Biker wins $60,000 battle to beat speed charge in sydney.

[Kermit]

Louise Hall
October 26, 2011 - 3:49PM



A motorbike enthusiast has spent more than $60,000 to prove he was not driving at 90km/h over the speed limit in the Royal National Park.

John Busuttil, 29, was charged with riding his Suzuki 1000cc motorbike at 149km/h in a 60km/h zone on Lady Wakehurst Drive in May last year.

He faced a fine of $1744 and a six-month suspension of his driver's licence.

In the Sydney District Court today, Judge Greg Woods quashed the conviction and returned Mr Busuttil's licence, finding the highway patrol officer's use of a radar gun was "radically wrong".

Judge Woods also awarded Mr Busuttil costs, to be determined next month.

The court heard Senior Constable Matthew Chaplin detected Mr Busuttil's bike travelling at 149km/h using a LIDAR gun.

However, the radar inside the patrol car was also operating, and it put the bike at a speed of 76km/h. The radar reading was recorded by an in-car video, which Mr Busuttil subpoenaed from police.

Mr Busuttil, who was represented by his barrister father Joe Busuttil, also engaged a surveyor and an internationally accredited radar expert, who gave evidence that it would have been impossible for the LIDAR gun to detect such a high speed at that point of the road.

The court heard that a LIDAR gun must be able to track a target in a straight line for three seconds in order to produce an accurate reading.

In June this year, Senior Constable Chaplin told Sutherland Local Court that he measured the stretch of road "hundreds of times" and it was 325 metres.

However, a report by a surveyor, tendered to the court, showed the line of sight from where Senior Constable Chaplin was standing was only 237 metres and the straight stretch of road was just 180 metres.

Senior Constable Chaplin had said the bike was still 150 metres away from where he was standing when the three-seconds lock was recorded.

Roy Zegers, who told the court he had 30 years' experience in radar equipment, said that distance would not be long enough for the LIDAR gun to get a reading if the bike was travelling at 149km/h.

In quashing the conviction, Judge Woods said: "The miscalculation by over 100 metres of the distance is extraordinary and fundamental."

He said the police officer would not have acted with malice but, in this case, it was correct to order Mr Busuttil's legal costs.

Outside the court, Mr Busuttil said he had spent 18 months and thousands of dollars to prove he was not speeding.

"It's cost a lot but it's worth it in the end," he said.

His father said police charged 22 drivers for speeding on Lady Wakehurst Drive on May 8, 2010, and 10 of them had their licences disqualified.

"I suspect there's something more going on here than just an error," he said.

He encouraged other drivers to challenge speeding fines if they believed they were not speeding.

"If you don't believe you were speeding, take them on."

Mr Busuttil's costs included about $40,000 in litigation costs, which were incurred by his father spending eight days and eight half-days in court at $3500 a day.

The rest of the costs were made up of the fees of solicitors, three expert witnesses and other expenses such as filing fees and court costs.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/was-it-149kmh ... 1mjce.html

[born green]

Good on him, well done is all i got to say.
Other than, FUCK THE FILTH
Thats it!!! mmmm maybe untill next time

[h.b.bear]

it good to see any motorist able to prove them wrong when they know they are innocent but how many of us have that amount of money to fight a speeding fine

[laidback]

Wonder how many others have been done in that spot that now may be able to have their conviction overturned.

Maybe some from here too...

[Daisy]

How many of us have lawyers for fathers?

[born green]

Hear, hear, cost me $3,500 for a day, a couple of years ago, to get me off a ummm road rage charge!!!

[webcase]

Two things with this.
1) Surely the cop could tell the difference between 76kpm and 150 !!!FFS
2)The bloke didn't spend $60000.Most of that was dads working $$ rate if he was working for someone else so actual out of pocket was bugger all from that total.
Good on him for taking it on though.

[born green]

Good point!

[mick_dundee]

Yeah, goes to show yet again it's not what you know but WHO you know, in this case, well my old man's a barrister, makes the challenging of something like this a shitload easier than for the regular punter.

[Nelso]

Good on him. Thanks to his ridiculously overpriced father giving up a bit of his time they have prevented that cop from hiding in that spot from now on.

[BarraSpalding]

If my dad was a lawyer i'd argue the point in court too...

[born green]

Good on him tho, now it sows the seed of doubt, for the cops to try that shit again.
and the accuracy of the camera's, radar guns, ect.
And prob the cops honesty, as he had two reading's.

[born green]

They just had this story on ACA tonight

[DaveGPz]

Calling Aardvark... "the police officer was in the right because [insert reason here]..."

Sorry, just stirring

[Naked Twin]

I would not be so confident about getting off in the same circumstances. Lidar does not require 3 seconds to take a reading, despite of what that expert says. The recommendation is to track a vehicle for 3 seconds, not that it has to be locked on for 3 seconds.

More about having friends or family in the right places