Page 3167 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The third recommendation that the committee made was that the ACT government use announcements on new silo locations to also reinforce the need for good poster etiquette.
More concerning to the committee than the awareness of the available facilities is that the community awareness of the legislation appears to be extremely limited. The committee received a number of inquiries from members of the public who were unaware that bill posting was already an offence, let alone the provisions and implications of the amendment bill.
The fourth recommendation was that, as additional bill posting silos become available, the ACT government undertake an awareness campaign to inform the community about the requirements of any legislation affecting bill posting activities.
The committee received a number of submissions about who would be held liable for bill posting offences and how this might be proved. Individuals making inquiries of the committee wanted to know whether the contact person named on the poster, the event venue or event organisers could be liable for unlawful placement of posters or placards under section 120 of the act for events they are a party to, even if they were not individually witnessed committing the offence.
The Chief Minister highlighted in his letter of 10 February 2009 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, performing the duties of a scrutiny of bills and subordinate legislation committee, that under section 8 of the Magistrates Court (Crimes Infringement Notices) Regulation 2008, an authorised person must witness the person committing the offence.
The Chief Minister advised in the letter that the need for a fault element was reduced because of the already prohibitive level of evidence that would ordinarily be required in a court in a prosecution merely to establish the factual element of the offence. A person must be seen committing the offence in order for reasonable grounds to exist for them to be served with an infringement notice. The strict liability provisions therefore apply to individuals posting bills illegally, not to event organisers, who would need to be prosecuted through the courts. The committee was further advised that it would not be sufficient to track a person down from the contact details provided in the poster or notice.
The Criminal Code 2002 also provides an avenue to challenge a strict liability judgement. It acknowledges that in certain circumstances individuals may be acting under a misapprehension and a mistake of fact may exist.
The committee also notes that community notices of a minor nature, such as lost pet notices, may be captured by the de minimis rule, which means the matter is so minimal or trivial that the law does not take it into consideration or it does not matter. The committee notes, on the other hand, that an individual organisation may be liable for offences under section 121 of the act based on their duty to ensure clean event promotion, even if they, or anyone associated with them, are not personally witnesses to the unlawful affixing of placards or paper to public property. An event has not been promoted cleanly if paper or placards are affixed in contravention of section 120.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .