The appellant was convicted of speeding and stunt driving after being clocked at 154 km/h by a police officer using a BEE III radar device from the shoulder of a highway.
The appellant appealed, arguing that the officer did not operate the radar device in accordance with the manufacturer's manual, which he claimed required the patrol vehicle to be in the same or adjacent lane as the target vehicle.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the appeal judge's interpretation that the manual allows the radar to monitor traffic moving in either direction across multiple lanes from a stationary roadside position.
The Court also declined to admit fresh evidence from the radar manufacturer, finding it unnecessary.
