Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean, ArthurWankspittle

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1418
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Arthur Rubin » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:12 pm

I haven't seen "aliens of the crown" before (except, perhaps, reptilians). Is that new?
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:00 am

Dai Kiwi wrote:Some quick comments on the 'theory':

Australian Federal agencies/departments/etc will be governed by the laws of the ACT for the purpose of disputes/compliance because as national agencies they don't belong to any single state.

Most countries in the Commonwealth still have some British laws on the books which date back to before they became self-governing. These are usually referred to as 'Imperial Enactments in force' or similar. Exactly which ones, and which sections of which ones, varies from country to country (and state to state for Aus/Can). At some point there will have been a law passed by the country/state which says: only the following pieces of 'Imperial' legislation are still in effect. That's what the reference to Prize Courts is about.

The bit about the ACT being landlocked is a red herring. The Prize laws have applied to aeroplanes as well as ships since 1939. What that part of the legislation does is enable the ACT to deal with prize cases, which is appropriate both because of Australia's federal nature (e,g, actions by the Australian Navy) and because Canberra does have an airport.

As for the rest of it, incoherent and incomprehensible are words which come to mind.


Thanks Dai Kiwi. For the record, the 'official' answer I got from the govt for the Prize Acts being in force for the land-locked ACT was because when the ACT was created it was felt that as the seat of Federal govt it had to have access to the sea so Jervis Bay was created.

Interesting point about Prize Act applying to planes as well as ships.

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:05 am

Arthur Rubin wrote:I thought the author of the original text was going to declare war (there is no precedent, as far as I know, for seizing property of the enemy in a "secret" war), and issue letters of marque (sp?). If so, it would have been new nonsense....

(Remember, if someone does this, you saw it here first....)


He has not declared war, but he has called for the Queen to be arrested and tried for breaching her "Protestant Contract'... others have pointed out that it was her ancestors that broke the contract (Magna Carta) and anyway, it was signed by the King of the time under obvious duress and therfore an invalid contract anyway.

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:15 am

Pottapaug1938 wrote:Struth, like so many before him, has offered nothing more than "because I said so" to buttress the novel legal claims which he makes. Until and unless he can do MUCH better than he already has, by offering proof of his assertions which we can review and verify, his assertions do not even merit being taken seriously.


I don't like the thought of posting my details anywhere on the net if I can help it. And anyway I can't see how to add files to my posts anywhere except from urls?
For those interested, below is a copy and paste of my 'Notice of Intention to Dispute' (Though it is off topic. Maybe I should start a new post?).

I cannot post a a copy of the email I was CC'd into from the Prosecution Corps because of the disclaimer on it "Any use, disclosure or copying of this message and any attachments is unauthorised."...

Intention to Challenge or dispute

I herby notify that I intend to challenge or dispute,

(1) The accuracy of a photographic detection device;

My grounds for this challenge or dispute are,

1.
The photographic detection device used and the certificate of accuracy issued by the QLD Police Service under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (TORUM) QLD, does not comply with the accuracy and certification requirements of the National Measurement ACT 1960 Sections 10, 19a, 19aab and 20, and the National Measurement Regulations 1999 Regulation 16, 19, 37, 39, 41, 42, 46, 48, 58, 60, 63, 71, 73,74, 76, 90, and Schedules 1, 4, 7, 12, and therefore the alleged speed reading is inadmissible for any legal purpose as it has not been correctly certified.


1.a)
The State of Queensland must comply with the legislation and regulations of the National Measurement Act and National Measurement Regulations.
Commonwealth Constitution of 1901, Section 51(XV) gave the power to make laws in respect of weights and measures to the Commonwealth.
Section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that ‘When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.’
The evolution of High Court doctrine in s. 109 cases has led to three broad approaches to determine when there is inconsistency:
is it impossible to obey both laws? (the "simultaneous obedience" test)
does one law confer a right which the other purports to take away? (the "conferred rights" test)
does the federal law cover the field in question? (the "cover the field" test)
Clearly the National Measurement ACT (NMA 1960) and the National Measurement Regulations (NMR 1999) “cover the field” of legal units and measures. The NMA and the NMR give rights, that measurements for trade or any legal purpose must be made in accordance with those acts and regulations.
Section 4 of the NMA 1960, states,
Objects and application of Act
             (1)  The objects of this Act are:
                     (a)  to establish a national system of units and standards of measurement of physical quantities; and
                     (b)  to provide for the uniform use of those uniform units and standards of measurement throughout Australia; and
                     (c)  to co-ordinate the operation of the national system of measurement; and
                     (d)  to bring about the use of the metric system of measurement in Australia as the sole system of measurement of physical quantities; and
                     (e)  to provide for a national system of trade measurement;
and this Act shall be construed accordingly.
          (1A)  Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the application of this Act and regulations to utility meters used for trade.
Note:          Section 4A deals with the application of the Act in respect of utility meters used for trade
             (2)  This Act and the regulations do not apply to the exclusion of any law of a State or Territory except in so far as that law is inconsistent with an express provision of this Act or of the regulations.
Section 5 of the NMA 1960, states,
Act to bind the Crown
                   This Act binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, of each of the States, of the Northern Territory and of Norfolk Island and any authority constituted by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.
Section 20 of the NMA 1960 states in part,
Regulations
             (1)  The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters which are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act, and in particular:
The Regulations referred to in the NMA 1960 are the National Measurement Regulations 1999.
Therefore, the National Measurement Act 1960 and the National Measurement Regulations 1999 apply to each State and Territory in the Commonwealth of Australia.

1.b)
Speed is a calculation of distance over time, and those two units of measure are listed as Australian legal units of measurement in Schedule 1 of the NMR 1999, expressed as meters and seconds respectively.

For a photographic detection device to make a legal measurement of distance over time, it must comply with Section 10 of the National Measurement Act 1960, which states,

NATIONAL MEASUREMENT ACT 1960 - SECT 10
Measurements to be ascertained in accordance with appropriate standards of measurement, Australian certified reference materials or certified measuring instruments
                   When, for any legal purpose, it is necessary to ascertain whether a measurement of a physical quantity for which there are Australian legal units of measurement has been made or is being made in terms of those units, that fact shall be ascertained by means of, by reference to, by comparison with or by derivation from:
                     (a)  an appropriate Australian primary standard of measurement;
                     (b)  an appropriate Australian secondary standard of measurement;
                     (c)  an appropriate State primary standard of measurement;
                     (d)  an appropriate recognised-value standard of measurement;
                     (e)  an appropriate reference standard of measurement;
(f)  2 or more standards of measurement, each of which is a standard of measurement referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e);
                     (g)  an Australian certified reference material;
                     (h)  a certified measuring instrument;
(i)  one or more standards of measurement, each of which is a standard of measurement referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) and an Australian certified reference material;
(j)  one or more standards of measurement, each of which is a standard of measurement referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) and a certified measuring instrument; or
(k)  one or more standards of measurement, each of which is a standard of measurement referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), an Australian certified reference material and a certified measuring instrument;
For a photographic detection device to make a legal measurement it must comply with the above section. No proof has been submitted in the prosecution brief to show the photographic detection device used an Australian Certified reference material mentioned at Part (g) , furthermore, the photographic detection device is NOT a Certified measuring instrument mention at part (h) and as defined at Section 3 of the NMA 1960;

"certified measuring instrument" means a measuring instrument that has been certified in accordance with the regulations and for which the certification is in effect.

The regulations for which the certification is in effect is found at Regulation 37 of the Nation Measurement Regulations 1999,
NATIONAL MEASUREMENT REGULATIONS 1999 - REG 37
Certification of measuring instruments
             (1)  On application under regulation 36, the certifying authority:
                     (a)  may examine the measuring instrument; and
                     (b)  may certify the measuring instrument; and
                     (c)  if the instrument is certified--must issue a certificate for the instrument to the applicant; and
                     (d)  may issue a copy of the certificate to anyone else whom the authority considers should be given a copy.
             (2)  The certifying authority may refuse to examine a measuring instrument if the examination would create a significant risk of personal injury or death, or damage to property.
             (3)  A certifying authority may certify a measuring instrument other than on application.
             (4)  If the measuring instrument is certified under the supervision of a certifying authority, the authority may certify the instrument.
             (5)  For a measuring instrument to be certified, it must:
                     (a)  have an approved pattern; and
                     (b)  bear a mark that identifies the particular instrument.
             (6)  The certifying authority must mark a certified measuring instrument with the date of certification.
Part (5) clearly shows that for a measuring instrument to be certified it MUST have an approved pattern. The photographic detection device does NOT have a pattern approval. Interestingly, the Breath Analyser Device used by Police DOES have a pattern approval.

