Was it 149km/h or 76km/h? Biker's barrister father wins $60,000 battle to beat speed

csv8 · 26-10-2011, 06:55 PM

Was it 149km/h or 76km/h? Biker's barrister father wins $60,000 battle to beat speed charge
Louise Hall
October 26, 2011 - 2:49PM

Biker's speeding conviction quashed
A highway patrol officer's radar gun was found to be 'radically wrong' by a judge who quashed the speeding conviction of John Busuttil.
Video feedbackVideo settings
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.

The view from the police camera ... the road, the reading and the ticket that led to $60,000-worth of legal action to see speeding charge thrown out.
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.

John Busuttil, photographed with his barrister father Joe, has spent about $60,000 to get off a speeding fine. Photo: Edwina Pickles
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.

My opinion..the average person cann't afford to challenge speeding tickets and the Police know it. But if you can afford the legal costs ,challenge the ticket..

flappist · 26-10-2011, 07:07 PM

Oh and it is in a court of record.

This is going to hurt..........

Stefan · 26-10-2011, 07:12 PM

$60K in legals, here is the problem the, system works against average Joe.... even if the Government is forced to pay legal fees it is not forced to pay actual costs just a cost calculated at a reasonable rate, ie. much less than what a decent lawyer would charge.

SteveJH · 26-10-2011, 07:23 PM

Yeah, it helps when you probably arent paying the Barrister....

ToCo · 26-10-2011, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveJH

Yeah, it helps when you probably arent paying the Barrister....

Coffee makers aren't that expensive surely?....

Falc'man · 26-10-2011, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

$60K in legals, here is the problem the, system works against average Joe....

Agreed.

I think someone here once called it an idiot tax. Couldn't get further from the truth.

Green X · 26-10-2011, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

$60K in legals, here is the problem the, system works against average Joe.... even if the Government is forced to pay legal fees it is not forced to pay actual costs just a cost calculated at a reasonable rate, ie. much less than what a decent lawyer would charge.

That's right !!!

I was involved in some legal action from a Incident that took place at work.
I had a good family freind agree to look after the legal work for me in the end all charges against me were withdrawn befor it ever got to court, but if i didn't have this freind looking after me i would have been up for over $20,000 of legal cost's without it even seeing a court room.

Some system we have isn't it!!

cheap · 26-10-2011, 10:29 PM

The government's pocket$ are very very deep...

Round one may go to Mr Busuttil, but I suspect this ain't over by a long shot.

Keepleft · 26-10-2011, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheap

The government's pocket$ are very very deep...

Round one may go to Mr Busuttil, but I suspect this ain't over by a long shot.

It had better be.

**Dave R** · 26-10-2011, 07:57 PM

Good on him..... but...

Let's be honest, he was in the national park on a motorbike... I'd speculate that he isn't as innocent as he claims, even in the video he admitted to passing someone (RNP is one lane each way). The police car was obviously sitting somewhere (I've seen them sit around the exact place he was pulled over) so he's used the LIDAR, recorded a ridiculous speed, pulled out and the car's onboard radar has recorded 76km/h after he has slowed right down - the officer said in the video "you backed off" and the biker didn't challenge that, he tried justifying it by saying he needed to pass someone. To me it seems like he got off on a technicality, being the distance of the road that he was recorded on. He certainly doesn't seem too surprised that he was speeding on the video, in fact he's making excuses to the officer about passing someone. It always helps when your dad is a barrister.

Matty4 · 26-10-2011, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Good on him..... but...

Let's be honest, he was in the national park on a motorbike... I'd speculate that he isn't as innocent as he claims, even in the video he admitted to passing someone (RNP is one lane each way). The police car was obviously sitting somewhere (I've seen them sit around the exact place he was pulled over) so he's used the LIDAR, recorded a ridiculous speed, pulled out and the car's onboard radar has recorded 76km/h after he has slowed right down - the officer said in the video "you backed off" and the biker didn't challenge that, he tried justifying it by saying he needed to pass someone. To me it seems like he got off on a technicality, being the distance of the road that he was recorded on. He certainly doesn't seem too surprised that he was speeding on the video, in fact he's making excuses to the officer about passing someone. It always helps when your dad is a barrister.

What video?

**Dave R** · 26-10-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matty4

What video?

The dash cam video is here:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/was-it-149...026-1mjce.html

prydey · 26-10-2011, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Good on him..... but...

Let's be honest, he was in the national park on a motorbike... I'd speculate that he isn't as innocent as he claims, even in the video he admitted to passing someone (RNP is one lane each way). The police car was obviously sitting somewhere (I've seen them sit around the exact place he was pulled over) so he's used the LIDAR, recorded a ridiculous speed, pulled out and the car's onboard radar has recorded 76km/h after he has slowed right down - the officer said in the video "you backed off" and the biker didn't challenge that, he tried justifying it by saying he needed to pass someone. To me it seems like he got off on a technicality, being the distance of the road that he was recorded on. He certainly doesn't seem too surprised that he was speeding on the video, in fact he's making excuses to the officer about passing someone. It always helps when your dad is a barrister.

agreed!

