Historical ACT Fines Easily Challenged

A “computer glitch” usually refers to the person operating it.

ACT Policing recently announced that more than 1500 motorists received up to 8 year old traffic infringement notices as a result of a “computer glitch”.

CT: “Computer Glitch” blamed as ACT drivers forced to pay old traffic fines

Motorists face suspension of their licences if they fail to pay the fines and many recipients are understandably outraged.

Kamy Saeedi Law has labelled the AFP and RTA actions as “likely unlawful” recently on local radio and in the Canberra Times.

At least one such ticket has already been successfully challenged prior to the breaking of the news that over 7000 such historical tickets were re-issued. The government “revealed the advice the RTA has received confirms the pursuit of these matters years later is unreasonable”.

As the arguments for challenging the tickets relates to ongoing client cases I cannot comment directly at this stage how the tickets can be successfully challenged but the crux of the argument rests on procedural fairness and the broad principles of Criminal or Administrative Law…
or you know…the vibe.

“It goes against basic principles of criminal justice to make an accused person prove they should not be forced to pay the fine,”

Any recipient is free to challenge the ticket on their own but the surest way is to contact a criminal lawyer to avoid any potential loss of licence.

Registry Remedies “Defective Processes”

A few months ago I wrote about Adhesive Pro P/L -v- Blackrock Supplies P/L, in which an application to set aside a Statutory Demand failed largely because the Court turnaround for stamping the documents did not return the application for serving until after the strict 21-day period for service.

The  Court was pretty scathing of the “defective administrative processes” in the Registry as well as the delay by the solicitors, then acting, for the Applicant.

Read the original post here.

The ACT Magistrates Court has reacted by releasing a new Notice to Practitioners which outlines the new procedures for filing and stamping of documents.

The notice states that the Court will stamp, rather than seal, documents for service on other parties. The stamp will include the date the document was originally filed.

This does not address the issue of Registry turnaround time but does provide parties with a stronger tool to prove that a served document is a true copy and was indeed filed at the stated time.

Rule 6304 of the Court Procedures Rules allows the Court to stamp a document instead of sealing it to indicate that it is a true copy of a filed document.

A Brief History of…Sumptuary Laws

Most people will never encounter sumptuary laws, but they do still exist in some less obvious forms. Sumptuary laws are those designed to prevent and regulate certain types of excessive consumption. Sumptuary laws are most closely associated with clothing and have been concurrently used to oppress people and promote social cohesion such as preventing people wearing clothes designated above their station and preventing undue flaunting of wealth.

Mediaeval England

Mediaeval England is well known for its sumptuary restrictions on what colours one could wear, what fabrics they could dress in, the length of one’s sword and even the decorations that could be on your horse. Most of the laws were largely unenforced as nouveau riche merchants grated against the old establishment who had the most to gain from preventing the flaunting of wealth by those less worthy.

The Tudor’s were the most notorious for this and appropriately The Tudors tv show has provided us with this insightful chart:

chart-of-sumptuary-laws

The English tradition of sumptuary laws also extended to the playing of sports such as Tennis, Port only being available to Officers and not the other Naval riff-raff and the flaunting of certain food such as eating mince pies on Christmas Day, although this was probably because of its Pagan origins.

Elsewhere

The British Isles were by no means unique in these rules. Most European countries had similar laws and 16th century Italy went super specific and even regulated who could wear a jewelled Sable head on the hilt of their sword.

Italian Marten's Head

In China peasants could wear goat, sheep or rat skins whilst the higher ranks were permitted more exotic furs such as Sable or Weasel. When Russian traders introduced the sea otter to China, it lead to the near extinction of the poor buggers. The Otter was a new creature and similar in quality to some of the more exotic furs. As it was novel, the Otter was not covered by any of the existing classifications making it extremely popular and lucrative. In a strictly hierarchical society, the opening to bend the rules without breaking them was greeted with great enthusiasm. The “Sea Dragons” were uniquely profitable for the traders and Otter numbers have still not recovered.

A similar fate was in store for North American Otters and Beavers whose pelts were favoured by the British.

Many American states had sumptuary laws in the 20th century but this was usually intended at social morals such as preventing the wearing of KKK outfits or men wearing drag.

Etymological Origins

The word sumptuary comes from our old Roman friends and is another one of those words that provides a root to a number of current words. Sumere is the earliest Roman form of the word as we know it, but even this was a contraction of sub-emere. Mere could conversely mean “to buy”, “to take” or “to spend” and sub means “under”, sumere was a broad term to to borrow, buy, spend, eat, drink, consume, employ, take, take up etc.

The past participle of sumere is sumptus resulting in sumptuarius meaning something that related to expenses. The word then did one of those weird historical retrogressions where the Latin sumptuosus jumped into Old French as sumptueux and around the 17th Century joined English in the form of Sumptuous, resembling its Latin origin more than it’s French iteration.

Sumere is found in a number of other English words, most frequently in the suffix “-sume”. “Consume” to take something up, “resume” to take again, “presume” to take before entitled etc.

Australia

Australia has never really had any true sumptuary laws apart from the odd hangover from the British, but even these were quickly dispensed of in the luxury starved colony.

The early Australian protectionist taxation regime often had the same effect as sumptuary taxes such as high import tariffs on fabrics. This essentially meant that imported silks and velvets etc. were exclusively for those who could afford it whilst the average Aussie was restricted to woollen clothing.

Perhaps the only meaningful current sumptuary law in Australia is the luxury car tax adding 33% to any imported luxury car. Perhaps with the euthanasia of the Australian car industry, this tax will be abolished shortly, but with the constant budget emergencies…probably not.

Want someone who knows what they’re talking about, read this chap: Alan Hunt, Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law (MacMillan Press Ltd, 1996)