Section 19A of the NMA 1960 states,

Patterns of instruments
             (1)  The regulations may make provision for or in relation to:
                     (a)  the examination of patterns of measuring instruments;
                     (b)  the approval and verification of patterns of measuring instruments as patterns of measuring instruments suitable for:
                              (i)  use for trade; and
                             (ii)  any other legal purpose;
                     (c)  the issuing of certificates in respect of the approval and verification of patterns of measuring instruments; and
                     (d)  the reception in evidence of a document purporting to be such a certificate and the admission as prima facie evidence of the matters stated in the document.
             (2)  The regulations made under subsection (1) may provide that:
                     (a)  examinations may be carried out;
                     (b)  approvals may be given; and
                     (c)  certificates may be issued;
by the Chief Metrologist, a delegate of the Chief Metrologist or another person on behalf of the Chief Metrologist.
             (4)  Without limiting the matters that may be provided for in regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1), the regulations may provide that the granting of approval of a pattern of a measuring instrument as a pattern suitable for use for trade may be made subject to the retention of the measuring instrument or a part of the measuring instrument by the Chief Metrologist.
             (7)  Before the Governor-General makes a regulation for the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister must also either:
                     (a)  be satisfied that the regulation is not inconsistent with a specification published by the International Organisation of Legal Metrology regarding the examination and approval of patterns of measuring instrument; or
                     (b)  if the regulation is inconsistent with a specification--be satisfied that:
                              (i)  the inconsistency is in the national interest; or
                             (ii)  it is not practicable to comply with the specification because of particular circumstances applying in Australia.
             (8)  The Chief Metrologist may charge the prescribed fee for:
                     (a)  the examination of patterns of measuring instruments under this section; and
                     (b)  the approval and verification of patterns of measuring instruments as patterns of measuring instruments under this section; and
                     (c)  the issuing of certificates in respect of the approval and verification of patterns of measuring instruments under this section.
This section of the NMA 1960 gives the NMR 1999 the ability to make provisions for or in relation to pattern approval of measuring instruments for (i) use for trade; and , (ii) ANY OTHER LEGAL PURPOSE. The photographic detection device must meet Regulation 37 of the NMR 1999, and therefore have Pattern Approval to be used for legal measuring purposes.

1.c)
Section 19a also gives the Regulations the provisions for the issuing of certificates for the verification of the pattern. No certificates that comply with this regulation have been provided by the Prosecution in the brief of evidence.

1.d)
The “Certificate of Accuracy” issued by the Police, under the TORUM Act 1995 does not comply with the certificate requirements of the NMR 1999 at Section 42.

1.e)
The photographic detection device does not bear a mark that complies with NMR 1999 Regulation 37 and 41, which gives the requirements for marking of instruments.

1.f)
All testing and certification of the photographic detection device must have legal traceability of testing as specified in the NMR and NMA and include certificates for all instruments and reference material.


User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4899
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:20 am

Struth wrote:
Pottapaug1938 wrote:Struth, like so many before him, has offered nothing more than "because I said so" to buttress the novel legal claims which he makes. Until and unless he can do MUCH better than he already has, by offering proof of his assertions which we can review and verify, his assertions do not even merit being taken seriously.


I don't like the thought of posting my details anywhere on the net if I can help it. And anyway I can't see how to add files to my posts anywhere except from urls?


That's just too damn bad. I ask you for details, and all you give me is excuses, plus a bunch of irrelevant garbage. Don't bother wasting our time, Bucko -- either show us the evidence, or find another place to troll.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:40 am

No worries, don't waste your time then.
I didn't start this thread for my own issue anyway, just was curious to hear Ozydude's ideas on the latest 'win'. (I apostrophise the word because it did not get to trial and I suspect they withdrew their case largely due to overwork and mine was too hard to bother with. Others have tried the NMA 1960 and failed... which does not invalidate the defence)

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1418
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Arthur Rubin » Fri Jul 24, 2015 3:14 am

Struth wrote:I didn't start this thread for my own issue anyway, just was curious to hear Ozydude's ideas on the latest 'win'. (I apostrophise the word because it did not get to trial and I suspect they withdrew their case largely due to overwork and mine was too hard to bother with. Others have tried the NMA 1960 and failed... which does not invalidate the defence)
News coverage of use of "your" defence would be helpful, even if it was unsuccessful for others. That way, we could at least see a third party's opinion of what you are doing. It looks somewhat similar to a Huntington Beach, California, US, case in which a judge invalidated all radar-related speeding tickets. (I can't find the reference at the moment.)
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95

Llwellyn
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:52 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Llwellyn » Fri Jul 24, 2015 7:23 am

Your starting post.. about their theory.. shows a lot of the flaws. Albeit, many flaws come from understanding the context.

