Traffic Infringements, Victoria, Australia

[Jonathanr]

I heard Keith's segment on the podcast last night, and thought I should pipe up about my experiences. I'm tapping this in on an Android handset, so I'll have to be a bit brief for now.
I've successfully defended two parking infringements and one speed camera offense. I've also pledge guilty to one speed camera offense, simply for lack if available time to sit out the court wait. There ate also numerous other infringement notices that never made it to prosecution.
On the last parking ticket offense, I attempted the "is there evidence of a complaining party" line, which rattled the prosecutor. I've generally found that if you just shut up, and work the prosecution's burden of proof in cross examination, that in itself goes a
long way - particularly if the magistrate and prosecutor are aware that you know their burden and standard of proof. They are really incompetent bullies, and get rattled easily. They're not used to even semi-competent challenges.

I'll write some more later this week when I've got access to a keyboard.

[Jonathanr]

I'm back with a keyboard now, so I'll add a bit more to this story:

My initial foray into legal land started when I received a speed camera traffic infringement notice (TIN) for a 67km/h in a 60km/h zone. I happened to be driving my MIL's Peugeot 307, which, being French, has it's speedo calibrated with major intervals at 30, 50 70 etc, rather than the usual 20,40,60 etc. This quirk was, I felt, enough of a justification to elect to have the infringement notice heard in a court. Having filled the back of the TIN form to elect for a court hearing, I later recieved a notice from Victoria Police saying that the TIN had been withdrawn and the matter may be heard in court - a summons to be issued in due course. I never received the summons, and a little over a year later, I received another letter from Victoria Police saying they had decided not to prosecute the matter on this occasion. Of course, the statute of limitations for traffic offenses is 12 months, so their apparent generosity and compassion was a little insincere. Anyway, sucked in by this beginners luck, I was emboldend to repeat this process, and was successful in similar manner for a subsequent four infringement notices - all speed camera offenses.

Then in 2008, I unfortunately received two speed camera infringement notices within two weeks - in fact the second violation occured before I had received the first notice. Both of these were for speeds less than 10km/h over the 100km/h posted limit. I figured that there was no reason why my previous "successes" would not continue, so I duly signed the court hearing election on the back of the notices, and sent them off - in separate mailings, so they wouldn't land on some bureaucrat's desk on the same day.

Alas, my easy success came to an end, and my adventure in legal land was about to start for real. This was shortly before I came across Marc's work. I knew enough that the state had the burden of proof, and figured that I would plead not-guilty, and just watch the process roll along, simply for the experience. The worst case downside risk was about $300 or so (from memory). So the process in Victoria goes something like this:

You sign the court election part on the back of the infringement notice and mail it in. Within a few weeks, a letter arrives from Victoria Police stating that the infringement notice has been withdrawn, pending issue of a summons. The summonses for both matters arrived by mail a few weeks before expiration of the statute of limitations (12 months from the date of the offense). Charge and Summons Notice is accompanied by a brief of evidence, which for these offenses includes a certified print of the camera photo, certificates of vehicle registration and driver's licence information. It is by statute (Road Safety Act) that the registered owner is liable for camera detected offenses - hence the certificates relating to registration and licensing.

It should be noted that the Summons is actually for an Ex Parte hearing. This is an important point, since if the hearing goes ahead as Ex Parte, then it's nothing but a paper shuffling exercise in front of a Magistrate. The brief of evidence would be presented, and a default judgement of guilty would be obtained. The Ex Parte is a catch-all event to deal with those who get cold feet about the whole proceeding. So to properly challenge this matter, I had to ring the court coordinator and let them know that I would be contesting the matter. They cancel the Ex Parte date, and set a date for a Contest Mention.

In this case, a Contest Mention actually jumps a step, since there is also a 'Mention' hearing possible. The Mention and Contest Mention are the pre-trial conference events. I didn't know all this for the first matter, and mistakenly thought that the Contest Mention was in fact the trial.

I turned up for the Contest Mention, and before the court is in session, the prosecutor seeks me out to have a chat about what the issues are, and what my intention is. I say that I was intending to plead not guilty, and I wanted her to exercise her burden of proof. I simply wanted to see how it was to be done. Once court is in session, I had to wait through the morning session (full of BAC violations and associated license suspensions and reinstatement requests), and my matter was finally heard last thing on the afternoon session. Sitting through a whole day of that crap would be enough to turn anyone voluntaryist. Lambs before the slaughter, it was. Even the one or two matters represented by professional liars was a sickening spectacle of sucking up to the Magistrate.

So, to my surprise (given I thought it was 'the trial'), the prosecutor casually presented all the documents to the Magistrate, who looked them through, and then asked me if I wanted to present testimony or offer a submission. I elected the latter, and launched into my argument about the failure of the prosecutor to provide legal argument connecting me as the registered owner of the vehicle to the offense liability. The magistrate responded by rattling off a couple of cases where that issue was 'settled'. He found the matter 'proven' but chose to dismiss it. I was pretty elated. I'd stuck my head in the lion's jaw, poked at the tonsils and gotten away with it. The time sitting around in the court room was the downside. One down, one to go.

---

The second of the two camera offenses summonsed was scheduled for a later date. I was busy with work at that point, and couldn't afford to sit in a court room for a whole day, so when I arrived I asked the court clerk if I could be scheduled first if I pled guilty. Discussiosn with the prosecutor resulted in an offer to plead for a lenient sentence on my behalf in response to my offer of guilty. I ended up getting second from pole position, and the guilty plea resulted in a good behavior bond, which was an agreement with 'the court' to be on good behavior for 90 days. This agreement results in the sentencing being stayed/adjourned for the duration of the bond period, and if I found myself before a magistrate for any reason during that period, I would be also dragged back in to the court for the sentencing hearing for that offense. Staying out of the way of a magistrate for 90 days isn't too difficult, and I found out that the sentencing hearing is simply a rubber stamping dismissal of the matter on completion of the bond period. So in effect that matter is dismissed also. I discovered, the inconvenient way, that an appearance of the adjourned hearing is not necessary. The novelty of court appearances had worn off at this point and all the inconvenience had jaded any sense of acheivement. At least I didn't have to hand over any money.

[zonsb]

(09-25-2011 11:52 PM)Jonathanr Wrote:  They are really incompetent bullies, and get rattled easily. They're not used to even semi-competent challenges.

Quote:The recently enacted cyber-bullying statute that seems tailor-made to address the case of Jamey Rodemeyer, the 14-year-old Williamsville high school student who committed suicide recently after enduring a long period of severe anti-gay bullying.

The new-anti-bullying law was in the news a lot and is beginning to tail off.
Google News search on anti-bullying law.
What's more terrifying than a pack of mentally-challenged bullies providing services at gun point? Having the propaganda/public relations machine to camouflage them with smoke-and-mirror slights of hand illusions.

[Jonathanr]

Time to add another installment on my experiences (let me know if this is not of value):

My next occasion to visit in front of the beak, was over a parking infringment. This was one of two notices I received after a habitual 'misuse' of the parking area at Essendon Station.

Here is an aerial shot of my car, parked correctly, for once:

Legal Parking

If you have a look around on that link, you'll notice all manner of inventive uses of space. After having received about nine or so 'warning notices', they finally 'cracked down' and started issuing infringement notices. The point of the warning notices comes up later, in an amusing dialog with the prosecutor for the second 'offense'.

Now both of these parking infringements were issued by the Department of Transport, and mailed to my home address. As is the rules here in Victoria, the registered owner of the vehicle bears liability for the infringement. Normally, parking tickets are stuck to the windshield, and contain only a phone number to ring in order to contest the ticket. These two parking infringements I received, were full-blown notices issued under the Infringements Act - pretty much the same forms you'd be handed by a cop for speeding or failing a stop or whatever.

Since both of these infringement notices (each being a fine of $25), were issued within days, I was annoyed and irrational enough to sign off the back of them electing for the matters to be heard in court, as is the procedure. I mailed them separately, in separate mailboxes, and on separate days, in an attempt for them not to end up on the same bureaucrat's desk for processing. The intent here was an effort that they both might be just dismissed and not prosecuted. This effort failed, and a few weeks later, I received two envelopes with Charge Sheet & Summons.

This all happened before I was really comfortable with Marc's process, so I was half of a mind to use his material, but also to defend these on their merits, as a backup plan.

The first matter proceeded through the whole court process, starting with the "Mention". From my personal experience, the "mention" is merely a date set in the summons, for the purposes of getting the prosecutor and the accused together for a brief chat about what each party's intentions were. This all takes place in the admin area of the court house, so nothing happens before a magistrate at this point.

I was expecting the informant to appear (a Ms Geraldine Rencontre) but a lawyer acting as prosecutor was who turned up (Ms Shakuntula Ram). She attempted to bully me into admitting guilt and paying the fine. I said that the only outcome I would be happy with, was for her to withdraw the charges, or for the matter to be dismissed by a Magistrate

She showed me her copies of the "evidence" (the exhibits), which included photos of the vehicle parked 'incorrectly', and sketches and diagrams created by the reporting DoT orificer.

When I saw all this material, my heart sank, since I wasn't aware of how much information had been gathered by the DoT officers. Anyway, I said to her that I would make a written request for a brief of evidence, and decide my course of action once I'd looked through it all.

However, on seeing my petulance (over a $25 fine), she and I went up to the Court Coordinator desk and set a date for the "Contest Mention"

After writing my request, I soon received a wad of paper in the mail. The package included a 'brief of evidence', which was comprised an elaborate array of sketches, photographs and the original 'report' from the DoT orificer.

In the mean time, I'd also had the Mention for the second offense, this time meeting Brian Moore, who would end up being the prosecutor for both matters. Brian is a shortish, pot-bellied middle aged man, with close cropped greying hair and goatee. I wasn't sure if it was short-man-syndrome, or that he was a lawyer that was most off-putting. He was the bulliest prosecuter I met, and showed visible signs of anger or at least contempt at my flouting of the parking regualtions. He was the sort of guy that invades your personal space and talks right in your face in order to make you feel comfortable. After a few shrugs of my shoulders, and wiping his spittle off my face, I suggested nonchalantly that I would request a brief and look through it. Again, we both headed to the Court Coordinator and set a date for the Contest Mention.

So I was now stuck with the job of defending two parking offenses, both documented by a heap of photos, notes and sketches. I'll dig them out and scan them, so you'll all know what I was up against.