WA Traffic Law - Worth Contesting No Seat Belt Fine?

lmoores said:

Hi

I was looking for a little help please.

My husband was in a taxi that got stopped for the driver to be breathalysed. After a short while the officer looked in the rear of the taxi and as my husband was not wearing his seat belt at the time gave him a fine. However the vehicle was stationary and had been for some time so he had already removed his seat belt. So basically it's his word against the officer, so is it worth taking the matter to traffic law court?

Many thanks

Click to expand...

imanlore said:

just ask simple question in your claim
who is the man claiming i do wrong
no man will appear
the police prosecutor has to swear under oath and affirmation that you did him wrong
he wont do it

Click to expand...

Tim W said:

The suggestion in the post quoted above is not reliable.

Unless there is footage from the in-taxi security camera (if there even is one),
that supports your husband's claim, then he has nothing.
My usual opinion in such cases is to pay the fine and move on with your life.

Click to expand...

imanlore said:

get the lawyer to read out the code
all traffic codes use the word "shall" it means some time in the future...

Click to expand...

Tim W said:

No, this is not correct.

Click to expand...

Rob Legat - SBPL said:

The "shall" part. Shall means must.

Or (and I don't know why I'm about to actually do this) to use your reasoning, it could mean "in the future". However, that is on the basis that it pertains to all things happening in the future from when the instrument was created. That follows the rule that all legislation is prospective unless specifically determined to apply retrospectively. Therefore the act in question did happen "in the future" from the time when the instrument was created. No loophole - legislation working as intended.

Click to expand...