How to Contest a Speeding Fine in SA: Camera and Police Notices
Contesting a speeding fine in South Australia
A driver who pays a speeding or camera fine in South Australia incurs the demerit points that go with it. The notice can instead be reviewed as trifling, withdrawn after the owner nominates the driver, or taken to court, and a conviction carries the same points unless the court reduces them. Talon Legal advises drivers on whether a notice is worth contesting and defends speeding charges in Magistrates Courts across South Australia. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
Contesting a speeding fine key facts
| Issue | Position in South Australia |
|---|---|
| Governing law | Expiation of Offences Act 1996 (SA); Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA), sections 79B and 175; Australian Road Rules, rule 20. Current versions as at 7 November 2026. |
| Time to respond | 28 days from and including the date of the notice (Expiation of Offences Act section 6(1)(c)). |
| The options | Pay, apply for a review as trifling (section 8A), elect to be prosecuted (section 8), or ask the issuing authority to withdraw the notice (section 16). |
| Camera notices | The owner is liable unless the owner nominates the driver, gives a statutory declaration that the driver could not be identified with reasonable diligence, or proves no offence was committed (Road Traffic Act section 79B(2)). |
| Demerit points | Incurred on payment and on conviction alike (Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) section 98B(1)). Only a court that convicts can reduce them (section 98B(4)). |
| In court | The prosecution must prove every element beyond reasonable doubt. Camera and accuracy certificates are proof unless the contrary is proved. |
| If convicted | A fine of up to $5,000 for a speed limit offence, a victims of crime levy of $287 instead of $108, possible costs, and the same demerit points. |
| Prosecution time limit | 6 months after the expiation period ends (Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) section 52(1)(a)(i)). |
| First step | Same-day free 30-minute consultation. Call (08) 7094 2021. |
Charged with speeding? How to contest a speeding fine in SA
A speeding expiation notice, from a camera or a police officer, gives the person who receives it a choice: pay, ask for a review, or elect to be prosecuted and contest the matter in court. This guide explains how to contest speeding fines in SA under the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 (SA) and the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). It covers the time limits, camera nominations, proof in court, the challenges that have worked, and what losing can cost. It states the law current to 7 November 2026.
The speed limits, fee bands and demerit points are on our Speeding Offences SA page. A court’s power to cut demerit points has its own demerit point reduction page. Learners and P-platers face a separate 6 month disqualification, covered on the P plate speeding licence appeal page.
Free Consultation. The 28 days on a notice run from the date printed on it, and the days spent in the post count. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
On this page
- What are the options on an expiation notice?
- How long is there to act?
- What if the owner was not driving?
- What must the prosecution prove in court?
- How can a camera or laser reading be challenged?
- What evidence can a driver rely on?
- What does electing to go to court risk?
- Can a court reduce the demerit points?
- What if the summons never arrives?
- Is paying the fine an admission of guilt?
- How similar cases tend to play out
- How we defend a speeding fine in court
- Speeding fine case law
- Frequently asked questions
What are the options on an expiation notice?
There are four. The person can pay within 28 days, apply for a review on the ground that the offence is trifling, elect to be prosecuted, or have the issuing authority withdraw the notice. Paying ends the matter but brings the demerit points (Motor Vehicles Act section 98B(1)). Every notice must come with a form for electing to be prosecuted (section 6(1)(k)).
Review as trifling
The application goes to the issuing authority (section 8A(1)), which need not hold an inquiry but may ask for more information verified by statutory declaration (section 8A(2), (3)). It must decide before referring the matter to the Chief Recovery Officer (section 8A(4)). If satisfied the offence is trifling, it must withdraw the notice (section 8A(5)).
The notice cannot be withdrawn on review once any amount has been paid, or a payment arrangement or enforcement determination has been made (section 8A(6)). A notice withdrawn on review cannot be issued again (section 8A(7)). The guide to trifling offences and other proper cause explains how courts read the word.
Electing to be prosecuted
The election is made by giving the prescribed notice to the issuing authority, personally or by post (section 8(1)). It cannot be made after the day of a payment arrangement or an enforcement determination under the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 (section 8(2)). Once the election is made, the notice is taken to be withdrawn (section 8(3)).
Withdrawal
The authority may withdraw a notice if it considers the person did not commit the offence or the notice should not have been given, on receiving a nomination or statutory declaration sent in accordance with the notice, or if the notice is defective (section 16(1)). It may also withdraw in order to prosecute, but not after an enforcement determination or more than 60 days after the date of the notice (section 16(1)(b), (3)).
Withdrawal is compulsory where the person did not receive the notice until after the expiation period, or never received it, because of an error by the authority or a failure of the post or of an email (section 16(6)). That does not apply once an amount has been paid (section 16(7)).
A driver can also ask for a withdrawal so the matter goes to court. In Anderson v Police [2026] SASC 148, an average speed camera notice was withdrawn at the driver’s request under section 16, and the matter went ahead by summons ([5] to [6]).
How long is there to act?
Twenty-eight days. The fee must be paid within 28 days from and including the date of the notice, unless a payment arrangement is made (section 6(1)(c)). The period runs from that date even if the notice arrives days later. In Hogg v Police [2013] SASC 192, a posted camera notice left the driver only seven days to decide whether to elect ([5]).
The other limits:
- A notice cannot be given more than 6 months after the alleged offence (section 6(1)(e)).
- If a notice was given, a prosecution must start within 6 months after the expiation period ends. If not, it must start within 6 months after the alleged offence (section 52(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA)).
- A withdrawn notice still counts for that limit, unless it was withdrawn for a nomination or statutory declaration, or for non-receipt (section 52(2)).
In Hogg, a notice given by post counted for the limitation provision then in force, so the prosecution was in time ([10] to [13], [17]). In Police v Schwerdt [2022] SASC 73, the information had the wrong registration number. Correcting it after the limitation period did not create a new charge, because the registration is not an element of the offence ([28] to [29]).
A notice must say what offence is alleged and when, where and how (Mathie v City of Playford [2023] SASC 145 at [52] to [54], a council parking case), but a minor slip, such as allowing 32 days to pay instead of 28, does not void it (Walker v Police [2014] SASC 32 at [29], [32]).
What if the owner was not driving?
The owner can avoid liability by nominating the driver. Where a camera records a vehicle apparently speeding under rule 20 of the Australian Road Rules, the owner is guilty of an offence under section 79B(2) of the Road Traffic Act unless the owner proves one of these:
- no offence was in fact committed (section 79B(2)(a));
- a nomination in the approved form, naming the driver and giving their address, reached the Commissioner of Police within 28 days after the expiation notice, 14 days after an expiation reminder notice, or 28 days after the summons if no expiation notice was given, or within a longer period allowed in exceptional circumstances (section 79B(2)(b));
- the owner does not know, and could not by reasonable diligence have found out, who was driving, and has given the Commissioner a statutory declaration stating why and what inquiries were made (section 79B(2)(c)).
The owner offence carries a maximum of $5,000 for a natural person and $10,000 for a body corporate (section 79B(2)). A natural person pays the same expiation fee as for the speeding itself (Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 2014, Schedule 4, clause 2). A body corporate pays a prescribed additional fee of up to $5,000 as well (section 79B(2a), (2ab)).
The points follow the owner. A natural person who expiates or is convicted of the owner offence incurs the points for the speeding offence (Motor Vehicles Act section 98B(1aa); Motor Vehicles Regulations 2025, Schedule 4, Part 1, clause 1).
After a nomination or statutory declaration, the authority may withdraw the owner’s notice (Expiation of Offences Act section 16(1)(ab)). A fresh notice can then go to the nominated driver, or back to the owner, within 1 year of the offence (section 16(12)). Once either the speeding offence or the owner offence is expiated or proved, no one is liable for the other (section 79B(7), (8)).
The Commissioner may require a nomination to be verified by statutory declaration (section 79B(12)). A false or misleading nomination carries up to $25,000 or 4 years imprisonment (section 79B(14)).
A camera notice must come with a notice saying that a copy of the photographs will be posted on written application to the Commissioner, and that the Commissioner will consider exculpatory evidence verified by statutory declaration and given within the stated period (section 79B(5), (6)).
