Speed camera images ruled invalid in NSW

[r988]

www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18566295-29277,00.html

news.com.au said:

Suits 'loom' after speed camera ruling From: AAP By Amy Fallon March 22, 2006 THE New South Wales Government may have to repay millions of dollars to motorists who were fined after being caught by speed cameras, following a ruling in a Sydney court today. The NSW Supreme Court threw out an appeal by the Roads and Traffic Authority against a magistrate's decision in favour of a man who claimed there was a technical fault in a speed camera photo of his vehicle. The man succeeded in having the traffic conviction thrown out when he challenged the speeding charge in Hornsby Local Court last August. Magistrate Lawrence Lawson dismissed the charge after the RTA could not provide an expert witness to prove the speed camera image was not doctored. The man's lawyer, Dennis Miralis, told Macquarie Radio's Phillip Clark that the rejection of the RTA's appeal had opened the way for a class action by thousands of motorists demanding their money back. Mr Miralis said his client was alleged to have been doing 81km/h in a 60km/h zone on Parramatta Road at Auburn and fined $75. In court, the RTA handed up a photo which showed his client's vehicle, the speed limit and the speed at which he was allegedly travelling. The RTA relied on that photo to get a conviction, but Mr Miralis argued the photo was not evidence of what had actually happened, because the security indicator that was supposed to be on the camera was not shown on the photo. The magistrate agreed, and the RTA then appealed the decision in the NSW Supreme Court. Today, the Supreme Court found the photo was unreliable and could not be accepted as major evidence. Mr Miralis said the decision was a "very significant win for all motorists". He said it may mean that any motorist who had been fined and convicted on the basis of a photograph similar to his client's could have their conviction overturned. "I think it does mean that," he told Macquarie Radio. "The RTA was today shown in the Supreme Court not to be complying with the law themselves." RTA lawyers had told the magistrates court they could not find an expert to prove the authenticity of mathematical algorithms published on each picture, despite being given eight weeks to compile their case. The algorithms, known as MD5, are used as a security measure to prove the pictures have not been altered after they are taken. Mr Miralis said today the RTA, which has already admitted that the camera software is flawed, was still admitting that photos did not have the correct code on them. Lawyers now want to know if the camera software has existed since it was introduced in 1999, Channel 7 reported tonight. NSW Premier Morris Iemma said the Government was not "jumping to any conclusions" over the matter. "We're going to go through the judgment, study it very carefully," Mr Iemma said. But Opposition Leader Peter Debnam said the Government had known about the problem years ago. "They simply didn't do their homework and fix the problem and now it could literally cost millions of dollars," he said. Seven said the worst case scenario was that the cameras, worth approximately $150 million a year in revenue to the Government, may lead to the repayment of up to $1 billion in fines.

Looks like the lazy government screwed themselves big time, even funnier is I bet the guy is guilty as hell, but is getting off on a technicality

[driller]

"because the security indicator that was supposed to be on the camera was not shown on the photo."

What's that then?

[granville]

Superb.

Anything that pokes away at the bot docs...

[james_j]

Excellent. That'll make the b@stards sweat. Let's hope thousands of motorists raise their objections.

There are few places more zealot-driven with regard to the enforcement of absurdly low speed limits than the UK, but Australia beats us by a mile.

[puggit]

Didn't this, or something VERY similar come out of Australia before?

[8Pack]

Hmmm! On a recent visit to the Netherlands, I noticed that they have no lines on the road at Gatso's to verify the speed........How do they verify the speed? Wonder if it's the same in New South Wales?

[leadfootlydon]

driller said:

"because the security indicator that was supposed to be on the camera was not shown on the photo." What's that then?

This assumes the camera takes a single digital photo (not the same type as the double-flash ones we have here).

The photo security code is a long number that is calculated by the camera based on the exact contents of each photo. If the photo is subsequently altered, then the security code originally calculated by the camera will not match a new security code generated from the altered picture (and is therefore proof that the picture has been altered)

What the article says is that in this case the original security code was not available for inspection and therefore it would not have been possible to prove that the picture had not been altered.

The startling implication at the end of the article is that the cameras have a manufacturing fault that means they have never been able to calculate the security code correctly and therefore there has never been the possability to prove that a photo from a speed camera has not been altered.

This is a technicality, of course, since it would be most unlikely that police are regularly, if ever, doctoring the pictures. The problem is that there is no way to prove if a photo has or has not been altered.

[eliminator]

I seem to remember a case of a council being proved to have doctered a picture used in a case to support a parking fine. I know of a case where HMRC doctered a copy of an Ordanace Survey map used in evidence against a taxpayer in a tax enquiry. I know of other unsavoury, similar, goings on all perpetrated by Government employees for no "personal" gain. Why do you think that anyone, even Government employees, should be above the rule that they should prove their evidence? Personally, I don't trust what anyone says. I want proof.

[james_j]

eliminator said:

I seem to remember a case of a council being proved to have doctered a picture used in a case to support a parking fine. I know of a case where HMRC doctered a copy of an Ordanace Survey map used in evidence against a taxpayer in a tax enquiry. I know of other unsavoury, similar, goings on all perpetrated by Government employees for no "personal" gain.

You may be surprised that there are weasels about who do this sort of work even where no personal gain is involved. Unfortunataly, for them the thrill seems to be in the fining of someone, as if the power they have makes them feel better about themselves. This sort of job can only attract a certain type of misfit.