Citation: Jindal v Transport for New South Wales [2026] NSWDC 257
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 July 2026
Judge(s): Newlinds SC DCJ
Background
The appellant was detected by a mobile speed camera travelling at 64 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. He conceded he was driving the vehicle but argued he did not see a speed limit sign on his approach, and that the only visible 50 km/h sign in the area was positioned on the opposite side of the road, facing oncoming traffic. He also disputed the recorded speed, relying on his car's speedometer and automated speed-reading system.
The Local Court convicted the appellant after finding, as a matter of fact, that a 50 km/h sign was present approximately 300 metres before the speed camera on the appellant's side of the road. The appellant appealed to the District Court, which granted leave to file out of time but dismissed the appeal.
The appellant then applied to have a case stated to the Court of Criminal Appeal under s 5B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), seeking to challenge the legal correctness of the ruling that his mistaken belief about the speed limit was not a defence.
Legal Issues
- Whether a driver's mistaken belief about the applicable speed limit constitutes a mistake of fact (engaging the defence under s 9.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)) or a mistake of law (which attracts no defence)
- Whether the District Court should exercise its discretion to state a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal on that legal question
- Whether the factual findings about the appellant's actual speed could be reopened on appeal
Decision
Issue 1: The honest and reasonable belief defence
On the appeal from the Local Court, Newlinds SC DCJ was prepared to accept, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant honestly and reasonably believed the speed limit was 60 km/h and that the 50 km/h sign was not reasonably visible to him. However, his Honour held that this belief, even if genuine and reasonable, did not provide a defence. Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v O'Reilly [2009] NSWSC 134, which in turn applied the High Court's reasoning in Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 218 CLR 493, his Honour held that an erroneous belief about what the speed limit is constitutes a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact. The s 9.2 defence is confined to mistakes of fact and was therefore unavailable.
Issue 2: The appellant's actual speed
The appellant argued he could not have been travelling faster than 60 km/h, relying on his car's speedometer and automated systems. Newlinds SC DCJ rejected this because there was no expert evidence establishing the accuracy of the speedometer or the reliability of the car's speed-reading technology. The certificates of evidence issued under s 257 of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) provided prima facie proof of the recorded speed and remained unrebutted.
Issue 3: Application to state a case
His Honour framed a draft question for the purposes of the application: whether a driver's inability to know the applicable speed limit constitutes a mistake of fact engaging s 9.2 of the Criminal Code. He ultimately declined to state that case. The power under s 5B is discretionary, and the court must be satisfied the question is one of law, that it could affect the outcome, and that there is real doubt as to the correct legal answer. His Honour concluded that O'Reilly correctly applied the High Court's reasoning in Ostrowski, that the Court of Criminal Appeal would inevitably be bound by the same reasoning, and that the prospect of either distinguishing Ostrowski or persuading the High Court to depart from it was not realistic. Accordingly, there was no genuine doubt about the correct answer to the proposed question, and the application lacked realistic prospects of success.
His Honour also refused to state a case on the speed question, finding it raised no question of law and merely sought to re-agitate factual findings already made against the appellant.
Orders Made
- Application to state a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal refused.
Key Takeaways
- A driver's mistaken belief about the applicable speed limit is a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact. The defence of honest and reasonable mistake under s 9.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) therefore cannot be relied upon to answer a speeding charge under r 20 of the Road Rules 2014 (NSW), regardless of the reasonableness of the driver's belief.
- The District Court confirmed that the authority for this proposition, Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v O'Reilly [2009] NSWSC 134 (itself derived from the High Court's reasoning in Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 218 CLR 493), is well-reasoned, clearly stated, and unlikely to be overturned.
- Refusing to state a case, the court applied the framework from Gibson v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2) (2021) 105 NSWLR 434: a case will not be stated unless the question is one of law, its answer could affect the outcome, and there is real doubt about the correct legal answer.
- Certificates of evidence issued under s 257 of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) constitute prima facie proof of a vehicle's recorded speed. Displacing that prima facie proof requires more than a driver's own account of what the speedometer showed or how an onboard speed-reading system operates.
- The self-represented nature of an applicant is a factor that may weigh against stating a case, given the Court of Criminal Appeal will receive limited assistance on difficult legal questions in the absence of legal representation.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5B
- Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) s 18
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 9.2
- Road Rules 2014 (NSW) rr 10-1; 20
- Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) ss 138(1); 141(2); 257(2)
Cases
- Forrest v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2020] NSWCCA 162
- Gibson v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2) (2021) 105 NSWLR 434
- Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 218 CLR 493
- Shapkin v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) [2024] NSWCCA 263
- The Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v O'Reilly & Ors [2009] NSWSC 134