Average speed cameras work differently. The average speed between the two cameras is conclusively presumed to be the actual speed along the whole route, and each driver is presumed to have driven at it (section 175A(4)). A driver escapes that only by proving that more than one person drove, that a statutory declaration naming the others was given as the regulations require, and that the driver never exceeded the limit while driving between the cameras, with that evidence given orally on oath (section 175A(4), (6), (7)).
What must the prosecution prove in court?
Every element of the offence, beyond reasonable doubt. The owner presumption does not change that: the onus remains on the prosecution to prove all elements, including ownership (Police v Schwerdt at [33]). In a camera case, the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s vehicle appears from the camera evidence to have been involved in the offence. The owner must then prove any exception on the balance of probabilities (Jordan v Police [2006] SASC 205 at [8] to [10], [32]).
The law gives the prosecution short cuts, each open to proof to the contrary:
- an allegation in the charge that a specified speed limit applied to a length of road, or that a road was or was not in a built-up area (Road Traffic (Road Rules-Ancillary and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2014, regulation 68(1)(a), (c));
- an allegation that a specified person was the owner or driver of a specified vehicle, or that a place was a road (Road Traffic Act section 175(1));
- a camera photograph, admitted if the device was operated and tested as the Act and regulations require, with its date, time and location as proof, and an inspector’s certificate that those requirements were met and how the device was set to operate (section 79B(10)).
The regulations prescribe how cameras are approved, operated and tested. A photograph from a device operated and tested as required must be admitted (Police v Flavel [2013] SASC 166 at [9]), and the certificate read with the details on the photograph can prove which device took it ([10], [12], [20]).
Speed measuring devices are covered by certificates of accuracy under section 175(3):
| Device | The certificate covers | Section |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed speed camera | The day of the test and the following 1 year | 175(3)(ba) |
| Mobile speed camera | The day of the test and the following day | 175(3)(baaa) |
| Speed analyser that is not a camera, such as a hand-held laser or radar | The day of the test and the following 1 year | 175(3)(baa) |
| Speedometer | The 3 months before and the 3 months after the test | 175(3)(b) |
A certificate for a speed analyser is proof even if the speed measured differed from the speed at which it was tested. Section 175(3) was amended from 6 November 2025 and 1 January 2026, so an older offence is governed by the wording in force on the offence date.
A section 175(3)(ba) certificate proves only what the subsection lets it certify: that the device was tested on a specified day and the test showed it accurate to a stated extent (Police v Young [2012] SASC 210 at [29] to [32]).
A belief that the car was under the limit is no defence. Speeding is an absolute liability offence, and honest and reasonable mistake is not available (Jameson v Police [2016] SASC 5 at [36]).
How can a camera or laser reading be challenged?
By proving the contrary of what a certificate says. Supreme Court judges sitting alone have described that task differently.
- One line puts a persuasive onus on the defendant. A defendant must do more than point to some evidence to the contrary (Police v Bulgin [2010] SASC 143 at [46]). The contrary must be proved on the balance of probabilities (Police v Young at [46] to [51]; Best v Police [2015] SASC 190 at [60]). Raising questions about the testing in cross-examination is not enough (Police v Wyatt [2016] SASC 17 at [20]).
- Other decisions put it differently. In Police v Dodd [2004] SASC 91, Gray J said section 175(1)(i), the driver allegation, did not show an intention to reverse the ultimate onus of proof ([39]). In Elliott v Police [2009] SASC 292, Sulan J said a section 175(3)(ba) certificate does not require the defendant to prove he was not speeding, and rebutting it requires credible evidence that the instrument was inaccurate ([28] to [29]).
Documents can be enough. In Police v Shah [2025] SASC 47, a police testing record that named a different testing regulation from the one in the camera certificate was evidence to the contrary on the balance of probabilities, without the testing officers being called ([8], [12] to [13], [45], [48]).
Not every flaw counts. A departure from operating instructions does not of itself make a reading unreliable (Bulgin at [44] to [45]).
