Previous Page
Next page



Explains why Aussiespeedingfines.com is a scam.
Aussie Speeding Fines
Why the eBook and website is a scam

 Page 6


Legal Analysis of the Second Letter

The website's instructions tell you to send the second letter (which can be downloaded as a .doc from here) a month after the first letter if the police fail to provide you with the affidavit and associated documents that you have demanded in the first letter. Of course you will never get a satisfactory response to the first letter, if not only for the reason that some of the things that are asked for do not exist and probably never will. So the second letter is intended to acknowledge 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!! Take a read of this if you want to know more about why his Constitutional argument is junk.  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
The aussiespeedingfines strategy
The First Letter
Analysing the First letter
The Second Letter
Analysing the Second letter
What happens when you rely on the letters
Who operates aussiespeedingfines.com?
Aussiespeedingfines Exclusion Clauses
More of Mike Palmer's legal nonsense
Unlawfully providing legal advice?
Terms and conditions of this website