20 August 2011

Traffic Infringement Notice - can the evidence be changed?

| Grumpy Old Fart
Join the conversation
75

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A delegate of the Chief Police Officer responded and advised me that the TIN had been withdrawn and lo and behold a new ticket was issued with what he called ‘the correct information’.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I would ask the collective of the RiotACT has anyone had a similar experience in terms of a TIN being issued and then withdrawn after a submission and a new TIN issued for the same offence but at a different location?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.

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.

Join the conversation

75
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Although I’m confident no-one is reading this thread any more, here are some views:

somtimes there can be advantages in contesting the case in court. I contested a red-light camera photo. I’m sure it wasnt red, but the photos appear to show red light and me driving through (though the photo colour is so poor it could have been orange). Instead of wasting a day in court, at the last moment I wrote a letter to the court basically pleading guilty. Copped the fine. But no demerit points ever appeared. I consider that to have been worth the effort taken to dispute and have a Magsitrate decide the penalty.

Those of you expecting GOF to answer whether his wife was guilty are plainly just a little dim – he’s not going to state that on a public forum which could be used in evidence.

I didn’t know TINs arrive in the mail after a police stop – I assumed they would be issued on the spot.

Am I guilty of killing my wife? That’s not the issue – if the cops try to prosecute me on faked evidence there are three possible really bad outcomes:
– I am guilty but am acquitted because the faked evidence is uncovered as fake – I can never be prosecuted again, even if new evidence emerges;
– or I’m not guilty but am found guilty, or at least go through a lengthy trial and serve a period in prison (on remand or sentenced) while I fight it and hopefully eventually win and the system has to pay me compensation, and a few cops are demoted or fired, maybe even jailed themselves;
– and the real perpetrator goes free to do it again.
The only possible good outcome is that I am guilty and serve my penalty, but those clever cops are going to get it wrong sometime, and the other outcomes will occur then. They would do better to bide their time, keep investigating, and get a conviction the right way.

IP

obamabinladen said :

Tooks if the stupid officer can’t correctly write down a street name then what makes you think he will be a reliable witness in court? I’m impartial in this argument my point is that police need to get it right otherwise people are going to get off more serious offences. Me thinks the cops were lucky this time because MRS GOF advised them of the mistake and a new TIN was issued. My Mongaloid comment goes out to the people who blindly say that MRS GOF should pay the fine if a cop stuffs up and there is a possibility she can get off the fine then she should!!! Tooks u a dog sorry i mean cop?

No no, you must have misread my post. I said STOP embarrassing yourself, not KEEP embarrassing yourself. They are two different words.

I had a similiar incident happen to me once but I think my Mr Plod was too busy smoking behind the toilets when they did maths. My TIN made me 3 years older on my date of birth, I was driving a green car when it was blue (okay it was at night) AND the streets were all wrong. When I wrote to them I advised them they were wrong on many things so they issued me with a new fine and even then that was wrong. I went to court and just before I was due in the DPP said that they have withdrawn my case!!!

Sometimes its worth taking the day off work. Save your cash, demerit points & insurance premium going up!

Mate, my advice would be if there is a next time 😛 When you write a letter to the CPO or ORS do not give too much away, ask for the matter to be withdrawn, and if not, elect to go to court. “The elemet of suprise”, when @ court bring the mistake to the attention of the Magistrate who may or may not dismiss the matter based on that mistake….

It is quite amusing, usually the smug highway jockeys dont look so smug…. Dont feel bad either, the vast majority of uniformed persons who Issue TIN’s & PIN’s are frustrated that they were not intelligent enough to make detective 🙂

I was rear ended by an ambulance once on their way to an emergency. I had pulled over to the side of a three lane road and stopped to let the ambulance past and avoid clogging up the upcoming T intersection. Unfortunately the ambulance driver must have thought it was quicker not to go around me.

Witnesses stopped and commented on how the driver had nearly cleaned them up to. I thought it was so cut and dry I didn’t even bother to get their details. It took around 6 months (and long after my insurance company had given up) to get the ACT Government to agree that the accident was their fault.