Challenges have succeeded in these cases:
- Woolmer v Police [2020] SASC 184: the owner proved the camera had not been tested as the regulations then required, contrary to the certificate, and the conviction was quashed ([121] to [122], [132] to [133]).
- Police v Butcher [2016] SASC 130: the driver proved the laser test could not show the accuracy in the certificate, and did not also have to prove the gun was inaccurate ([18] to [20]).
- Police v Hanton [2018] SASC 96: the test must in fact show the stated accuracy ([52]), and the defendant must prove it did not ([22], [90]). The findings of guilt were set aside ([198]).
- Zefi v Commissioner of Police [2024] SASC 42: with no evidence of how the laser was operated, the conviction was quashed ([48], [69] to [72]).
- Kuipers-Lloyd v Police [2014] SASC 73: the driver asked for the manuals and the Australian Standard. The prosecution must disclose material that might bear on guilt or innocence ([12]), and the conviction was quashed for a new trial ([16]).
What evidence can a driver rely on?
Evidence a court can admit and accept. A driver’s own measurements and calculations from the scene or the photographs are not inadmissible just because no expert supports them (O’Callaghan v Police [2020] SASC 50 at [13] to [14]).
Opinions need expertise. A claim that larger tyres made the speedometer under-read is admissible only from a qualified expert (Scylla v Police [2021] SASC 18 at [19]). In Berti v Police (No 2) [2014] SASC 188, the driver’s measurements on the photograph were unreliable ([20]). GPS data would have needed proof of how it was produced and why it was more reliable than the police device, ordinarily by expert evidence ([22]).
Arguments under the Commonwealth National Measurement Act have failed repeatedly (Millington v Police [2015] SASC 52 at [24]; Anastasiou v Police [2013] SASC 112 at [22]; Best at [64]; Jameson at [34]).
What does electing to go to court risk?
A conviction, with a higher levy and possible costs on top of any fine. Drivers who contest speeding fines and lose also incur the same demerit points. These are the rule 20 expiation fees in force from 1 July 2026 and the demerit points (Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 2014, Schedule 4; Motor Vehicles Regulations 2025, Schedule 4):
| Amount over the limit | Expiation fee | Demerit points |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 10 km/h | $215 | 2 |
| 10 km/h or more but less than 20 km/h | $484 | 3 |
| 20 km/h or more but less than 30 km/h | $987 | 5 |
| 30 km/h or more | $1,793 | 7 |
On a conviction:
- the fine can be up to $5,000 for an offence against Part 3 (speed limits) of the Australian Road Rules (Road Traffic (Road Rules-Ancillary and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2014, regulation 67(a)), and up to $5,000 for a natural person on a camera owner offence (section 79B(2));
- the victims of crime levy is $287, instead of the $108 for an expiated summary offence (Victims of Crime (Fund and Levy) Regulations 2018, Schedule 1, clause 1(a)); these are the levies in force from 1 July 2026;
- costs can be ordered: in Commissioner of Police v Ellis [2024] SASC 87, the orders included prosecution costs and court fees ([33]);
- the same demerit points follow (section 98B(1)), and a guilty plea, even one of convenience, incurs them unless the court orders otherwise under section 98B(4) (Jameson at [38]).
A plea entered for expediency is still an admission (Berti (No 2) at [21], [23]). Not recording a conviction does not avoid the points (Heyne v Police [2019] SASC 52 at [42]). The court may not set the penalty by reference to the points that will follow (Motor Vehicles Act section 98BH).
Can a court reduce the demerit points?
Only after a conviction, and only on a narrow test. The court must be satisfied, by evidence on oath given straight after conviction, that the offence is trifling or that any other proper cause exists. It may then order fewer points or none (Motor Vehicles Act section 98B(4)). Someone who pays the fee cannot use this power.
