VIC Issued Multiple Fines on the Spot - Legal Under Traffic Law?
- Thread starter Danip9
- Start date
-
- Tags
- traffic law
Yep. But if you go to court chances are good either police will drop one of the charges, or the magistrate will tell them to drop one and convict you on the other, assuming you did turn left when you were not supposed to.
There's some protection under the double jeopardy rule which is what I think you are alluding to, but sometimes the same act can have multiple legitimate charges. In your case I think you have some protection using the double jeopardy rule but don't hold me to it, I'm not an expert on this rule!
You have to decide if 2 or 3 trips to court are worth the possible saving of one fine and some points.
There's some protection under the double jeopardy rule which is what I think you are alluding to, but sometimes the same act can have multiple legitimate charges. In your case I think you have some protection using the double jeopardy rule but don't hold me to it, I'm not an expert on this rule!
You have to decide if 2 or 3 trips to court are worth the possible saving of one fine and some points.
BTW you may be able to request a review, suggesting only offence was committed and see if they will withdraw one fine without going to court.
Interested in knowing why you say this. I was thinking Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57 at [34] would apply in this situation. Happy to stand corrected 
Double jeopardy operates to preclude a second trial for an offence
that has already been dealt with and finalised (post iudicium).
In NSW, having a prosecutorial "second bite" (usually on an acquittal)
by proceeding on a backup charge arising from the same set of facts
(usually a summary charge, or an indictable charge able to be dealt with summarily),
is a different animal.
Have a look at R v Wells [2016] NSWDC 169 for a recent (NSW) example .
There are separate provisions for new and compelling evidence
that was not available at the time of the original trial.
As to the commentary in Pearce, you may find in instructive
to read the following paragraphs as well.
And then have a look at he R v Raymond John Carroll [2002] HCA 55 for comparison
that has already been dealt with and finalised (post iudicium).
In NSW, having a prosecutorial "second bite" (usually on an acquittal)
by proceeding on a backup charge arising from the same set of facts
(usually a summary charge, or an indictable charge able to be dealt with summarily),
is a different animal.
Have a look at R v Wells [2016] NSWDC 169 for a recent (NSW) example .
There are separate provisions for new and compelling evidence
that was not available at the time of the original trial.
As to the commentary in Pearce, you may find in instructive
to read the following paragraphs as well.
And then have a look at he R v Raymond John Carroll [2002] HCA 55 for comparison
Thanks for the reading and references. Liking the extra work you encourage me to do!
SECT 51 of Interpretation Of Legislation Act 1984 (VIC) - seems likely to apply:
Re-reading Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57 at [40] upholding double jeopardy principle shows 200+ citations:
re: R v Wells [2016] NSWDC 169 Very recent case. Is the appeal window still open to the HCA? *wonders if decision will be challenged. And if it can be distinguished as Wells was acquitted of the more serious charge and convicted on a second charge that has a lower threshold.
re: R v Raymond John Carroll [2002] HCA 55. Seems to support my view. Second appeal on charge of perjury was denied.
The recent legislative changes to double jeopardy are unlikely apply in this situation as there is unlikely to be new evidence.
Quote: Put 10 lawyers into a room together and you'll get 11 opinions!
SECT 51 of Interpretation Of Legislation Act 1984 (VIC) - seems likely to apply:
Provisions as to offences under two or more laws
(1) Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more laws, the offender shall, unless the contrary intention expressly appears, be liable to be prosecuted under either or any or all of those laws but shall not be liable to be punished more than once for the same act or omission.
(2) In subsection (1) "law" means—
(a) an Act or a provision of an Act;
(b) a subordinate instrument or a provision of a subordinate instrument; or
(c) common law.
(1) Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more laws, the offender shall, unless the contrary intention expressly appears, be liable to be prosecuted under either or any or all of those laws but shall not be liable to be punished more than once for the same act or omission.
(2) In subsection (1) "law" means—
(a) an Act or a provision of an Act;
(b) a subordinate instrument or a provision of a subordinate instrument; or
(c) common law.
Re-reading Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57 at [40] upholding double jeopardy principle shows 200+ citations:
To the extent to which two offences of which an offender stands convicted contain common elements, it would be wrong to punish that offender twice for the commission of the elements that are common. No doubt that general principle must yield to any contrary legislative intention, but the punishment to be exacted should reflect what an offender has done; it should not be affected by the way in which the boundaries of particular offences are drawn. Often those boundaries will be drawn in a way that means that offences overlap. To punish an offender twice if conduct falls in that area of overlap would be to punish offenders according to the accidents of legislative history, rather than according to their just deserts.
re: R v Wells [2016] NSWDC 169 Very recent case. Is the appeal window still open to the HCA? *wonders if decision will be challenged. And if it can be distinguished as Wells was acquitted of the more serious charge and convicted on a second charge that has a lower threshold.
re: R v Raymond John Carroll [2002] HCA 55. Seems to support my view. Second appeal on charge of perjury was denied.
The recent legislative changes to double jeopardy are unlikely apply in this situation as there is unlikely to be new evidence.
Quote: Put 10 lawyers into a room together and you'll get 11 opinions!
- Don't confuse "punished" with "tried".
An accused is not punished by being tried.
They are punished by the imposition of a penalty after conviction.
- I gather that Wells will go to appeal, yes. That's not the point.
At the moment, it's a finding of guilt on a backup charge.
Point being - a backup charge is not always and automatically a double jeopardy.
- Carroll went the way it did because it was an abuse of process ("vexatious and oppressive")
To prosecute him for perjury was held to amount to a second accusation of the murder
for which he had already been tried.
The Court wasn't having it.
In that case, double jeopardy operated to protect the acquitted.
It was an unpopular, but, at the time, technically correct, decision.
- Remember that the UK statutes and caselaw do not have binding effect in NSW,
and that while influential, do not necessarily represent the law (even the common law) in Australia.
You'll find that, overall and in general, the High Court also considers relevant and/or similar
cases from UnZud and Canada as well.
Hi Tim,
I agree with 1. Police can and do charge people with multiple offences, as many as possible it seems, and let the court system sort out what to do.
2. Agree.
3. Agree. Changes in laws made by populist politicians in a direct response to public opinion is a scary thing. Even worse in QLD with no house of review.
4. Yep, one of the first things I learnt in Legal Principles.
I agree with 1. Police can and do charge people with multiple offences, as many as possible it seems, and let the court system sort out what to do.
2. Agree.
3. Agree. Changes in laws made by populist politicians in a direct response to public opinion is a scary thing. Even worse in QLD with no house of review.
4. Yep, one of the first things I learnt in Legal Principles.
Similar threads
