Advice on Infringement Notice

[Supercharged]

Originally Posted by Flaming Mo

[B]13 What is a road related area
(1) A road related area is any of the following:
(a) an area that divides a road,
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists or animals,
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles.[B]

By simply reading the legislation, one could determine that the ute muster carpark satisfies the definition of "road related area" under section (d), which would perhaps be the criteria used by the officer who issued the ticket.

I think what FG Turbo Ute is saying (which may very lilkely be correct), is that the area in quetion, whether private or not, must be primarily developed for, or have as one of its main uses, the parking or use of vehicles for the public, which would not be the case with a paddock or oval. Would this be correct FG Turbo Ute?

(C) is a park with trees and the like, restricted but still public open space and normally public owned (Council or Crown)
(D) is a Car park, Sevice Station and the like,
Land that is private and is closed off at times to the public is not considered public open space (related area) , this has been tested in court before.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Flaming Mo

[B]13 What is a road related area
(1) A road related area is any of the following:
(a) an area that divides a road,
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists or animals,
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles.[B]

By simply reading the legislation, one could determine that the ute muster carpark satisfies the definition of "road related area" under section (d), which would perhaps be the criteria used by the officer who issued the ticket.

I think what FG Turbo Ute is saying (which may very lilkely be correct), is that the area in quetion, whether private or not, must be primarily developed for, or have as one of its main uses, the parking or use of vehicles for the public, which would not be the case with a paddock or oval. Would this be correct FG Turbo Ute?

From what I understand of this so far, the law is enforceable in a road related area, am I correct?

If this is the case, at the ute muster it was on a paddock which is not a road related area (need to remember it was not in a car park), so therefore the law does not apply.

[ch33z1l]

Does that mean at the Ute Muster, you can receive an infringment for public intoxication, considering it is on public grounds....lol

What a croc! Id be writing a letter for sure.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by ch33z1l

Does that mean at the Ute Muster, you can receive an infringment for public intoxication, considering it is on public grounds....lol

What a croc! Id be writing a letter for sure.

For the duration it will have a license for the sale of alcohol if it is served there. Having said that it is and offence to sell alcohol to an intoxicated person on a licensed premises, so it would be an offense but under different laws to public consumption of alcohol.

[Hybrid34]

Originally Posted by FG Turbo Ute

Correct, it cannot be applied as an offence as part of the road rules as it wasn't on a Public road or public open space, by the way, drink driving applies even on private land as that is termed a criminal offence.

Originally Posted by FG Turbo Ute

The officer should have booked him under creating a public nuisance or similar, by booking under the Australian Road Rules he made a mistake or a bluff as it is not a Road Related Area or Public Open Space and there for not enforceable.
Write your letter as I doubt they will withdraw it unless you complain, it will not stand up in Court.
He was booked under the wrong act.

Looks like you have a strong case mate (guy who got booked)...
If FG Turbo Ute was one of hte boys in blue he knows what hes talking about..
In saying this, I was under the impression if a policeman books you for the wrong thing, you have a strong case to get off it?

- Ash

[Flaming Mo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

From what I understand of this so far, the law is enforceable in a road related area, am I correct?

If this is the case, at the ute muster it was on a paddock which is not a road related area (need to remember it was not in a car park), so therefore the law does not apply.

You may have misinterpreted my post. If you re-read the last paragraph, you will see that I specified that FG Turbo Ute may in fact be correct in that the law may not be applied in the case of a paddock or oval, as the paddock is not primarily developed for parking, or regularly used by the public.

The other paragraph was suggesting that the officer, mistaken or otherwise, may have interpreted the area as enforceable, as at that specific time of the incident, the paddock was in fact "an area that is not a road that is open to or used by the public for parking vehicles" (Section d), although only temporary.

As the legislation does not make provisions for the terms "temporary" or "permanent" in describing areas of parking or even the term "carpark" for that matter, if the officer was unfamiliar with specific court judgements relating to these issues, he may well have believed in error, that the area was enforceable because it was a designated area used for public parking at the time.

Hope this reads a little better.