Things like ...
Protestant rights are protected by an ingeniously simple device – Contractual Monarchy.
The monarch is sworn to defend the protestant Christian faith and uphold our common law rights to gain the throne.
If he or she fails to keep that contract they and their heirs lose evevrything and are replaced by a monarch who will.
That’s the law established long ago after many wars between catholics and Christians.
- are flaws .. first off, a Catholic (in general) IS a Christian. (Christian references any religion that uses the Bible, old testament and new, with the belief in Christ) - So Anglican, Protestant Catholic, Lutheran... etc are ALL Christian religions.

Now understanding the Monarch.. from old law and understanding the belief on HOW a Monarch (King etc) is appointed.. is an act of God.. so they are .. technically Gods Chosen Representative (this is a VERY LOOSE interpretation through history) being such, they are bound to protect Gods Laws...

A clever ruse has been conducted to trick Christians into technically abandoning their side of that contract leaving the monarch free to rule as she pleases.
That ruse is based on the American model of claiming independence which frees the monarch of any contractual obligation in law then we become aliens of the Crown.

Christians contract with God.. is with GOD.. no one/thing/state head/political being.
The separation of the United States from England (monarch) does not invalidate that Christian-God contract.
The separation of Church and State does not invalidate that Christian-God contract.
With the USA separation from the UK - Americans DID become 'aliens to the Crown' as have every other nation that has separated/become independent from the UK.. and here is one of the other tricks often used.

A lot of these theories/ideas etc, quite often reference a Fact/Truth.. but they take them out of context, out of place, and out of meaning. (Therein is where all the OPCA/Freeman/Sovrun things get a chance to draw people in.. clever wording, without context)

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:17 am

Well said Lewellyn. These same arguments have been put to the originator of the theory, and usually results in the proponent of the arguments as being a Jesuit or Mason with no understanding of Jesus or Protestant history. :brickwall:

"A lot of these theories/ideas etc, quite often reference a Fact/Truth.. but they take them out of context, out of place, and out of meaning. (Therein is where all the OPCA/Freeman/Sovrun things get a chance to draw people in.. clever wording, without context)"

That has been exactly my experience. Most of the 'freeman' stuff is pretty far out, even for me and I consider myself more open minded than most. But occasionally someone phrases something that fits so well with other knowledge and facts that it just 'makes sense'. This is what gets people in, especially when people are too lazy to do their own due diligence, or simply have not been educated to think for themselves in our modern education system/social brainwashing.

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Arthur Rubin wrote:
Struth wrote:I didn't start this thread for my own issue anyway, just was curious to hear Ozydude's ideas on the latest 'win'. (I apostrophise the word because it did not get to trial and I suspect they withdrew their case largely due to overwork and mine was too hard to bother with. Others have tried the NMA 1960 and failed... which does not invalidate the defence)
News coverage of use of "your" defence would be helpful, even if it was unsuccessful for others. That way, we could at least see a third party's opinion of what you are doing. It looks somewhat similar to a Huntington Beach, California, US, case in which a judge invalidated all radar-related speeding tickets. (I can't find the reference at the moment.)


Here you go... http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/cameras-may-fail-the-candid-test-20130714-2py15.html

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:55 pm

And if anyone wants to check the validity of my claim (please do not post my name etc) you can call the Gold Coast Police Prosecution Corps on 07 5571 4383. the reference is TIN 2021196463

User avatar
Skeleton
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:37 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Skeleton » Sat Jul 25, 2015 2:30 pm

Ozydude wrote:Ok, found it. My guess is that the government department that controls my gov is solely based in Canberra and any breach of the terms for my gov can only be prosecuted in the Australian Capital Territory.


My apologies for the intrusion and hello all. I though live in the ACT and to be prosecuted for anything in this state it has to be serious and a defence of "an unhappy childhood" will without fail ensure your incarceration is short. Ice epidemic anyone? The ACT govt will deny that to, they will agree to a "weed" problem though because glowing red hot growing sheds are easier to spot and cheaper to raid.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played. :lol: :lol:

Ozydude
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:56 pm

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Ozydude » Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:32 am

Struth

To be 100% honest, without reading the police brief I cannot give a definitive answer.

However, I have heard about people using this argument and in my opinion it generally won't work. Any device's used by the police are tested in accordance with the standards. It may have been good luck on your part that it got withdrawn or there was some other issue with the case.

Backo
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:27 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Backo » Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:13 am

Struth,

Speeding ticket

I note that you are in Queensland, as am I, so my view is that your argument about the National Measurements legislation and section 109 of the Constitution has been chucked before (see here http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2013/QDC13-122.pdf) and will fail again if you try to bring it. Admittedly, that doofus didn’t give notice to challenge the accuracy of the recording device but the theory behind the judgment is sound.

I disagree with your comment that because one person failed, that does not mean the defence is invalid. That is wrong, the decision is the law until it is overturned by a higher court. You could try and bring the argument in a higher court, but it doesn’t have any legs.

Without seeing your cases it is hard to judge why you succeeded, I suspect that you have successfully employed the ‘too hard’ defence and the cops couldn't be bothered. Can be a successful approach, particularly if you don't make admissions at the traffic stop and aren't so much of an a-hole that the cops chase you through court because they hate you.

Mygov / Prize Law nonsense.

I’ll say upfront that I haven’t read the user agreement. Use of that system is likely to be a contractual relationship between the user and the provider. Under the terms of the contract the parties agree to be bound to the jurisdiction of the ACT courts. It is a simple and enforceable way for the mygov provider to ensure that they don’t have to litigate any issues surrounding the use of the system in far flung jurisdictions where users might be located. Such a clause is common in many different types of contracts.

The rest of that fellow’s ‘argument’ is wrong. For a start, his argument seems to be predicated on the fact that the ACT self governance was established under the Imperial Prizes Act. There is no source quoted for that outlandish claim, particularly in light of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 enacted by the Federal Government under the Australian Constitution, specifically (I opine) section 122. Why would they need a British Act if they already have the power? It’s guff.

The rest of it is religious paranoia.

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:59 am

Great reply.
Thank you. I have scanned your link and will re read it in full when I get more time. What I meant by 'one person failing does not invalidate the defence' is that one person may not have presented the argument correctly. The NMA legislation is very detailed and ties in with the NMR and it appears from what I have read of others using this defence that unless you present the argument correctly it will fail.
I believe it was my very detailed 'notice' (the guy in the link did not provide one, as you say), carefully listing point by point the argument that made the police drop it. My belief is that they withdrew to avoid a precedent being set.

On another note, after the mention I was pissed off the judge would not award costs simply because my costs were not 'professional'. As if my time is worthless compared to a 'professional', even though the judge commented that I had done a good job. AND the judge had to prompt the prosecutor to argue his points of law as to why I should not be granted costs. Then when the prosecutor failed to do so the judge argued them for him!

Backo
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:27 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Backo » Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:27 am

I think that Judge McGill fairly succinctly disposes of the argument in the following paragraphs (although the first dozen or so paragraphs should be read in full):

[9] There is no general requirement in the National Measurement Act 1960 that prosecution for an offence which involves some form of measurement requires proof that the measurement was conducted in a way verified under that Act, in circumstances where state legislative provisions give rise to a presumption of accuracy, or at least evidence of accuracy: Pearce v Dennis, ex parte Pearce [1999] QCA 239, a decision concerning a breathalyser.6

[10] The appellant also referred to s 18GB of the Commonwealth Act, which makes it an offence to install a measuring instrument if the measuring instrument is installed for the use of trade and is not of an approved pattern. The short answer to this submission is that a speed camera is not an instrument used for trade as that term is defined by the Act, because it is not used to determine the consideration in respect of a transaction, or used to determine the amount of a tax. Even though the practical effect of the use of speed cameras may be seen as raising revenue for the Government, the purpose of their use is to detect infringements of the Road Rules and in that way to enforce the law. This is not a use for trade, and it follows that s 18GB has no application.


Cops usually don't withdraw arguments to avoid a precedent. If an unfavourable precedent is set, they usually run to the legislature and get the loop hole fixed up. No parliament can be seen to be soft on road offences.

As I mentioned above, and as you noted, Crabbe didn't give the proper notice so the recordings were deemed to be accurate and he couldn't challenge on appeal. The outcome might be different had he given the notice, but I wouldn't be confident.

