VIC Speeding Fines Due to Faulty Speedometer - What to Do?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Uawa

Member
8 September 2017
1
0
1
Hi

The company I used to work for bought a company vehicle in January 2016 and after a few weeks started receiving speeding fines and was nominating me as the drive, and in April 2016 they bought it to my intention and told me of fines!

I told the company owner to test the speedometer and after testing speedometer, they find out that the speedometer was faulty and reading 6kms, over so when speedometer was reading 60kms a hour, the vehicle was actually speed was 67kms an hour. The owner of company told me it wasn't my responsibility and he will take care of it!

The evidence that speedometer was faulty and the fines they had already nominated me for the company they sent to VIC Roads to see if VicRoads would dismiss the fines. Vicroads didn't and the fines stood.

So the company owner said the company will pay. Then, 8 months later in January 2017, I was laid off with no notification of being sacked and 2 weeks later, after I was laid off work in February 2017, I received 10 individual speeding fines and the dates of offences were between Jan 2016 to March 2016!

Need help what can I do so I don't lose my drivers licence and have to pay for fines?
 

Rod

Lawyer
LawTap Verified
27 May 2014
7,196
969
2,894
Recommend you see a lawyer. You have a chance of getting off but will need help in doing so. Suspect it is going to cost you one way or the other.
 

Tony Danos

Lawyer
LawTap Verified
29 November 2016
303
46
719
Victoria
lawtap.com
As the driver you are responsible for the fines. Even though it may be accepted that the speedo was out by 7 k/ph that is not a defense to the charge.

Perhaps the company may feel responsible and pay the fines on your behalf however you will end up with the points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iamthelaw

Rod

Lawyer
LawTap Verified
27 May 2014
7,196
969
2,894
There is still a defence available for strict liability offences. In this situation it may work, but needs good evidence.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,848
689
2,894
Just checking? You're not disputing that you were the driver at the time?

Just checking, once you knew the spedo was dodgy, you still kept driving the car and presumably using the spedo to guide your speed? What I mean is you continued to drive at 60km according to the spedo, even though you knew it was dodgy? And in that time you copped how many? 10 fines... 10.... WOW...

So again, it isn't clear, but if I'm right in assuming that you're not disputing that you were the driver, then wow... slow down dude... Maybe they sacked you because you're a reckless driver...

Now ignore my post if I'm wrong about assuming you were the driver for all the instances...
 

Iamthelaw

Well-Known Member
13 September 2016
412
86
794
Agree with @Tony Danos.

I don't do much traffic stuff at all. However I'm fairly sure that despite being strict liability, honest and reasonable mistake defence is precluded to this offence.
 

Rod

Lawyer
LawTap Verified
27 May 2014
7,196
969
2,894
I would distinguish Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 and apply He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523.

If it was me, and driving was important for my job, I'd at least make the attempt. I acknowledge the bar to proving the defence is high but if it meant the difference between sleeping in a car because I lost my flat because I lost my job because I have no licence, I'd take up the fight.

Alternative is to just say stuff it and continue to drive with no licence. But that is risky and not recommended in any way. Better to attempt the fight if it means keeping a roof over your head.

There's also a case to be made for having the company reimburse the fines. They supplied faulty equipment (ie car).
 

Iamthelaw

Well-Known Member
13 September 2016
412
86
794
I would distinguish Agar v Dolheguy & Anor [2010] VSC 506 and apply He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
 

Rod

Lawyer
LawTap Verified
27 May 2014
7,196
969
2,894
Use He Kaw Teh v R as authority that Road Safety offences are not absolute.
And distinguish Agar that says the defence may be precluded. Agar was self-represented and there's a good chance he failed to properly plead his case.
 

Iamthelaw

Well-Known Member
13 September 2016
412
86
794
Use He Kaw Teh v R as authority that Road Safety offences are not absolute.
And distinguish Agar that says the defence may be precluded. Agar was self-represented and there's a good chance he failed to properly plead his case.
From memory in Agar the court found that speeding was strict rather than absolute and that despite being strict the defence was precluded. There was another case in the 90s that was the same, I forget the name. Going down this path, especially to SCA or HC would be very costly and futile.