VIC Incomplete Traffic Infringement Notice - Grounds for Review?

[Docman2000]

I received a Traffic Infringement Notice for speeding the other day and I am wondering if the police are required to complete the Street Name and Place where the alleged offence occurred as this is not indicated on the infringement notice. If they are required to complete these fields, is their failure to do so grounds for having the infringement reviewed?

 

[Rod]

No. It may cause then to cancel that infringement and issue a new one. Administrative errors are able to be fixed without invalidating the offence. The days of getting off on these simple technicalities are well over.

It may be worthwhile pointing out the mistake and asking them to fix it. If they have lost records they may not be able to fix the error in which instance you would have grounds for having it thrown out. If police can't identify the location of a traffic offence this is unfair on your defence. How likely is it that they can't identify the location? Probably not likely, but hey, you never know if you don't try.

 

[Adam Cockayne]

Hi Docman2000
The omission of the location of the offence does invalidate the infringement notice.

 

[Iamthelaw]

Hi Docman2000
The omission of the location of the offence does invalidate the infringement notice.

I'm inclined to agree with this. Moreover, I can't imagine a fine with no location what so ever would meet the burden.

 

[kimsland]

Personally I disagree.

The infringement notice itself is not the overall binding penalty notice. That's actually stored electronically The infringement notice specifies to contact their such and such office for questions. This should be done.

 

[Iamthelaw]

Personally I disagree.
The infringement notice itself is not the overall binding penalty notice. That's actually stored electronically
The infringement notice specifies to contact their such and such office for questions. This should be done.

On what basis do you disagree?

If an infringement, regardless of the procedure in which it is 'stored' fails to mention the location of the offence how could it meet the burden? Different police TM manuals also suggest that no location and other omissions ought to call for the infringement being cancelled (see attached excerpt). I also wouldn't be calling them to alert them of this either.

 

[kimsland]

On what basis do you disagree?

Thanks for your question, and your procedural notice attachment to back up your concerns.

There are cases where, parking infringement notices are blown off windscreens, or where police have been too busy to issue a notice on the spot to a speedtest, or where the notice only displays the offense without a diagram and all other evidence required in a court room. All these things usually never add up to a failure of procedure.

The fact remains an offense was committed and fine or penalty or court hearing imposed. The lack of an address in this case may be for a number of factors: It happened in more than one location, the location was unspecified or at a non labelled area (in the middle of a paddock or in a new estate without street names available at the time, or where there may be confusion in delegating a specific area when it was not known.

Reading the (generally any) infringement notice there will be directions of where to seek more answers or what to do. It is not merely a case of well that's waived and that's that. Maybe another offense also happened at the same time causing the traffic offense to merely show a pattern of events. There are (or could be) multiple hypotheticals involved. So much so the only answer is to bring the case to court. Implying that this could just about be thrown out is wishful thinking in my view.

 

[Iamthelaw]

Thanks for your question, and your procedural notice attachment to back up your concerns.
There are cases where, parking infringement notices are blown off windscreens, or where police have been too busy to issue a notice on the spot to a speedest, or where the notice only displays the offense without a diagram and all other evidence required in a court room. All these things usually never add up to a failure of procedure.
The fact remains an offense was committed and fine or penalty or court hearing imposed. The lack of an address in this case may be for a number of factors: It happened in more than one location, the location was unspecified or at a non labelled area (in the middle of a paddock or in a new estate without street names available at the time, or where there may be confusion in delegating a specific area when it was not known.

Reading the (generally any) infringement notice there will be directions of where to seek more answers or what to do. It is not merely a case of well that's waived and that's that. Maybe another offense also happened at the same time causing the traffic offense to merely show a pattern of events. There are (or could be) multiple hypotheticals involved. So much so the only answer is to bring the case to court. Implying that this could just about be thrown out is wishful thinking in my view.

The fact that you're confident about this is worrying.

The Original Poster is not talking about a fine blowing off the window or being issued at a later time.

It is not merely a case of well that's waived and that's that.

Actually, it technically is - Infringement notices must show all information prescribed by the relevant legislative provision. It ought to be noted that I'm not saying that one can simply ignore the infringement.

What I, and at least one other member has said, is that the lack of a location will invalidate the infringement - Legislative provisions from varying jurisdictions (in this case Victoria) make it clear that infringement notices must contain the following:

• The title ‘Infringement Notice’
• An infringement notice number
• Date the infringement notice was issued
• The name of the agency issuing the infringement notice
• The due date for payment
• A statement that the infringement penalty must be paid by the due date
• The name or reference number of the authorised officer who issued the infringement notice
• The relevant legislation pertaining to the offence
• The correct section, regulation or rule number of the legislation or rules
• A brief description of the offence
• The correct penalty amount
• The correct demerit points
• The registered number or other identification of the vehicle (where relevant)
• The date of the offence
• The time of the offence
• The place of the offence
• The enforcement action warning
• The internal review statement
• Payment plan options
• The manner of payment options
• The contact details for the enforcement agency
• Right to go to court statement

Notwithstanding the above, it's clear insofar as the examples you've provided are concerned, that you're not familiar with the provisions, nor that the burden rests with the prosecution, which would include inter alia location of the offence.

 

[kimsland]

that the burden rests with the prosecution, which would include inter alia location of the offence.

Yes, the burden rests with the prosecution's reasons. And the judge makes the decision based on the evidence.

What was the speed of the alleged crime again? Oh unknown, so it could be 200 in a 60 zone, I'm sure the judge will call a mis-trial on that!

After seeing how a lot of courts act, I can honestly say the 'personal' decision of the judge is binding. Remember the wording provided above was it will be 'considered', whereas I find your words of "lack of a location will invalidate the infringement" to be misleading and wrong, and I expect you to note that?

 

[Adam Cockayne]

The Infringements Act 2006 and the Infringements Regulations 2016 require that the prescribed particulars, which include the place of the alleged offence (reg 14(1)(h)) , be shown on the infringement notice itself and that the particulars be correct. Any error or omission means that the notice was served contrary to law (section 22(1)(a)(i) of the Act) and must be withdrawn (R v Finnie (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 150). These are not trivial or immaterial errors that can be ignored