Will 200 year old law help this man avoid $146 speeding fine?

Image: Today / Nine News

A top Queensland barrister will use case law dating back 200 years to try to avoid a $146 speeding fine.

Tony Morris QC is mounting a landmark legal challenge against Queensland's speed-camera laws, The Courier-Mail reports.

Mr Morris says he wasn't driving when his Volvo was photographed doing 57km/h in a 50km/h zone last year.

But he won't say who was behind the wheel.

He has invoked a spousal privilege case from 1817, arguing it's unconstitutional for a Queensland court to fine him when there's evidence he was not the driver.

He says he was in a meeting with top judges when the Volvo was snapped, and they are willing to testify that he was with them.

He argues the spousal privilege principle, established in England 200 years ago, means a husband can't be compelled to provide information that incriminates his wife

 "I decline to identify the person who was in charge of the vehicle at the relevant time," Mr Morris reportedly wrote in a letter to the Department of Transport

 

Earlier this year, Mr Morris wrote to federal, state and territory attorneys-general saying he planned to challenge parts of Queensland's speed-camera laws.

Under the laws, the registered owner of a car has two options: name the driver or say they don't know who was driving. Car owners can't, under the law, say they know who the driver was but refuse to give a name.

Mr Morris has told The Courier-Mail he can't see why he should dob someone in for driving the car when the legislation is invalid.

He said the Volvo caught by the speed camera was not his usual car, but would not tell the paper who usually drove it.

The case will go to the Court of Appeal within weeks.

Speed Camera Loophole Spotted by Welsh Driver?

Ive come across this news story "Speed Camera Loophole Spotted by Welsh Driver" which is circulating the internet at the minute, because it seemed to me to be something that probably was not accurate I have done a search and information like this has been circulating the internet since at least 2003.

Extract from The Western Mail

Magistrates' courts could grind to a halt if thousands of motorists exploit a legal loophole unwittingly exposed by a Welsh driver. 

Magistrates had no choice but to find Phillip Dennis, of Whitford, Flintshire, not guilty of speeding when his case was heard on Thursday.

He had omitted to sign the standard form which is sent to the owner of each vehicle caught by a speed camera - and Mold magistrates said they couldn't accept the form as evidence.

Police have no power to compel car owners to sign the form and have been expecting someone to spot the loophole.

Yesterday the Association of British Drivers, representing about 2,500 motorists, predicted drivers would soon get wind of the court case. 

"Motorists are always very quick to seek any way to avoid paying for their speeding ticket, particularly when they've been caught by cameras because they resent very much the way the cameras operate," said spokesman Tony Vickers 

"The cameras have very much reduced public respect for the police and local authorities.

"People are only too glad to find a way to beat the system." 

He said motorists who receive a speeding ticket after being caught on camera could opt to have their case heard in court, rather than pay the fine without quibble.

"If a lot of people take up this option it will have another side-effect, which will be to clog up the magistrates' courts with hundreds or thousands of motorists all trying to avoid paying the fine. 

"The implications for the legal system are interesting, to say the least."

Although the ABD did not condone breaking the highway laws, it said it would place details of the loophole on its own website for other drivers to read.

"I'm sure a lot of people will try it on and see whether it gets them anywhere."

The prospect of using the loophole could look especially appealing to people who already had endorsements on their licences, said Mr Vickers.

I also came across this from "stu675" on http://www.675.cc/675/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=23283  which I think tells the real truth of the matter:

"A guy from Aldershot, whose name I can't remember, took this as far as the European Court and lost - about 6 or 7 years ago. The argument revolved around self-incrimination, as signing the form was, and is, taken by the Police, CPS and the courtd, as an admission of guilt. You can't be forced to do that. It was absolutely cast-iron, as far as I and many others were concerned but the system had too much to lose, so the case never stood a chance of success. So, if you don't sign, you will get charged with failure to provide information and you may get done for speeding as well."

So it looks like they will find a way to get you but possibly on a different charge, be wary if you think you might try see if not signing the form works!