Originally posted by Luke Plaizier
I got hit too, but in a different way.
So my question is this - is it entrapment for a police car to be sitting out of site like that? Are they supposed to be visible from a certain distance or have a sign out or something?
And are they supposed to keep you in sight from the time they trap you to the time they pull you over?
It's not entrapment. Entrapment is when police induce an offence that wouldn't have been committed otherwise. Subject to Aussie Pete advising about different specifics in NSW, general principle is that police are entitled to conceal themselves to detect an offence.
Again subject to Aussie Pete's specific advice, general principle is that there is no requirement to keep an offender in view after an offence. It's only a question of identity. If the copper recognised your car later from his earlier observation then he can ping you. If it goes to court he'll probably say he noted make and colour and reg no of your car, and if he pinged you with radar court will probably accept that he had sufficient view to note these things. However, you can cross-examine him on the details to suggest he couldn't have got that much info in time and view available, like how long were you in view, did he have clear view of your rego plate, how much other traffice, how many other cars of same make and colour went through around same time, how long was interval between seeing you and apprehending you, how can he be sure it was your car and not another same make, did he write down reg no before chasing you and if he says yes then ask him where he noted it and after he's committed himself on that you then ask him to produce note and if it's on his running sheet or patrol report or whatever they call it up there or in his notebook he should have it available (he's got obvious problems if he can't or won't produce these documents, and even if he says he put it on something else that's been lost then you run line he knew it was critical piece of evidence and he's experienced cop so why didn't he keep it, so either way you run line he's relying on getting your rego after he apprehended you and you are undermining his credibility). If he was alone you've a better chance than if he's got an observer to back him up and note details. Your case probably doesn't have scope to run this, but remember it's the driver that commits the offence, not the car, so he has to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that you were the driver as well as that it was the car he pinged. If there's only a short interval magistrate will probably accept that you were driving at time of offence, although there's no point if this is an offence where owner onus applies. Remember that the prosecution has to prove every element of the offence. You don't have to prove you didn't do it. If prosecution fails to put in any evidence (i.e. copper saying so in evidence) that it was you that was driving, you wait for it to conclude case and ask prosecutor if he has put in all evidence he relies on and has concluded case, then submit to magistrate that there's no case to answer as there's no evidence that you committed the offence charged. Prosecution will then try to reopen case and you submit they can't because they've closed. In Vic they are usually allowed to reopen case, but it's always worth a try. If magistrate upholds your submission you've won. No case submission applies to every element of offence, so get the relevant law and see what prosecution has to prove, make a list, and check it off during evidence, but don't let prosecutor see it or it might remind him to prove something. You'll sometimes get up on a technical point, like they fail to prove that the machine has been tested within the period required by the legislation.