With respect to costs, there is a longstanding principle that self-represented parties aren't awarded costs. Costs are also rarer in the criminal jurisdiction that the civil jurisdiction in Queensland. Usually, you have to mess up pretty bad or bring worthless appeals to get a costs order against you.

My interpretation of the rationale beind the principle is that whether you are represented or not, you are going to have to spend time and effort in the court defending or bringing an action. The Court will not order costs as that simply applies to everyone, including the State. However, if you engage a legal representative, costs will usually follow the event (unless of course you are talking about the criminal jurisdiction where such orders are very rare, particularly at the first instance).

On that point, see the interesting Court of Appeal decision in Sheehan http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2011/QCA11-079.pdf. The case is an interesting template on how the State will attempt to prove you were speeding even without the use of the conclusive certificate. In that matter the Judges also upheld orders in favour of the State for costs to cover for the costs of expert evidence on a speeding matter. That is, if you bring your argument on the National Measurements issue and the State brings an expert in, and you lose, you might end up paying the expert's costs. The converse would apply as well, if you engage an expert and win, I would expect you would get an order for that expense.

That case also dismisses the pattern approval argument, but there is not a lot of discussion on that point. The case references decisions of Lekich and Bevaqua where speeding tickets where dismissed where evidence of delegation of authority for the signing on the certificates was not presented. Those cases were genuine wins for the citizens involved on a procedural matter and resulted in a number of subsequent dismissals, however I believe the cops are now alive to this issue.

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:05 pm

Thank you for your post.
Re NMA 1960 and it failing in previous cases...
I sincerely believe it is because those using the NMA did not use it correctly.
In BREEDON V KONGRAS, 1995, Justice J Owen of the WA Supreme Court stated ....“The language of section 10 is clear and unambiguous. Measurements taken for any legal purpose must be taken in accordance with that section and not in any other manner.”
I refer as well to Justice Owen’s Conclusion wherein he states: “In my opinion section 10 of the Act must be complied with when measurements are being taken for any legal purpose. The language of the section is in clear and imperative terms"

Why does the Police Breathalyzer have Pattern Approval and meet the requirements of the National Measurements Act? Does not Section 10 state and I quote;

“When, for any legal purpose, it is necessary to ascertain whether a measurement of a physical quantity for which there are Australian legal units of measurement has been made or is being made in terms of those units, that fact shall be ascertained by means of, by reference to, by comparison with or by derivation from:

(g) an Australian certified reference material
(h) a certified measuring instrument”

In Part IV of the National Measurements Act, the definition of a “certified measuring instrument” means a measuring instrument that has been certified in accordance with the regulations.

Backo
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:27 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Backo » Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:07 am

Have a read of this case, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/tas/TASMC/2012/9.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=breedon%20kongras.

It is only a Magistrates Court from Tasmania, the reason I refer it to you is that it contains a helpful summary of all the cases which have run section 10 of the Act around Australia, including decisions of the Queensland Supreme Court of Appeal.

Obviously it is important to read the whole case but I specifically draw your attention to paragraphs 35 onwards.

I have not read the case of Breedon v Kongaras as it does not appear to be on Austlii. I note that from the summary contained in Spinks, it concerned a case about measurement of lobsters without reference to units of measurement. I assume therefore it was a gauge where if the lobster went through or didn't measure up then it was alleged a breach had been committed. That seems to be a different kettle of lobsters, so to speak. However, if you have a link to the case, I will read it to be sure.

Struth
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Struth » Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:29 am

No worries. Thanks for the link. I will have a read.
Here is one re Breeden V Congras http://www.carr.org.au/d-national-measurement-case.pdf

Backo
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:27 am

Re: Prize Law takeover of Australia theory

Postby Backo » Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:46 am

I misunderstood your point as to why breathlysers have the approval and speed detection devices do not.

See this case from the South Australian Supreme Courthttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2012/210.html, specifically paragraphs 108 - 120.

At paragraph 116 the Judge deals with the questions as to why an approval under the NMR exists for breathalysers and not for speed detection devices:

A perusal of the National Measurement Regulations 1999 shows that there is not now, and never has been, an equivalent provision in relation to “traffic speed analysers”. This absence in turn explains why the postulated smoking gun document in relation to “traffic speed analysers” (a document suggested to be an equivalent document to “VD D2”) has not been able to be produced – it does not exist, and never has.


To me, the interpretation is that the regulations require approval of breathalysers but not for speed detection devices.


Return to “Other Countries/Regions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest