Page 5818 - Week 18 - Tuesday, 10 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I agree with Mr Moore's comments on his concern about court imposed fines being raised from $500 to $2,000, although I agree with the principle that a magistrate should have the responsibility to look at the offence and make a decision. I think that is a very important matter in our society.
There is a concern about whether fines in general are being increased too much and about whether this legislation is an attempt to reduce offences or to increase taxation. Many people think that a number of these measures are designed to increase taxation rather than to reduce offences. I mention in particular the increased effectiveness of measures to apprehend people who are speeding. As I said, the offence of exceeding the speed limit by more than 45 kilometres an hour is a good one that most people would agree with. I leave my comments there.
MR COLLAERY (8.16): The Rally supports this Bill. I can share Mr Moore's concerns, but the increase from $500 to $2,000 in respect of section 192 offences relates only to a situation where a person has objected to an infringement notice and decides to go to court. My experience is that those people generally lose and generally pay a marginally bigger amount. I would not see a magistrate being swayed by the fact that his upper ceiling is now $2,000. I say "his" because that is the only gender term that applies to our court for the moment. My view is that the magistracy is unlikely to be influenced by this, except in those cases where the original traffic infringement notice was in a category that needed to be topped up if an undeserving appeal, in effect, had been made to take up court time.
There needs to be a little bit of filter to stop people using the system. Everyone knows that you have so many days to pay on the traffic infringement notice, and you can artfully delay the outcome of the other process for many, many months - a year at times. It clogs the system up and does not produce quick justice. It leaves people still driving. One of the things about our democratic system, unlike the system in a few other countries I know, is that you can have a very serious charge against you - for example, culpable driving, which is not part of what we are discussing tonight, but I mention it by way of example - and you can still drive until the outcome of the charge is known.
In the offences of strict liability - that is, the PCA or prescribed concentration of alcohol offences - most people are goners, but they can continue both with their driving and with their habits. That is a great shortcoming in our system. I am sure that the Attorney would agree with me that one day we need to work out a system of getting people who present on second or third PCA charges into the drug and alcohol counselling system at an early stage. Quite a few responsible solicitors get people into the program; but at the moment there is an increasing disincentive to use lawyers in the strict liability matters because there is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .