I challenged a radar fine in Qld.
Basic scenario - me driving a 2.5L 1989 mitsu magna fwd sedan. I was stuck in the left hand lane, a 4wd in front of me slowed to about 20 klicks to trickle around a corner. I went to changed lanes - had to pause as a renault megane same color as my car came flying through, then changed and accelerated. Got done for 72 in a 60.
The LIDAR includes a distance to detected vehicle record.
I turned up at court, the officer stated that he tagged me as I was changing lanes.
Using maps, satellite images and photos of the scene, I pointed out that i change lanes at a distance of approx 330m (give or take 5m) from the LIDAR. The vehicle that he detected was at a distance of 220M from the LIDAR.
Pretty open and shut really.
Also pointed out that he listed in his report that my vehicle colour was Red. It had been repaitned 6 months before had in Metallic silver. I questioned the opfficer about how he identified the vehile he was targetting. he said I targetted the number plate area. noted the plate and color and pulled you over. When asked what color was the vehicle, he said Red. I pointed out that my vehicle was silver.
Supposedly, Identification of the vehicle is the PRIMARY concern in tehse circumstances. I had my defence prepared by a police prosecutor mate. Should have been open and shut. By law, the magistrate cannot rule agaisnt me if there is even the slighest doubt about the situation.
Except Magistrates are wankers. He ruled against me. Would not allow documentation from substantiating sources in court, ruled that google satellite images and scales are not accurate, and insisted I do my testimony from memory. Of course, the officer was allowed his notes and reports. I was not allowed to present the documents I presented to the traffic superintendent when arranging the challenge as "they are not part of this proceeding". I argued with him about that saying that this is indeed the proceedings, as they relate to the alleged offence. He stated that if they were not presented to the clerk of the courts, they were presented to the Dept of Transport, and therefore relate to the fine, not the offence. I slipped up and said you have got to be joking, the Offence is the reason for the existence of the fine, not the other way round, and got shitty and suggested that if I don't take this matter seriously he would take steps to remind me of the seriousness of the offence.
Classic quote "I'm satisfied with the officers statements, and have no doubt that he identified the correct vehicle".
the law is an ass. No let me rephrase that - The law is an ass for letting unqualified, untrained, ex lawyer wannabes sit in the Magistrates seat. Theres a reason they are called magistrates and not Judges.