Case Study: No Case to Answer - How Lack of Evidence Led to a Speeding Charge Dismissal

Introduction:

In this case study, we will discuss how lack of evidence can lead to a speeding charge being dismissed. The client, who was accused of speeding, was able to successfully argue that the prosecution had failed to establish a case against them. The lack of evidence in this case was related to the absence of a speed-limit sign, an essential element of an offence against r 20(1) of the Road Safety Road Rules 2009 (Vic).

Case Background:

At the conclusion of the prosecution case, the defence made a no case submission and argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a case against the client. The defence submitted that there was no evidence of a speed-limit sign before the court, which was an essential element of the offence. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a speed limit sign applicable to the length of road where the alleged offending occurred, and that the speed sign was substantially compliant with the regulations.

Legal Principles:

The legislative scheme provided in the Road Safety Road Rules 2009 (Vic) was the basis for the defence's argument. Rule 20(3) states that a driver of a vehicle other than a heavy vehicle must not drive at a speed which exceeds the speed-limit applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is driving by 45 kilometres per hour or more.

Rule 21 provides that the speed-limit applying to a driver for a length of road to which a speed-limit sign applies is the number of kilometres per hour indicated by the number on the sign. Rule 315(1) provides that a speed-sign has effect if it is erected on a road and complies substantially with the RS Rules.

Rule 322(2) provides that a speed limit sign must be clearly visible to the road users to whom it is designed to apply.

The parliament has expressed the elements of the offence against r 20(1) in clear and unambiguous terms. In accordance with the construction of r 20(1), the prosecution must adduce evidence of a substantially complaint speed sign which is clearly visible to the road users.

The court was not presented with any evidence of a speed sign applicable to the length of road where the alleged offending occurred.

In Ciorra v Cole, Redlich J dealt with a number of issues of similar nature. In making a distinction between the legal and factual ingredients of an offence under rr 20, His Honour ruled that it a necessary for prosecution to prove that a speed limit sign applied.

Conclusion:

The lack of evidence of a speed-limit sign in this case led to the dismissal of the speeding charge against the client. The prosecution was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a speed limit sign applicable to the length of road where the alleged offending occurred, and that the speed sign was substantially compliant with the regulations. This case demonstrates the importance of presenting clear and unambiguous evidence to prove the elements of an offence.

We have had a similar case where the magistrate ruled against us and that case is now subject of an appeal at the Supreme Court of Victoria.