Hey, I had a similar thing happen to me. I was hit by an action Bus last yr and I got a letter in the mail with a $256 fine and 4 points. The ticket and statement of facts said that both me and the driver said I had pulled out in front of the bus giving it no time to stop and it hit me. First thing is, I did not say that and 2nd thing is, I was already driving on the road, so i couldnt have pulled off the side of the road. It also says there were witnesses saying that. The only witnesses (appart from my friends who saw it) was the bus driver and hgh school kids. They said they had also viewed video footage and it showed that I had pulled off the side of the road. 6 months later I got a new version of facts that said they hadnt view the footage yet. So therefore they are contradicting themselves.

Weird huh?? I think it is basically the AFP and the goverment trying to scam money out of people. since then, I havent trusted the AFP. If you believe you are right, stick by it, because most likely you are right. They think they are bigger than the rest of us and dont think we will go to court and fight it! Guess what? I am.

obamabinladen3:35 pm 22 Aug 11

Tooks if the stupid officer can’t correctly write down a street name then what makes you think he will be a reliable witness in court? I’m impartial in this argument my point is that police need to get it right otherwise people are going to get off more serious offences. Me thinks the cops were lucky this time because MRS GOF advised them of the mistake and a new TIN was issued. My Mongaloid comment goes out to the people who blindly say that MRS GOF should pay the fine if a cop stuffs up and there is a possibility she can get off the fine then she should!!! Tooks u a dog sorry i mean cop?

Henry82 said :

Skyring said :

For example. An ambulance with lights flashing, or a police vehicle speeding to a destination, or a driver suddenly seized by a medical condition..

Well Mrs GOF isnt in a police or ambulance vehicle. If she has a medical condition, she should have explained that to the police on the spot, and surrendered her license until she has had enough medical checks and doctors approval to continue driving. Unfortunatly, you cant just drive through redlights and stop signs yelling “i have a medical condition” and get away scot free.

Um. Yes you can.

Just try it.

But that’s OK. I heard what you said and know what you meant. The three examples I gave above were not intended to be exhaustive, and I’m kinda surprised you took them that way. There are better ways to get legal knowledge, just quietly, than from random participants on this website.

Learn the rules of the game and play to win. People go through stop signs all the time and get away with it. I can remember one instance where I rolled through four stop signs, with a police car following, and was not charged or fined. They did pull me over and have a word to me, but they didn’t think it was a big deal.

Skyring said :

For example. An ambulance with lights flashing, or a police vehicle speeding to a destination, or a driver suddenly seized by a medical condition..

Well Mrs GOF isnt in a police or ambulance vehicle. If she has a medical condition, she should have explained that to the police on the spot, and surrendered her license until she has had enough medical checks and doctors approval to continue driving. Unfortunatly, you cant just drive through redlights and stop signs yelling “i have a medical condition” and get away scot free.

At the start of the thread i sided with OP, now with all these BS excuses and arguments, all you’re doing is encouraging him to waste police time. She went through the stop sign, she got caught red handed, pay the ticket, she deserves it.

carnardly said :

There was a stop sign. Drivers are meant to stop – not dribble on through under 10 kmph.

That’s not an absolute. The law allows drivers to proceed through a stop sign without stopping under certain circumstances, both within the legislation and under common law.

For example. An ambulance with lights flashing, or a police vehicle speeding to a destination, or a driver suddenly seized by a medical condition.

Furthermore, the prosecution is required to prove that an offence occurred “beyond reasonable doubt”. If the location of the alleged offence is unclear, that’s reasonable doubt right there.

obamabinladen said :

Delish, You are missing the point in our justice system to get a conviction you need evidence are you following me??? If the evidence is wrong or does not prove the guilt of the person in question then the case will be dismissed! The cop stuffed up and now Mrs Gof should avoid a fine. Whether she committed the alleged offence only mrs GOF will know do you now understand??? NO EVIDENCE NO CHARGE cant make it simpler than that Delish!

The evidence, retard, is the cop/s witnessing the driver roll through a stop sign. If it goes to court, the evidence will be the statement of facts, police statements, and possibly photos of the intersection. Stop embarrassing yourself any further as you are absolutely clueless when it comes to this.

What is wrong with the majority of people here? Whether the gal ran the stop sign or not is beside the point you mongaloids!!! This issue is about the police process. The TIN is the evidence, the evidence is obviously wrong, therefore the matter should be dismissed.