The courts read both limbs narrowly:
- trifling means of slight importance or little moment, and a normal or typical example of an offence is not trifling (Siviour-Ashman v Police [2003] SASC 29 at [24] to [25], a Full Court decision on the drink driving disqualification provision);
- a typical offence at 15 km/h over was not trifling, and proper cause must come from the circumstances of the offence (Jameson at [41] to [43]);
- proper cause does not include the driver’s personal circumstances (Svilans v Police [2014] SASC 173 at [27]), or hardship to the driver, their family or others (Ellis at [16]);
- a deliberate decision to speed while pressured by a tailgater was not proper cause (Muto-Henderson v Police [2017] SASC 139 at [35]);
- in a U-turn case, proper cause rested only on circumstances setting the offending apart from typical breaches, rarely on a mistaken belief alone, and not on reliance on GPS, a brief manoeuvre or light traffic (Michailescu v Police [2026] SASC 8 at [14], [20] to [23]).
The demerit point reduction page explains these applications, and a case study with points reduced from three to one shows one that worked.
What if the summons never arrives?
Then the court cannot hear the charge in the driver’s absence. Sections 27C, 62 and 62BA of the Criminal Procedure Act each require the summons to have been served before the Magistrates Court can go ahead without the defendant. Service is a condition limiting when those powers can be used (Anderson v Police [2026] SASC 148 at [64]). An attempted service report does not cure defective service or take its place ([34]).
The driver in Anderson had been convicted in her absence, and the conviction was quashed on appeal as a miscarriage of justice ([3] to [4], [89]).
Is paying the fine an admission of guilt?
No. Expiation is not an admission of guilt or civil liability, is not evidence of guilt, and cannot be mentioned in a report to a sentencing court (Expiation of Offences Act section 15(4)). The person cannot then be prosecuted for the offence or any other expiable offence from the same incident (section 15(1)), and for a motor vehicle offence no one else can be prosecuted for it (section 15(2)).
Paying still has consequences:
- the demerit points are incurred (Motor Vehicles Act section 98B(1));
- an expiated excessive speed offence counts as a prior if another follows within 5 years (Road Traffic Act section 45A(4));
- for learners and P-platers, points from an expiated offence count towards the 6 month disqualification in section 81B of the Motor Vehicles Act.
How similar cases tend to play out
Three illustrations of the choices drivers face when they contest speeding fines, on ordinary facts. They are not predictions: the result in a real case turns on its evidence and the person’s history.
Lower range. A driver with no recent points gets a camera notice for 12 km/h over the limit: a $484 fee and 3 demerit points (Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 2014 and Motor Vehicles Regulations 2025, Schedule 4). Paying ends the matter without an admission of guilt (Expiation of Offences Act section 15(4)), but the points are incurred (section 98B(1)). A typical offence of this kind is not trifling (Jameson), and electing risks a fine of up to $5,000, the $287 levy and costs.
Middle range. A company’s car, driven by an employee, is recorded by a fixed camera at 25 km/h over. The company has 28 days after the notice to nominate the driver (section 79B(2)(b)). If it does, a fresh notice can go to the driver within 1 year of the offence, with a $987 fee and 5 demerit points (Expiation of Offences Act section 16(1)(ab), (12)). If it pays instead, a prescribed body corporate fee of up to $5,000 is added (section 79B(2a), (2ab)).
Upper range. A driver elects on a mobile camera notice for 33 km/h over, a band with a $1,793 fee and 7 demerit points. The accuracy certificate under section 175(3)(baaa) covers only the day of the test and the following day. If the testing records do not match the certificates, that may be evidence to the contrary (Shah; Woolmer). If the challenge fails, the fine can be up to $5,000 (regulation 67(a)), the levy is $287, costs can be ordered, and the 7 points follow unless a section 98B(4) order is made.
How we defend a speeding fine in court
When drivers contest speeding fines, the case usually turns on two things: whether the notice and time limits were handled correctly, and whether the certificates match the records behind them. We look at both before advising whether to elect.
| Stage | What happens | What we do |
|---|---|---|
| Notice received | 28 days to pay, seek a review, elect or nominate (Expiation of Offences Act sections 6, 8 and 8A). | Check the notice and its dates, and advise before the 28 days run out. |
| Election or nomination | The notice is withdrawn, and police may summons within the section 52 time limit. | Lodge the election or nomination in the prescribed form and keep proof that it was given. |
| Disclosure | Photographs, certificates, testing records and device details. | Request the testing records, manuals and Australian Standard, and compare them with the certificates. |
| Hearing | The prosecution tenders its certificates; the defence may lead evidence to the contrary. | Cross-examine on the records and call admissible evidence where it helps (O'Callaghan; Scylla). |
| Outcome | Dismissal, or conviction with a fine, levy, costs and demerit points. | If there is a conviction, make any section 98B(4) application on sworn evidence straight away. |
We cannot promise a particular result, and no lawyer can. We can tell you early whether the evidence is worth testing, and what electing is likely to cost if it is not.