Quote:

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

umm, its a 60 zone, so even at the lesser speed of 76, its still speeding.

whilst we all love these stories of police incompetence or faulty equipment, rarely is the victim innocent as claimed.

ask all the guys on death row. they're all innocent too.

Falc'man · 26-10-2011, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Good on him..... but...

Let's be honest, he was in the national park on a motorbike... I'd speculate that he isn't as innocent as he claims, even in the video he admitted to passing someone (RNP is one lane each way). The police car was obviously sitting somewhere (I've seen them sit around the exact place he was pulled over) so he's used the LIDAR, recorded a ridiculous speed, pulled out and the car's onboard radar has recorded 76km/h after he has slowed right down - the officer said in the video "you backed off" and the biker didn't challenge that, he tried justifying it by saying he needed to pass someone. To me it seems like he got off on a technicality, being the distance of the road that he was recorded on. He certainly doesn't seem too surprised that he was speeding on the video, in fact he's making excuses to the officer about passing someone. It always helps when your dad is a barrister.

Oh come on who'd speed through there?

/Old Blue needs to clear its lungs so might be going down there next week if the weather gets better, I let you know which day.

**Dave R** · 26-10-2011, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Oh come on who'd speed through there?

/Old Blue needs to clear its lungs so might be going down there next week if the weather gets better, I let you know which day.

Super keen.

Supercharged · 26-10-2011, 10:20 PM

Funny their own dash cam bites them in the bottom.

sexyxe · 26-10-2011, 08:36 PM

Whilst he might have been speeding, the 80km/h difference between equipment readings, along with the duration required to get a reading, officers apparent inabilty to use said equipment leads the court to rule that its all useless.

Good on him I say.

EDManual · 26-10-2011, 08:47 PM

Great work, if the cops cant catch someone properly, that HAVE not caught them.

Also, remember if you happen to be pulled over for speeding (whether you were speeding or not) in the rain, Radar CAN NOT be used in inclement weather. Its in the radar device manuals. Take it to court.

flappist · 26-10-2011, 11:34 PM

As this was District Court it can be used as a precedent. For too long speed measurement equipment has been unassailable with Govco spending $bazillions of our money to prevent this sort of thing happening.

There are so many who go down the "don't speed and you won't get fined" track but there have been many who have not committed an offence but can't fight it.
The policy of using punitive measures as a revenue stream has to be defeated.

fmc351 · 27-10-2011, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

There are so many who go down the "don't speed and you won't get fined" track but there have been many who have not committed an offence but can't fight it.

Many? Based on what?

chevypower · 27-10-2011, 06:08 AM

It's called a LIDAR? How funny!

Stefan · 27-10-2011, 06:30 AM

Precedent in court means squat. You still need to take on the Government in court who has more funds and resources than you, hire a lawyer, barrister and expert witnesses to fight a $500 fine. If you get a judge that is anti- speeding you may blow $100K after paying the Government's legal costs.

It's not like everyone gets off because of a precedent in court.

mr smith · 27-10-2011, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

There are so many who go down the "don't speed and you won't get fined" track but there have been many who have not committed an offence but can't fight it.

I know on no one this has ever happened to. The only people I hear cry fowl are habitual speeders who eventually get caught because they think they are over the law.

Matty4 · 27-10-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr smith

I know on no one this has ever happened to. The only people I hear cry fowl are habitual speeders who eventually get caught because they think they are over the law.

Just because you don't know anyone, doesn't mean it doesn't or hasn't happened.
Look at the fiasco down here with the cameras on the Western Ring Road being turned off after they were found to be faulty. All those people cried foul and they were proven to be right.

All those who peddle the same old line of "Obey the law and you'll be fine" should also be peddling that same line to those who enforce it.

Great win BTW!!!!

Supercharged · 27-10-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matty4

All those who peddle the same old line of "Obey the law and you'll be fine" should also be peddling that same line to those who enforce it.

Great win BTW!!!!

Got that right, here is a link to an off duty police officer that blew .232 http://www.police.tas.gov.au/news/po...ficer-charged/

TheInterceptor · 26-10-2011, 11:43 PM

So uhm...which section was the copper sitting on?...

Scott · 27-10-2011, 12:16 AM

Why wasn't he done for crossing double lines or riding up the wrong side of the roadway?

Not that I care, great to see someone get one back tbh.

Corzza · 27-10-2011, 06:58 AM

A good win!!

mr smith · 27-10-2011, 08:53 AM

29 year old spoilt rich kid gets off because he has a barrister dad with money and its a win?
Get real, this bloke will continue to be a menace and maybe even kill someone. Gee that would be a win.

Corzza · 27-10-2011, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr smith

29 year old spoilt rich kid gets off because he has a barrister dad with money and its a win?
Get real, this bloke will continue to be a menace and maybe even kill someone. Gee that would be a win.

Mate have you read the article?

He won because there were so many inconsistencies no one could prove he was doing the speeds claimed. It seems fair enough to me. If it can’t be proven officially then who is to say he was doing the speeds claimed.