Recently Mrs GOF received a traffic infringement notice (TIN) for allegedly driving through a stop sign. When I checked the issued ticket and the street on which the offence is alleged to occur I discovered that no stop sign existed. I submitted a request for the withdrawal of the TIN on the grounds that the offence could not have occurred as recorded as there is no stop sign on the street that was named. The letter was submitted and I thought that would be the end of the matter.
A delegate of the Chief Police Officer responded and advised me that the TIN had been withdrawn and lo and behold a new ticket was issued with what he called ‘the correct information’. I thought the correct information was what was issued the first time! (How many versions of events are they allowed)
I would ask the collective of the RiotACT has anyone had a similar experience in terms of a TIN being issued and then withdrawn after a submission and a new TIN issued for the same offence but at a different location? Is it legal for this to be done?
I would have thought that a TIN was a statement of evidence from the Police Officer issuing the notice at the time of the alleged offence so how can the evidence be changed? To me it would seem the same as a Police Officer giving evidence and when the evidence is given and the credibility questioned the facts are changed which to me does not seem right nor I believe would be accepted before a court.
Weekly NewsletterEvery Thursday afternoon, we package up the most-read and trending RiotACT stories of the past seven days and deliver straight to your inbox..
I am also concerned that the actions of changing evidence in relation to the TIN was allowed to occur by a person who is a delegate of the Chief Police Officer as well as the original Police Officer who is now putting forward a different version of events.
I maybe wrong as is often the case or do not understand the processes of the AFP but it would seem that the AFP is allowed to change their evidence which I thought was illegal. Can anyone shed any light on whether I am overreacting or looking at this from the wrong perspective.
I will be taking the matter to the Ombudsman as I think it is very wrong.