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 6 Next
Legal
Analysis of the Second
Letter
The aussiespeedingfines instructions
tell you to send the
second letter (which can be
downloaded
as a .doc from here) if the police
fail to provide you with the affidavit
and associated documents that you have
demanded in the first letter. You will
never get a satisfactory response to
the first letter, not only because some
of the things you have demended do not
exist and probably never will. The
second letter acknowledges in writing
that the police are in breach of your
demands. The document is written in the
style of a court document and tries to
look official, even though it is pure
garbage.
The second letter is addressed to
the police member who issued the
infringement notice, but as mentioned
earlier, any reply to your first letter
will come from the Traffic Camera
Office (even if yours is not a camera
offence). The letter starts with the
phrase "Know all men..." A clear
indication that the writer is a tosser.
Perhaps the language used is intended
to make the document sound like a
lawyer wrote it. But this phrase has
never previously been seen in private
contracts and is probably only found
these days in very old legislation or
your grandfather's will.
The author goes on to say that he
"makes a Conditional Acceptance of the
claim" of the police member that the
radar or laser used by the police
member "conforms to" the National
Measurement Act ("NMA"). Perhaps he
means "complies with the National
Measurement Act "? Anyway, I seem to
have missed the part where the police
ever claimed that their laser or radar
conforms with the National Measurement
Act. The police have never made any
such claim, so it is a mystery how the
writer can take it upon himself to
accept a non-existent claim (even if
acceptance is required).
Paragraph 2 of the letter is even
more meaningless. It states that the
claim by the policeman was accepted for
value. Is this the same claim as is
referred to in paragraph 1, i.e. the
claim, which the police never made,
that his radar conforms to the NMA? If
so, how can it be accepted "for value"?
Did someone pay for the claim? What was
its value? What the hell does that
mean? It is not even English. Don't
forget you will have to stand in court
and explain the meaning of these
letters to a Magistrate if you intend
to prove that this private settlement
is legally binding. Perhaps he is
referring to the financial penalty
specified in the infringement notice?
If so, why not say so? If so, it is not
a claim anyway. It is a fixed penalty
imposed by parliament as punishment for
a criminal offence which is payable if
you admit guilt by not challenging the
matters alleged in the infringement
notice. Claims are made in civil
proceedings. They have no role
whatsoever in a criminal process.
Paragraph 3 alleges that the police
"have defaulted in respect of their
claim and have admitted and agreed to
the terms of the Conditional Acceptance
tendered". But what claim have they
defaulted on? Is it the claim referred
to in the first paragraph of the second
letter that their radar conformed with
the NMA, being a claim that the police
actually have never made? Or is it a
claim for money? The police have not
admitted or agreed to anything at all.
What section of what legislation
entitled the author to make any demands
on the police for any affidavit at all?
None! Are there any laws which require
the police to comply with any bizarre
demand that they receive in respect of
a traffic infringement notice? Not in
Australia. The author believes that the
police are obliged to prove to the
motorist that they have sufficient
evidence to secure a conviction prior
to the motorist electing whether or not
to take the matter to court. This is
nonsense. The police are not required
to prove anything whatsoever until the
matter is called on for hearing before
a magistrate. Although the police can
be obligated to make discovery of
evidence in the pre-trial process they
are not obliged to do anything until a
court proceeding has commenced.
The purpose of an infringement
notice is to provide an expedient
manner for motorists to expedite minor
infringements of the law without the
need to drag people though a full-blown
court case. The motorist's option is to
accept it or dispute it. The court
process does not commence until the
motorist has elected to take the matter
to court. So this "conditional
acceptance" and "private settlement" is
pie-in-the-sky garbage. During the
court process the motorist is entitled
to request copies of the evidence that
will be alleged against him or her.
This is limited to matters of fact, not
questions of law. Much of what is
demanded in the first letter are
questions of law. If the motorist does
not agree with any aspect of the
allegations contained in the
infringement notice, the law requires
the motorist to lodge an objection so
that a court can determine the issue in
dispute. The law does not provide any
mechanism for "conditionally accepting"
an infringement notice. If you do not
object to it, you are taken to accept
it, even if you ignore it, and even if
you write crazy demands for
affidavits.
The second letter refers to the
"unsubstantiated denials that may be
made by them that the speed measuring
radar device does not comply with the
National Measurements Act 1960 when
used for any legal purpose." In my
experience the police have always been
very willing to admit that their speed
measuring devices are not certified
under the NMA. This is because there is
no requirement that they be so
certified. So the letter falsely
suggests that the NMA is relevant, and
that the police are trying to dodge the
question of whether or not their
devices are certified.
The letter then announces that the
matter of the outstanding infringement
notice is now closed. For reasons
unknown a Justice of the Peace is
required to witness your signature,
perhaps to make it all sound far more
official and plausible than it actually
is.
In my opinion, the contents of the
letters are so absurd that no police
could have any doubt that this charade
is a load of bullocks. Gullible and
desperate motorists on the other hand,
who have little or no legal training,
are likely to be conned by the official
sounding forms and the goobledy-gook.
They might think they are onto
something brilliant. Perhaps the whole
scheme is designed to woo and confuse
the poor motorist more than it is
designed to have any legal affect.
Maybe if it were written in plain
English everyone could see that it is
all a futile waste of time and
money.
I could write many paragraphs trying
to discern some meaning from the 3rd
letter, but if you read it for
yourselves you should arrive at the
same conclusions as me. It is a
mish-mash of old fashioned US civil law
mumbo-jumbo dressed up to look like it
has some relevance to speeding fines.
To think that this garbage could get
you off a traffic fine is
laughable.
Your
legal rights regarding infringement
notices.
After you receive an infringement
notice, your options are to object to
the infringement notice (which will
cancel it), else pay the fine and
accept liability, or else just ignore
it. By sending the above letter you are
effectively electing to ignore the fine
because your action has no real affect
on the course of the proceeding. The
legal process of infringement notices
is fully explained here.
A person who receives a fine does
not have any right to demand the police
to provide anything at this stage of
the proceeding. You could issue a FOI
request, but that will take about 3
months. Assuming that a valid
infringement notice has been lawfully
issued to you, the choice is yours
whether to accept or reject the
allegations contained in it. If you do
not accept liability for the offence,
or you want to force the police to
prove that an offence has been
committed (for example you want the
police to prove that they used a
properly calibrated and authorised
laser device) then your only option is
to lodge an objection and take the
matter to court. Once you are in the
court system the law allows you to
demand anything you want. If the police
refuse to provide it a Magistrate will
decide whether or not you are entitled
to the material you are seeking. But
the effect of choosing option 3 (doing
nothing or sending garbage letters) is
that you become a defaulting offender
and the fine will be enforced. If it is
a fine that carries mandatory licence
loss, then your licence will be
cancelled or suspended 28 days after
the date of the fine, and demerit
points will be recorded upon the making
of an enforcement order.
Sending these letters can not and
will not prevent you from suffering
licence loss or incurring demerit
points. It will not prevent an
enforcement order being made against
you. If you choose not to object to the
fine you will lose your right to have
the infringement notice cancelled and
you will be unable to force the police
to proceed by way of charge and
summons. You will lose the opportunity
to challenge each of the things listed
in the letter (if you think that
matters). For people who are eager to
win their cases, this is not a good
outcome. You usually are far better off
defending a charge and summons in court
than trying to set aside an enforcement
order and then fighting an infringement
notice in court. If you do not
understand the difference, then you are
probably out of your depth and should
get legal advice about what is best for
you.
The best these pro-forma letters
will do is give you a chance to wear
down the police in the hope that they
will soften or perhaps give up. You can
try that just as easily by following
the traditional path of objection. The
author of the website preaches that our
roads exist for all people to use
without restriction and that any
attempt by government to impose
restrictions on our use of them is
unlawful. He claims that local
governments are illegal because they do
not get a mention in the Commonwealth
or State constitution!! 
He claims Victoria's road laws are not
binding, just guidelines, and everyone
is entitled to ignore them if they
wish!
Fee
simple.
- 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
|