The only mongoloid here is you. The TIN with the error was WITHDRAWN. The correct TIN is presumably correct. You have no idea of what you’re talking about and from what you’ve written, have never seen the inside of a court room.

How – did the cop stuff up?

It still has not been cleared whether she drove through the intersection without stopping as Mr GOF said that was irrelevant…?

obamabinladen11:20 am 22 Aug 11

Delish, You are missing the point in our justice system to get a conviction you need evidence are you following me??? If the evidence is wrong or does not prove the guilt of the person in question then the case will be dismissed! The cop stuffed up and now Mrs Gof should avoid a fine. Whether she committed the alleged offence only mrs GOF will know do you now understand??? NO EVIDENCE NO CHARGE cant make it simpler than that Delish!

Oh right this is what my partner means by it is a ‘nanny’ state. I imagine that You and Mrs GOF have had your licenses for a while? You are not ‘P’ Platers’… right?

Well more then likely when you leave your state of ACT you are under the guise and rules of that state and their ‘up keep of the road and signage’. When you are in there states especially an old back NSW are there always signage there? No but you use your ‘commonsense’ that you are at a intersection and that you need to either ‘stop’ or ‘give away’.

I believe that the roads and signage here are good but there still are some roads that common sense needs to prevail. Maybe it was a case of that – the common sense was not there (ie situational awareness) rather then actual signage?

Once again ask Mrs GOF as I believe she was on the mobile, blistering through an intersection and speeding. The stop sign fine was the lesser of all three and what she could talk her way out of!

Sounds like the traffic officers pulled over the lady and gave her a ticket. Now the husband is whinging and moaning about the rights, rules and regulations of said ticket.

Why does your wife think she’s above the law and not required to pay. Why are you trying to get out of paying rather than ticking of your wife? Why do you think you both are above the law that all of us abide by.

There was a stop sign. Drivers are meant to stop – not dribble on through under 10 kmph. She either did it or she didn’t – but its taken 2 pages for you to not even answer that simple question…

So in your example – did I actually kill my wife?

obamabinladen10:28 am 22 Aug 11

What is wrong with the majority of people here? Whether the gal ran the stop sign or not is beside the point you mongaloids!!! This issue is about the police process. The TIN is the evidence, the evidence is obviously wrong, therefore the matter should be dismissed. This is called the justice system. Imagine you come home to find your wife’s throat cut and she’s lying dead on the floor, the police point the finger at you. In the brief of evidence they have the knife aka the murder weapon but this doesn’t have your finger prints on it, so the police decide to go to your house grab a similar knife with your prints on it and then magically enter it into a knew brief of evidence. Now your doing life in prison how would you mongaloids like that??? This is an extreme example but this is why our police officers need to be held to such a high standard and remember their oath they take which is to “Protect and Serve” the police work for us we pay our taxes and in turn they get paid a wage. So in regards to a matter where the police are trying to convict one of us they better get their facts straight otherwise the matter shall be and should be dismissed!!!

Tooks said :

I find it absolutely pathetic that someone guilty of a minor traffic offence wouldn’t just pay up.

The offence is part of an arbitrary system of rules. Lines on roads and words on paper. Nobody was injured in any way, so it’s not an offence like theft or assault or causing an accident. It’s arbitrary and as such, it’s part of a game of rules called “the legal system”.

My approach to these things is that sometimes I come to a halt at a Give Way sign to peer up and down a dimly lit street for traffic and cyclists at night, and sometimes I’ll roll though a Stop sign where visibility is excellent on a well-lit but deserted avenue, such as the old stop signs on Anzac Parade at Blamey Crescent, where at two in the morning you can see the whole unobstructed road for several hundred metres in each direction.

It’s a matter of safety rather than the letter of the law.

Of course, there is the argument that disregarding minor road rules is a bad habit to get into, but I don’t think that the law is aimed at people’s habits. Well, not their traffic habits anyway.

Policemen are as human as everyone else. They can have off days and they can have days that shine. Sometimes they are just arseholes, doing their best to make someone else’s life a misery, because they can.

