Imprecise speed gun device halts further prosecution of traffic violations
In a groundbreaking judgement, some speeding violations have become unenforceable if a specific speed-measuring apparatus was used by traffic officials.
MBOMBELA – In an application brought by Piet van Dyk, from Piet van Dyk Inc in the High Court of South Africa, Mpumalanga Division, Judge Neliswa Mali ruled that all pending speeding prosecutions in the province, wherein ProLaser 4 equipment was used, will be halted permanently on January 27.
According to papers filed in the High Court, Van Dyk sought to stay the legal action against his client in a pending Magistrate’s Court matter. His client stood accused of contravening section 59(4)(b) of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996, in that he allegedly exceeded the speed limit as indicated by an appropriate road traffic sign.
ALSO READ: Speeding motorists fined
Van Dyk, who briefed an advocate to argue the matter, placed the legality, accuracy and reliability of the ProLaser 4 equipment in question.
“It is a hand-operated speed measuring device which traffic officials use. It has a video camera installed that captures a picture of the vehicle that is supposedly in violation of the respective speed limit and it measures the speed of the vehicle. This judgement stops all pending prosecutions against motorists where this specific device was employed,” Van Dyk said.
This case law supporting this matter originates from a case that was heard in the Free State, where emphasis was placed on the calibration of the equipment in question, as only two people in the country are qualified and authorised to adjust this very delicate apparatus and issue a certificate of compliance, according to Van Dyk.
“It became apparent that when speeding and the higher your speed, the more inaccurate the device becomes. At high speed, the angle and fixed point changes and the device needs to be calibrated to account for that,” he explained.
ALSO READ: Speeding motorist nabbed by traffic enforcement officials on N4
Lowvelder asked Van Dyk whether a person who has already paid such a fine can appeal or claim their money back. He explained that they will need to prove that a gross misrepresentation was made.
“It is doubtful, because you have already paid an acknowledgement of guilt fine. You then waive your right to fight the case in court.”
Monica Nyuswa, the provincial spokesperson for the Director of Public Prosecutions, had not commented at the time of going to press.