Every hour matters. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation, or call (08) 7094 2021 now.
Speeding fine case law
These are the decisions that matter most when drivers contest speeding fines. The case notes state what each court decided. Other decisions are cited in the text above.
| Case | Court | Principle | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Police v Schwerdt [2022] SASC 73 | Supreme Court | Every element, including ownership, must be proved; a wrong registration was not a new charge | [28] to [29], [33] |
| Police v Young [2012] SASC 210 | Supreme Court | A certificate proves only the certified test; persuasive onus | [29] to [32], [46] to [51] |
| Police v Bulgin [2010] SASC 143 | Supreme Court | More than some evidence to the contrary is needed | [44] to [46] |
| Police v Dodd [2004] SASC 91 | Supreme Court | The driver allegation does not reverse the ultimate onus | [39] |
| Elliott v Police [2009] SASC 292 | Supreme Court | Rebuttal requires credible evidence the device was inaccurate | [28] to [29] |
| Police v Shah [2025] SASC 47 | Supreme Court | A police testing record was evidence to the contrary of a camera certificate | [45], [48], [57] to [58] |
| Woolmer v Police [2020] SASC 184 | Supreme Court | Camera not tested as the regulations then required; conviction quashed | [121] to [122], [132] to [133] |
| Police v Hanton [2018] SASC 96 | Supreme Court | The test must in fact show the certified accuracy | [22], [52], [90], [198] |
| Zefi v Commissioner of Police [2024] SASC 42 | Supreme Court | No evidence of how a laser was operated; conviction quashed | [48], [69] to [72] |
| Anderson v Police [2026] SASC 148 | Supreme Court | The summons must be served before a hearing in the defendant's absence | [34], [64], [89] |
Case notes
Police v Schwerdt [2022] SASC 73
An owner elected on a notice for 110 km/h in a 90 zone, and the information had the wrong registration ([3]). Fixing it was not a new charge ([28] to [29]). Section 79B(2) does not change the elements, which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, including ownership ([33]).
Police v Young [2012] SASC 210
A section 175(3)(ba) certificate may certify only that the analyser was tested on a specified day and showed the stated accuracy ([29] to [32]). The words “in the absence of proof to the contrary” put a persuasive onus on the defendant ([46] to [51]).
Police v Bulgin [2010] SASC 143
Camera and accuracy certificates were wrongly excluded; whether departures from operating instructions affected the reading was for the trial ([44] to [45]). A defendant must do more than merely point to some evidence to the contrary ([46]).
Police v Dodd [2004] SASC 91
Nothing in section 175(1)(i), under which an allegation that a person was the driver is proof unless the contrary is proved, showed an intention to reverse the ultimate onus of proof ([39]).
Elliott v Police [2009] SASC 292
A section 175(3)(ba) certificate aids proof of accuracy but does not require the defendant to prove he was not speeding; the evidence needed to rebut it is evidence that the laser device was inaccurate ([28] to [29]).
Police v Shah [2025] SASC 47
A fixed camera recorded 123 km/h in a 60 km/h zone; the driver was acquitted of extreme speed and the alternative charge, and police appealed only the alternative acquittal ([3], [5]). The police testing record referred to regulation 32 of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 2014, the certificate to regulation 33 ([8], [12] to [13]). The record was evidence to the contrary without the testing officers being called ([45], [48]), and the same applied to the certified setting ([57] to [58]). The magistrate’s reasons were adequate and the appeal was dismissed ([70] to [72]).
