..



Home
Previous Page
Next page


..

 

Explains why Aussiespeedingfines.com is a scam.
Aussie Speeding Fines
A legal analysis of Mike Palmer's ebook.

Barrister's legal advice:
"It's a scam.
Don't waste your money on this useless eBook"

  Previous Page 4 Next

 

Analysis of the First Letter

The first letter, which can be downloaded as a .doc file from here, is as useful as a nursery rhyme. There is barely a sentence in the letter that makes legal sense. It is totally misconceived in its assumption that you can make demands of the police to provide non-existent information to you which they are not under any obligation at law to provide (even if the information existed). It then makes the bizarre claim that the consequence of non-compliance with your demands is that the police have agreed not to prosecute you. If that were correct, then I could send you a letter demanding you sell me your car for $20.00 and unless you reply to me within 28 days with proof of the existence of Santa Clause, then we have a deal and the car is mine... Good grief!

Perhaps the intention of the first letter is to distract the enforcement agency (usually the police of the local council) into trying to comply with your demands in the faint hope that they will be conned into believing that compliance with those demands is a precondition to enforcing the penalty. It is not. All the enforcement agency will do is continue to enforce the fine in accordance with Part 4 and Parts 7 to 12 of the Infringements Act (together with any resulting demerit points and licence loss) unless the offender exercises his or her rights under either s.16 or s.64 of the Infringements Act, or s.89A(4) Road Safety Act 1986 in the case of licence loss offences. Nowadays most enforcement agencies are smart enough to know this. They know that the law allows two main options: (1) if you object to the fine they can take you to court where you can defend yourself, or (2) if you fail to pay the fine, they can have an enforcement order made against you. Any other correspondence from you will be considered by the Traffic Camera Office and may have the effect of delaying enforcement of the fine but it is extremely unlikely to result in your fine being cancelled, dropped or avoided.

If you think that sending letters like the one above will avoid legal liability for an infringement notice you are destined to be very disappointed. I note that the first letter is addressed to the police member who issued the infringement notice, as are all the follow-up letters. The author does not seem to realise that the police member who issued the ticket has no role to play in the process after the infringement notice is issued. Once it is issued, Civic Compliance and the Infringements Court undertake all administrative processes in respect of the infringement. Objections are sent to Civic Compliance. Sob stories are handled by the Traffic Camera Office's Penalty Review Board. Fines are collected by Civic Compliance. Defaulters are chased by Civic Compliance and the Infringements Court. The police member has no role to play. He can not drop the fine even if he wanted to. In practice he will withdraw and cancel the fine only if he issues a replacement fine or a charge and summons. Importantly, he has no need to go searching for irrelevant documentation just because you ask him to. The police member who issued the ticket will almost never respond to your correspondence. You will get a letter in reply from the Traffic Camera Office telling you to pay up. So sending your follow-up letters to the person who issued the infringement notice is a waste of time. It will merely dig you deeper and deeper into a hole until you find you have dug so deep you can not get out, and no one cares that you are in there. The member who issued the notice will not have any role to play unless you lodge an objection to the fine and ask to go to court, in which case the police member will file and serve a charge and summons.

In any case, if you take your case to court and rely solely on an imaginary private settlement agreement as your defence then you are certain to lose. No Australian court has ever accepted that such an agreement is lawful or possible. Quite simply, even if we assume that you have entered into a private agreement with the police, by law it is impossible to contract out of criminal liability. In fact, to enter into a contract with a police member which purports to prevent that police member from prosecuting you is an offence called perverting, or attempting to pervert, the course of justice. If I am a police member investigating you for an offence and I sign an agreement with you in which I promise not to file charges, this does not prevent me or any other member of the police from filing charges against you for exactly the same offence. Only the Director Of Public Prosecutions has the power to grant someone immunity from prosecution for a criminal offence. The concept of a "private settlement" is ridiculous.

You will also notice that the proposed letters contain similar verbiage to other lunatic letters which can be found on the Internet, and also terminology common in civil courts in the United States but which have no relevance in Australia:

Letter written to declare Texas an independant republic
Oregon affidavit attempting to get out of a traffic fine
Letter to the tax Commissioner trying to avoid tax.

Aussiespeedingfines.com also publishes some pro-forma letters which they recommend you should send to the police if you want to blame (or if you are unable to blame) someone else for driving your vehicle at the time a camera offence is detected (i.e. if you want to pass the buck even though you were the driver). I am aware of many people who have sent these pro-forma documents to civic compliance. The letters are clearly a fiction and expose the motorist to charges of make false statement or attempting to pervert the course of justice if the matter ends up in court. Drivers can be imprisoned for doing this. The use of pro-formas or fictional explanations to excuse yourself from a speeding ticket is risky and should not be undertaken lightly. Sending such letters can adversely affect your chances of winning at court.

The first letter falsely implies that use of a speed measuring device is unlawful if the device has not been certified under the National Measurement Act. For decades this argument has been tried and the courts have consistently said that no law in Australia imposes any obligation for speed measuring devices to be so certified. There are still people who think they can win using this defence. I know they can not. Some of my clients faced with speeding charges have asked me to run this defence. From my experience in court and my legal research I am confident that this argument has no prospect of success. Nearly every State Supreme Court or Court of Appeal has handed down decisions that reject this argument. This page explains more about the NMA defence.

What the first letter says about the Currency Act is utter garbage. No commentary needed. Just read the legislation and laugh.

 

Site Content

1. Introduction
2. The aussiespeedingfines strategy
3. The First Letter
4. Analysing the First letter
5. The Second Letter
6. Analysing the Second letter
7. What happens when you rely on the letters
8. Who operates aussiespeedingfines.com?
9. Aussiespeedingfines Exclusion Clauses
10. More of Mike Palmer's legal nonsense
11. Unlawfully providing legal advice?
12. Terms and conditions of this website

View all as a single page

..


..

..