Home Australia That’s not a phone! The outrageous reason why the driver received a fine of 387 dollars

That’s not a phone! The outrageous reason why the driver received a fine of 387 dollars

0 comment
What Transport for NSW said was a phone in lawyer Merridy Gordon's car as she returned to Sydney from Canberra was, in fact, a piece of banana bread (pictured)

A lawyer who was fined $387 and had 10 demerit points taken away for “using a phone” while driving, he claimed he was actually holding a piece of banana bread.

Merridy Gordon was driving from Canberra to Sydney on the M5 on January 1 when mobile detection cameras took a photograph of the interior of her vehicle, detecting what was believed to be her mobile phone.

As the fine was imposed on a public holiday, he also incurred double demerit points.

But when it came a few weeks later, Ms. Gordon knew she had to fight it.

He went to the Transport for NSW (TfNSW) website to see what the cameras had captured and, after enlarging the photographs, he recognized what it was.

Mrs Gordon said Yahoo News that his phone was on the side of his seat and what had been detected was a slice of banana bread he had bought in Canberra for the three-hour journey to Sydney.

The lawyer wrote to TfNSW and told them they had made a mistake.

“They pretty much said ‘what a shame, how sad, I don’t care’ and that I would have to take the matter to court,” Ms Gordon said.

What Transport for NSW said was a phone in lawyer Merridy Gordon’s car as she returned to Sydney from Canberra was in fact a piece of banana bread (pictured)

The case was heard in Campbelltown, 57 kilometers southwest of Sydney’s CBD, as it was the closest court to the location where the mobile detection camera had taken the photo.

Ms Gordon said that when shown the photo, a magistrate commented that most mobile phones are rectangular and the alleged phone in the image was not.

The magistrate also said they could see the actual phone on the side of his seat.

One man representing TfNSW said it looked a bit thin to be banana bread, “which is stupid,” Ms Gordon said.

The magistrate told the lawyer that TfNSW had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was on the phone and that he had “significant” doubts.

As the fine (pictured) was paid on a public holiday, it also generated double demerit points, and when it arrived a few weeks later, Ms Gordon knew she had to fight it.

As the fine (pictured) was collected on a public holiday, it also incurred double demerit points, and when it arrived a few weeks later, Ms Gordon knew she had to fight it.

Ms Gordon said the “furious” magistrate told TfNSW it has “a responsibility to look at these photographs properly – it is clear from the photographs that there is significant doubt as to whether she was holding a phone”.

“The magistrate told TfNSW: ‘Ms Gordon clearly wrote you a sensible letter and you simply ignored it,'” he recalled.

TfNSW was ordered to pay his $4,000 legal fees, the fine was dismissed and the demerit points were reinstated.

A TfNSW spokeswoman, while not commenting on Ms Gordon’s individual case, said “it is rare for misidentification to occur”.

You may also like