And sometimes they are genuinely out to improve poor driving skills. In fact, I wish that they would do a lot more of this. Every day I run into drivers who clearly don’t understand how to give way.

Nevertheless, the legal system – I refuse to call it a justice system – is a game, and the rules are well-defined, with players and umpires and penalties. It’s not something like the law of gravity, which operates in its own court of no appeal.

First step at the scene of the incident is to say as little as possible to the police, unless there is some easily demonstrable explanation – sign covered with foliage, emergency vehicle needing room to clear the intersection, water on road unexpectedly extending stopping distance etc. In such a case, explain your actions to the police and insist that you normally come to a complete stop. Be polite and co-operative as far as possible. Constructing some bullshit argument on the stop or being a dick will just ensure that the cops do their best to get you.

Wait around until the police have left, and while you are doing this, write down as much as you can remember. The names and numbers and rego of the policemen and vehicle. Time and date. Weather conditions, street names, other vehicles and pedestrians. What the cops said. Anything you can remember especially anything that struck you as odd or incorrect or unusual. Just don’t make it obvious what you are doing – maybe drive around the corner, out of sight, before returning to…

Take some photographs, making sure that you identify the location by streetsigns or landmarks or house numbers.

The aim is to be sure in your own mind of the circumstances of the incident and to get the details right. Once you start looking up road rules you may find something that you can use in your defence, some subclause that gives you a way out. And if you just go on your way and wait until the TIN arrives, you will forget stuff.

When the TIN arrives, examine it carefully, checking against the facts you collected. A lot of the time, there are errors. The notes the cops jotted down could be wrong or missing vital details, such as the exact intersection. The offence selected may not be the correct one. The road may not be gazetted correctly.

If you find something wrong, don’t shoot back a triumphant letter pointing out their exact error. You’ve got 28 days from the date of service (which will be a week or so after the date of the incident) to respond, and in that time the memories of the police will fade. They aren’t out there making more notes and taking photographs and measurements. They have other things to do and in four weeks they will deal with dozens of similar incidents.

On the last day you deem safe to respond, send a note – you can lodge it by email – asking for withdrawal. If it’s in you, make up some excuse that sounds plausible as a reason for this temporary blemish on your impeccable driving record.

Whatever you do, don’t provide the correct details about the error you have found. Hint at it, say you have checked the information on the TIN and found it wrong, but don’t spell it out. Again, if it’s in you, you can pretend there is a mistake where none exists.

Your request for withdrawal will be checked by someone other than the police who issued it. They know all the tricks, they won’t be impressed by obvious bullshit, but they will also know that coppers stuff up and take the easy way out and forget details. They will likely check with the police, who will be busy with other stuff and have only dim memories of something that happened six weeks ago and will only have their notebooks as hard evidence.

This review of your response will take place in the context of whether they can win at court, as clearly you aren’t going to roll over and pay the fine. They will spot any errors or omissions – including things that you may have missed – and they may just conclude that proceeding to a court hearing could be problematic, especially if you avail yourself of one of the many excellent lawyers who are intimately familiar with the system.

The last thing they want is to tie up a couple of policemen for hours in court, especially if you can demonstrate that they stuffed up by showing photographs of the exact intersection, the defaced Stop sign, the oilspill glistening on the road…

It’s a game. Remember that. Study the rules, see how it’s played, play to win.

Of course, if you deliberately sped through a Stop sign and ran into some old duck in her cream Pintara, I hope you do the right thing, accept the wrongness of your actions and meekly accept the just punishment coming your way.

Punter said :

It is a sad fact of reality that some people can’t just can’t ‘man up’ to making a mistake and, rather than admit this and face the consequences they deserve, they try to drum up as much sympathy as possible to make themselves feel better.

This.

I find it absolutely pathetic that someone guilty of a minor traffic offence wouldn’t just pay up.

PantsMan said :

Step one: hassle the AFP to get it withdrawn.
If that does not work, contest it. There is a chance that the AFP will not provide a brief to the DPP, if they know they’ve f’ed up.
If they do try to prosecute, you can hassle the DPP to death about why it is not in the public interest etc. They have a prosecution policy on their web site, so maybe have a look for a few holes in that.
No prospect of a conviction, given two versions from the AFP, and one must be wrong, would be a good starting point.
Just whinge, complain, delay, fight, complain again, at very step of the process. You will have until the day before any hearing to actually pay the fine and it goes away just like before. However, I’d be inclined to move at hearing that the case be immediately dismissed because there is no way to know which version of the TIN is correct. I think there was a High Court case where they found that if one detail was incorrect, nothing in an infringement notice could be relied upon.