[SM1DY]

I don't know if this has been said or not (because I can't be bothered reading all the posts), but these sort of events are used to promote the responsible use of motor vehicles by betting people off the streets and into a controlled enviroment. Then they go and fine you for been festive at a car show. Next thing they'll be fining people for speeding at the drag strip.

[Supercharged]

In short, he was booked under the wrong law (act), they will not give in easily.
Drink driving you can be booked anywhere.
There are all sorts of thing that go on. In 1995 the Commissioner of Transport (Tasmania) authorised the Council parking officers to be able to fine people for parking offences like loading zones, bus stops, no standing and no parking areas (other than parking meters and car parks as that falls under the Highway Act which they could always do).
It was discovered in 2003 that the Commissioner could only authorise persons under his/her direct control which meant employed by departments under the commissioners control not Councils, they had been booking people without the correct authority.
They amended the Act on 03-09-2003 to correct this, when I left the Government I let the local paper know and they found out that it was correct, thousands of people were fined illegally, nothing happened, it wasn’t printed as there were millions of dollars involved which would have to be refunded, I should have contacted someone like Today Tonight but it is too long ago now.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by FG Turbo Ute

In short, he was booked under the wrong law (act), they will not give in easily.
Drink driving you can be booked anywhere.
There are all sorts of thing that go on. In 1995 the Commissioner of Transport (Tasmania) authorised the Council parking officers to be able to fine people for parking offences like loading zones, bus stops, no standing and no parking areas (other than parking meters and car parks as that falls under the Highway Act which they could always do).
It was discovered in 2003 that the Commissioner could only authorise persons under his/her direct control which meant employed by departments under the commissioners control not Councils, they had been booking people without the correct authority.
They amended the Act on 03-09-2003 to correct this, when I left the Government I let the local paper know and they found out that it was correct, thousands of people were fined illegally, nothing happened, it wasn’t printed as there were millions of dollars involved which would have to be refunded, I should have contacted someone like Today Tonight but it is too long ago now.

Sounds like one call to the media and a lot of people would have been very happy.

[fos408]

No the media would not have been interested, they only want crap they can sensationalize to suit their agendas ,especially TT.

[SilentDave]

how would that rule apply as a lot of car shows these days have loudest exhust comps .....

[ThePistonHead]

Any updates Cowboy?

[cowboy]

I have written a letter and am awaiting a reply. Stand by.

[fox76]

I would suggest there is plenty of case law in NSW at least to say that it was a car park/ road related area at the time of the offence and open to and used by the public weather on payment of monies or other wise. It clearly falls under the road related area. I would go to court and plea guilty with an explanation. Explain the circumstances of the event and environment and I would bet the Magistrate would dismiss the charge or give what is called a section 10 unless that particular police car has in car video and there is more to the story than what has been said and not in your favour. I will bet the SDRO send you a reply saying take it to court. Any submissions you have made will also be sent to the police prosecutors. Not the answers you want but probably the reality of the situation. If what you have said is true the ticket is excessive given the context.

[Supercharged]

Originally Posted by fox76

I would suggest there is plenty of case law in NSW at least to say that it was a car park/ road related area at the time of the offence and open to and used by the public weather on payment of monies or other wise. It clearly falls under the road related area. I would go to court and plea guilty with an explanation. Explain the circumstances of the event and environment and I would bet the Magistrate would dismiss the charge or give what is called a section 10 unless that particular police car has in car video and there is more to the story than what has been said and not in your favour. I will bet the SDRO send you a reply saying take it to court. Any submissions you have made will also be sent to the police prosecutors. Not the answers you want but probably the reality of the situation. If what you have said is true the ticket is excessive given the context.

You can't be serious, if you plead guilty that is it, you admit the offence, it will not be dismissed.

[fox76]

Magistrates have in their discration to dismiss the offence under the provicions of the Crimes (sentencing) Act (NSW). That is the offence is proven but dismissed. They are given out every day for all sorts of matters. Alternativley plea not guilty lose any entitlement to the benefit of an early guilty plea and see how you go. Worse case the fine is upheld or more depending on driving record plus 70 odd dollars for court costs.

[EviLkarL]

Fight it mate, take it through the courts and clear yourself in the name of common sense. What a BS fine handed down by people obviously not busy enough fighting real crime. Best of luck.