Woolmer v Police [2020] SASC 184
An owner convicted over a camera-detected red arrow offence proved on the balance of probabilities that the camera had not been tested as the regulations then required ([121] to [122], [132]). The conviction was quashed ([133]).
Police v Hanton [2018] SASC 96
On dangerous driving and excessive speed counts, the statutory test must in fact show the stated accuracy ([52]). The defendant must prove the test failed to show it ([22], [90]). The findings of guilt were set aside and the complaint dismissed ([198]).
Zefi v Commissioner of Police [2024] SASC 42
The prosecution must prove a measuring device was in proper order and properly operated ([48]). With no evidence of how the laser was operated, the excessive speed conviction was quashed and an acquittal entered ([69] to [72]).
Anderson v Police [2026] SASC 148
An average speed camera recorded 122 km/h in a 110 km/h zone, and the driver was convicted in her absence ([1] to [6]). Service of the summons is a condition of proceeding without the defendant ([64]), and an attempted service report is no substitute ([34]). The conviction was quashed ([3] to [4], [89]).
Frequently asked questions
Can you contest a speeding fine in SA?
Yes. Drivers can contest speeding fines by electing to be prosecuted, which withdraws the notice and puts the matter before a court (Expiation of Offences Act section 8).
How long do I have to pay or contest a speeding fine?
28 days from and including the date of the notice (section 6(1)(c)), even if the notice arrives days later.
What if I never received the speeding fine?
The authority must withdraw it if, through its own error or a failure of the post or email, the notice arrived after the expiation period or never arrived, unless something has been paid (section 16(6), (7)).
Can a speeding fine be withdrawn because it is trifling?
Yes, if the issuing authority is satisfied the offence is trifling (section 8A(5)), but not once any amount has been paid (section 8A(6)).
Who gets the demerit points for a speed camera fine?
An owner who is a natural person and expiates or is convicted of the owner offence incurs the points for the speeding offence (Motor Vehicles Act section 98B(1aa)). A valid nomination moves the matter to the driver.
What if I was not driving when the camera caught my car?
Nominate the driver within 28 days after the expiation notice, or give a statutory declaration that the driver could not be identified with reasonable diligence (Road Traffic Act section 79B(2)).
What happens if I nominate the wrong person?
A false or misleading nomination carries up to $25,000 or 4 years imprisonment (section 79B(14)). The Commissioner may permit a mistaken nomination to be withdrawn and replaced (section 79B(12) to (14)).
Can I see the speed camera photo?
Yes. A copy will be posted on written application to the Commissioner of Police, and the photographs may be viewed on application (section 79B(5)).
Do I keep the demerit points if I lose in court?
Yes. The same points are incurred on conviction (section 98B(1)), even if no conviction is recorded (Heyne at [42]), unless the court reduces them under section 98B(4).
What does it cost to lose a speeding case in court?
A fine of up to $5,000 for a speed limit offence (regulation 67(a)), a victims of crime levy of $287 rather than $108 (the levies in force from 1 July 2026), possible costs, and the same demerit points.
Do I need a lawyer for a speeding fine?
Not always, but a contested hearing usually turns on whether the certificates match the testing records. We can tell you whether a challenge has real prospects before you elect. Call (08) 7094 2021.
South Australian courts we attend for speeding matters
We appear for drivers who contest speeding fines in the Adelaide Magistrates Court and the suburban and regional Magistrates Courts listed below.
Courts we attend
Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
Related traffic guides and case studies
Related guides
Related Insights
Demerit Points Reduced From Three to One for Speeding 13 km/h Over in a 60 Zone
A driver on a good behaviour condition had the demerit points for speeding 13 km/h over a 60 km/h limit reduced from three to one, with no conviction recorded and no six-month disqualification.
Trifling Offences and Other Proper Cause to Reduce Demerit Points in South Australia
Trifling Applications & Other Proper Cause to Reduce Demerit Points in SA Executive Summary Courts only reduce demerit points where the offending is trifling or…
No Conviction for Driving While Disqualified Two Days Into a Demerit Disqualification
Talon Legal acted for a client who drove two days into a demerit disqualification after misreading the notice. The Magistrates Court discharged him on a section 97 good behaviour bond without recording a conviction.