Page 4515 - Week 15 - Thursday, 22 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stevenson: I have never voted that people should set out their grounds prior to the court proceedings.
MR DUBY: There were some interesting lines, and Mr Stevenson was in good form that day. He says that he has admitted to having received a parking infringement notice or two, which I think all of us have. He says that he has given a few and has got a few back, which is probably a fair exchange. The bottom line is that Mr Stevenson spoke in favour of the legislation, and he spoke in favour of the amended extension of time to provide for people to receive proper notice of the fact that their licence may well be about to be cancelled.
What this legislation did, basically, was to remove parking matters from the criminal jurisdiction and ensure that imprisonment would no longer be the ultimate penalty for unpaid parking fines. I am sure everyone here still supports that notion. Whilst there was vigorous debate over some details of the legislation, there was no disagreement with the basic principle behind it.
The Assembly agreed, overwhelmingly, that it was appropriate for unpaid parking fines not to be punished by imprisonment. I have some notes on this. Given the recent history of Mr Stevenson's experience of some of his constituents in this matter, I thought people losing their driver's licence, or their motor vehicle registration, might well be a topic today.
There are notices that go out. Section 162A of the Motor Traffic Act requires that a final notice be served personally or by post, or that it be left at the last known place of residence or business.
Section 162E of the Motor Traffic Act is even more specific. It requires that a notice advising that a licence or registration has actually been cancelled shall be served by post on the person at his or her last known place of residence or business. There is no provision in the Act for notices to be posted to a post office box.
This is not an unusual or novel provision. It is also a requirement of the Magistrates Court Act. Under the previous legislation, summonses were also posted to residential addresses. It is also consistent with the Acts Interpretation Act that deals with the service of documents.
I think Mr Stevenson would agree that a post office box is not normally regarded as a place of residence. Even if the Act did permit the service of notices to postal boxes, there is of course no guarantee that the box would be cleared by the first - - -
Mr Stevenson: They will accept it for renewal, but not for notification.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .