Judges uphold 55kmh speeding ticket

KENT BLECHYNDEN/The Dominion Post

LONG BATTLE: John Pomeroy fought against his speeding ticket in the district court, High Court and Court of Appeal. He says it is shattering that they have all upheld the legitimacy of the ticket.

Relevant offers

National News

Greens refuse to play political little sibling Gourmet school grub is delivered to order 'Axe drink-drive author' Fracking the new 'nuke-free' Family still dealing with loss of son Women prisoners cost much more to lock up Anger at Holmes' Waitangi remarks North-South split on where to rebuild Christchurch Drugs education link to Scientology church Lawyer faces impropriety allegations

An elderly driver caught doing 5kmh above the speed limit while rushing for a toilet has failed to get his ticket overturned.

John Pomeroy, 74, said he was "staggered" by the decision from the Court of Appeal. "It's a mind-boggling fiasco, the pettiness of it," he said.

He decided to fight "on principle" against a speeding ticket he received in February last year. Appearing for himself, he took the matter to the district court, the High Court, then the Court of Appeal.

Mr Pomeroy was driving near a school on Naenae Rd, Lower Hutt, in February last year, when a speed camera snapped him doing 55kmh in a 50kmh zone.

He defended the ticket before two justices of the peace. A tolerance of 8kmh should have applied, he said.

Two strokes in 1996 had left him with a partially paralysed left side, and occasional incontinence. When caught by the speed camera, he had been trying to get to a public toilet, he said. The JPs rejected his defence and imposed a $30 fine, plus costs of $30.

Mr Pomeroy appealed to the High Court, but lost. He then applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but the case was dismissed.

Finally, he sought special leave from the Court of Appeal. He missed some of that hearing, after mistakenly going to the High Court and falling asleep.

Court of Appeal justices John Priestley, Anthony Randerson and Alan MacKenzie declined the appeal, in a decision published yesterday.

Mr Pomeroy's belief in a speeding "tolerance" was wrong, the decision said. "There is, as a matter of law, no tolerance above the prescribed limit. It is a matter of the discretion of police in each case."

The fact that he was looking for a toilet was "a reason for speeding, but not a defence".

Mr Pomeroy said afterwards that the decision was "shattering". He was keen to keep fighting, through other avenues.

Wellington district road policing manager Inspector Peter Baird said the tolerance for speed cameras near schools was 5kmh. "You have to set the benchmark somewhere. Every kilometre per hour means less stopping distance."

- © Fairfax NZ News