/http://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/about-ushttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/faqshttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/posthttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/contactshttps://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthology.org.au%2Findex.php%2Fposts%2F333-huge-win-in-court-over-speeding-infringement&text=HUGE%20Win%20in%20court%20over%20SPEEDING%20Infringement&tw_p=tweetbutton&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthology.org.au%2Findex.php%2Fposts%2F333-huge-win-in-court-over-speeding-infringementhttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/join-now/levelshttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/philanthropyhttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/testimonialshttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/membershiphttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/contactshttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/posthttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/faqshttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/about-ushttp://www.truthology.org.au/http://www.truthology.org.au/

8/13/2019 HUGE Win in Court Over SPEEDING Infringement

2/2

legislation as under any kind of criminal law, an offence had to be clearly specified, and the chain of legislative authority as to who ultimatelyprosecuted had to be clear. He wanted clarified as to who was who, and what role they all played in this infringement, and where they werementioned in legislation or regulations. Again, to the Magistrates credit, he agreed with Warren, however this argument was not explored indepth, nor was it ruled upon.He also raised the point that if the matter was criminal and not civil, the issue was, who was harmed and suffered loss as a result of thealleged infringement and who was the accuser in the matter? (as previously outlined in our website templates) If the Police Sergeant issuedthe charge, was he personally harmed, and if not, who was harmed, and which entity did he represent! Again the Magistrate agreed, andinsisted the Police show their authority.What was amusing was there were 5 (FIVE) Police officers in the court yesterday, including the head of Brisbane's Traffic Camera Branch (sowe believe). The trial went from 9.30am till 3pm with more than 6 adjournments, (requested by the police) so that they could find ANYlegislation or Authority (which they couldn't) to hang their hat on and make their case. They literally tried EVERYTHING to find it.. let me

assure you it was EMBARRASSING to watch them squirm for SO long and the prosecutor was forever sayingcan we just adjourn for 5minutes so i can ring my bossSERIOUSLY !!!The lengths they went to were extraordinary, and they even tried to withdraw the infringement, and issue a 'bench warrant' on the spot to getaround it. As correctly pointed out by the Magistrate, this action would be an abuse of process and he instantly rejected it!What was fantastic about this case was the Magistrate was very fair and unbiased and was firm on both Warren and the Police aboutprocedural fairness, and following the law. He seemed quite amused at the police incompetence in trying to justify their position, and grantedthem more than enough time and adjournments to try and get a result. He even appeared to give them a chance to withdraw the charge,which they refused to do, and at one stage, he suggested to Warren with some humour that he may wish to plead guilty to bring this veil oftears to an end!Ultimately the Police dodged a bullet, as the matter was won on another issue. The Police tried to adduce camera evidence, however, Warrenchallenged it on the basis that the Police had not provided him with witness statements from the camera operator. The Magistrate agreed, andexcluded the evidence, so the Police had no evidence to base a charge. The Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the charges, and then grant allcosts to Warren for his troubles.

Warren literally had them on the back foot for the entire trial, and then slowly on the ropes, then on their knees, and finally WHAMO .....KO'd!!!!!! a truly fantastic result.It is important to note, that in Western Australia, they DO have this power outlined in their legislation. You can bet after yesterdays court win,that Queensland will pass similar legislation for future use so if you are challenging speeding fines now and want to use this argument andbe QUICK about it!.... you will have to check for yourselves in all other states.What also happened was Warren and I had a number of talks with the Police there, and as time went on , we became more and more friendly.Warren made it clear to the Police that he was totally supportive of road safety, however, he did not agree with a system that undermined therights of citizens, and swung the balance too favour in favour of the Police. What was interesting was a few of the Police agreed with us, andwere very open to where we were coming from!So all up, an encouraging outcome, and a hearty CONGRATULATIONS on a great job to Warren Black for taking a stand and allowing us to allshare in the results!

If you would like to contact Warren Black directly, to enquire about his legal service or his Public Speaking engagements and seminars, hisfirms details are listed on our site under the SERVICES heading, and then click on the Partner Links.

Welcome to Truthology FAQs About Us News Posts 2012 Truthology. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/postshttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/latest-newshttp://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/about-us-2http://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/faq-2http://www.truthology.org.au/