Legislator Case Law & Legislation
II W 10/24 AI generated

Court convicts driver of speeding violation based on police radar testimony and inconsistent defendant defense.

Case Number II W 10/24
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court convicted the defendant of speeding by 31 km/h in a built-up area, imposing an 800 PLN fine. The defendant denied the speed violation and challenged the accuracy of the police officer's radar measurement, claiming the fine was unreasonably high. The court rejected the defense as internally inconsistent and noted that the officer's testimony was corroborated by calibration certificates and the defendant's own admission that he initially questioned the speed reading before later citing the fine amount as the reason for refusal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 92a § 2 kw; Art. 20 ust. 1 Ustawy z dnia 20.06.1997 r. Prawo o ruchu drogowym; Art. 24 § 1, 1a i 3 kw; When a traffic officer's speed measurement is supported by calibration certificates and the defendant's testimony is internally inconsistent or contradicted by evidence, the court may convict based on the officer's statement.

Keywords

AI generated
speeding violation traffic law radar measurement calibration certificate inconsistent defense criminal conviction fine imposition

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 92a § 2 kw
Art. 20 ust. 1 Ustawy z dnia 20.06.1997 r. Prawo o ruchu drogowym
Art. 24 § 1, 1a i 3 kw
Art. 121 § 1 k.pw
Art. 624 § 1 k.p.k.
AI generated

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text