No offence, but that is a load of crap.

Little wonder you are a grumpy old fart… Nothing is ever your fault; it is everyone else who is to blame… You can’t even take responsibility for your own actions, or those of your wife… Instead going on a mini-fact-busting crusade… “if one of the little details was incorrect; it wasn’t really my fault!!!”. Great attitude.

I had a similar situation. Booked for doing 66 on Northbourne late one night. The TIN had the dates and days mixed up (which I don’t understand how this can heppen with the hand held digital booking thingy).

Wrote an objection. TIN re issued – day and date fixed up but was one day later than when the alleged infringement occurred. Wrote again and explained that I was working behind a bar when the alleged infringement occurred.

The desk copper then rang me and asked when the alleged infringement occurred. I said nice try. They gave up, I kept my cash and points….

PantsMan said :

However, I’d be inclined to move at hearing that the case be immediately dismissed because there is no way to know which version of the TIN is correct. I think there was a High Court case where they found that if one detail was incorrect, nothing in an infringement notice could be relied upon.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

It is a sad fact of reality that some people can’t just can’t ‘man up’ to making a mistake and, rather than admit this and face the consequences they deserve, they try to drum up as much sympathy as possible to make themselves feel better.

I-filed said :

No, no, thanks to YOU for sparing so much of your time with gratuitous after-the-fact off-topic advice! : )

Sorry – so which of us is the one who, because of their ignorance of the road laws, spent 5 hours in court? And then whines that the decision didn’t go their way? And then, when the fact that they were so demonstrably in the wrong is pointed out, whines again that it’s “off-topic”?

Jono said :

[

Obviously you have lots of spare time.

No, no, thanks to YOU for sparing so much of your time with gratuitous after-the-fact off-topic advice! : )

I-filed said :

If such a sign had been visible, I would have taken extra care and probably made a line ball decision that where I was parked MIGHT be regarded as a parking bay – even though it wasn’t delineated as such.

So even though the presence or absence of such a sign is completely irrelevant under the road rules, you were prepared to go to court because there was a sign there, but it was facing the wrong way? Obviously you have lots of spare time.

Step one: hassle the AFP to get it withdrawn.
If that does not work, contest it. There is a chance that the AFP will not provide a brief to the DPP, if they know they’ve f’ed up.
If they do try to prosecute, you can hassle the DPP to death about why it is not in the public interest etc. They have a prosecution policy on their web site, so maybe have a look for a few holes in that.
No prospect of a conviction, given two versions from the AFP, and one must be wrong, would be a good starting point.
Just whinge, complain, delay, fight, complain again, at very step of the process. You will have until the day before any hearing to actually pay the fine and it goes away just like before. However, I’d be inclined to move at hearing that the case be immediately dismissed because there is no way to know which version of the TIN is correct. I think there was a High Court case where they found that if one detail was incorrect, nothing in an infringement notice could be relied upon.

Jono said :

I-filed said :

Exactly – where I was parked wasn’t clearly “not a bay”.

OK – so I give up. What was the relevance of saying, “the “park in bays only” signage was pointing in the opposite direction”?

If such a sign had been visible, I would have taken extra care and probably made a line ball decision that where I was parked MIGHT be regarded as a parking bay – even though it wasn’t delineated as such.

I-filed said :

Exactly – where I was parked wasn’t clearly “not a bay”.

OK – so I give up. What was the relevance of saying, “the “park in bays only” signage was pointing in the opposite direction”?

Jono said :

I-filed said :

I contested a parking fine a few years ago – the “park in bays only” signage was pointing in the opposite direction. I was in the right but lost due to not knowing how to manage the process….

I would suggest that you read S212 of the Australian Road Rules if you genuinely believe that you were in the right (I’m astonished that you apparently didn’t look at the road rules prior to going to court). That section makes it clear that if you’re parking in an area with parking bays, you’re required to park within a bay, “whether or not a park in bays only sign applies to the length of road or area”.

Exactly – where I was parked wasn’t clearly “not a bay”.

Grumpy Old Fart said :

@Keen Golfer – Thank you this is of great assistance.

So as I read it the Police can continue to issue as many TIN’s as they like until they get it right?

Or… You could own up to the fact that an offence was committed, and pay the fine… Who cares if the officer got the street names mixed up a little? Own the mistake, learn from it (well, your wife, anyhow)…

Street name, little detail… Run stop sign, bigger issue…

Bussie said :

Gerry-Built said :

The fine was for running a stop sign, not for running a stop sign at the intersection of [insert specifics here]…

So any stop sign will do? In that case how about we all just get an annual fine for running a non-specific stop sign and the police can care even less about enforcing the road rules?

Yeah – ’cause THAT’S what I meant 😛

If you run a stop sign (and are caught), the law provides for a fine to be issued for running the stop sign, without specific reference to the location. The location details are secondary, to the fact an offence has occurred (and are provided as evidence in support)… In this case, the officer made an understandable mistake, which has since been rectified. But go ahead and interpret my words, by all means…

The fact is Mrs GOF committed an offence, and the community expectation is that offenders that are caught should receive a penalty. Worm your way out of paying on a technicality, by all means; but the fact remains: an offence was committed. Any member of society should feel obliged to pay any fair fine; as is their social responsibility… Otherwise, we might as well let off any criminal that has a typo on their paperwork… Shirking one’s responsibilities is one of our societies ills… And GOF is keen to help add to that, albeit in a small way…

Grumpy Old Fart3:14 pm 21 Aug 11

@Keen Golfer – Thank you this is of great assistance.

So as I read it the Police can continue to issue as many TIN’s as they like until they get it right?

I-filed said :

I contested a parking fine a few years ago – the “park in bays only” signage was pointing in the opposite direction. I was in the right but lost due to not knowing how to manage the process….

I would suggest that you read S212 of the Australian Road Rules if you genuinely believe that you were in the right (I’m astonished that you apparently didn’t look at the road rules prior to going to court). That section makes it clear that if you’re parking in an area with parking bays, you’re required to park within a bay, “whether or not a park in bays only sign applies to the length of road or area”.

Gerry-Built said :

The fine was for running a stop sign, not for running a stop sign at the intersection of [insert specifics here]…

So any stop sign will do? In that case how about we all just get an annual fine for running a non-specific stop sign and the police can care even less about enforcing the road rules?

I contested a parking fine a few years ago – the “park in bays only” signage was pointing in the opposite direction. I was in the right but lost due to not knowing how to manage the process – but even if I had won, the experience would still have cost me five hours sitting in court next to druggies and sad people, seeing prisoners escorted into the court for various bits and pieces. Just not worth it over $150. Even if your wife is feeling indignant, I recommend paying up and thinking of it as just a bill from the ACT Government. They haven’t developed any actual economic base in Canberra, so land tax and traffic fines is all they have for their little snouts to snuffle up.

The fine was for running a stop sign, not for running a stop sign at the intersection of [insert specifics here]…

Grumpy Old Fart said :

Keen Golfer thank you for your straight forward and constructive response and could you advise me what the legislation is that you refer to so that I do not tie up Police resources.

It’s in the Road Transport (General) Act 1999:
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1999-77/default.asp

“The purpose of this part is to create a system of infringement notices for certain offences against the road transport legislation and other legislation as an alternative to prosecution.”

S22(2)(c) does not “prevent the service of 2 or more infringement notices on a person for an offence”.

It discusses withdrawl of notices etc at length.

So which intersection did she go through; that of TIN #1, or that of TIN#2… surely she’d be aware of that, ’cause it seems to me you were saying she was pulled over and issued a fine.

Feng said :

The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

You REALLY thinks this falls into this category?Sounds WAAAAY more like a simple mistake of street names, than a deliberate attempt to alter evidence…

Grumpy Old Fart said :

As has been expressed my concern/issue is in relation to the ability to change the evidence after what are supposed to be the recordings of an expert witness. How often are Police allowed to change the evidence and what does that say about the credibility of the original evidence?

It certainly does read on the credibility of the evidence – but that only comes in to play if you are disputing the facts of the case. Otherwise the credibility of the evidence is moot.

I think what your wife has come across is generally referred to as a typo. Not so much changing the evidence just a mistake.

You pointed out the mistake and it was corrected. Should you still wish to dispute the offence by all means go your hardest. If in fact your wife is guilty of committing the offence – as in the corrected TIN – then pay it.

If you don’t like the process by all means complain about it to the ombudsman, AFP professional standards, riotact or the blokes down the pub.

Grumpy Old Fart11:24 am 21 Aug 11

Thank you all for your interesting and varied responses.

I take it that some contributors such as vg have either received or issued many tins by the nature of their response particularly the comment about the effectiveness of the Ombudsman. I also thank vg for your attack on my character based on one post where obviously I do not have the superior knowledge or opinions that you seem to possess

Keen Golfer thank you for your straight forward and constructive response and could you advise me what the legislation is that you refer to so that I do not tie up Police resources.

I have spoken with a member of ACT Policing Traffic Branch who was kind enough to explain to me that a TIN is a ‘Statement of Facts’ or a ‘Brief'(?) which contains the observations of the officer at the time of the offence including time, date and location.

As has been expressed my concern/issue is in relation to the ability to change the evidence after what are supposed to be the recordings of an expert witness. How often are Police allowed to change the evidence and what does that say about the credibility of the original evidence? I appreciate that in some matters further evidence is discovered which would obviously change what is submitted.

I’m sure some of the contributors will have diverse opinions about that question and I look forward with interest to the responses.

I think you guys are getting off the track a little. I think he’s partially trying to get off the fine on a technicality (if his wife is guilty) but the other part is that he’s trying to also dispute the process.

Rather than focus on telling him to stop wasting time and pay the fine, you’ll need to look and consider the other part of his post. I’m not a judge or lawyer so I can’t make a call but if the police did something wrong, he should appeal because after all, The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

Yes. You are over reacting and your perspective is wrong…

Clearly an offence occurred, and there was an error on the original TIN issued. Yes – even a Police officer can make an error. You were right to question the original TIN, but you are now in possession of a second TIN which has the corrected details (does your own investigation of “the street on which the offence is alleged to occur ” concur with the new TIN?) . Stop trying to get out of it on a technicality and tell Mrs GOF to stop worming out of her responsibilities and pay the fine… stop tying up Police resources…

Mrs GOF committed an offence. Own up to it, pay up, and get over it.

bigred said :

Mrs GOF must have failed the attitude test or done something really really dangerous to pick up a TIN for an every day offence that normally wouldn’t attract a second glance around this town.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Ugh. “court”, of course.

Grumpy Old Fart said :

It is not an issue about whether she did or did not drive through a stop sign it is about tha apparent ability of a Police Officer to change his evidence and the Delegate of the Chief Police Officer to allow this.

As far as having to pay the fine or not, whether she did or did not drive through the stop sign is absolutely what it is about. There are two issues here: the first is the alleged traffic offence, and the second is the alleged actions of the police officer. It is entirely possible that the mistake made by the police officer would be enough to convince the magistrate to let you off – if your wife took it to caught and claimed that she did not, in fact, drive through the stop sign named in the second TIN. The police making a mistake isn’t an automatic free pass – you still have to actually front up and tell the magistrate that you didn’t do it.

You folks just aren’t thinking like lawyers. The facts don’t matter. What matters is that process was not followed perfectly. Thus the ticket should be challenged in its original form.

Blame the ticket. Blame the police officer. Blame urban services for incorrect signage, or a faded stop line that looked confusingly like a give way line. Blame the weather.

Don’t go making arguments based on whether or not the person in question actually committed an offence or not. Sheesh!

Mrs GOF must have failed the attitude test or done something really really dangerous to pick up a TIN for an every day offence that normally wouldn’t attract a second glance around this town.

Next time you try to get off on a technicality, don’t tell them they made a mistake on the TIN. You had a chance to win, you blew it.

nogod said :

What is a stop intersection?

Sorry, perhaps it was poorly worded (just as well I’m not a copper).

S67 of the Australian Road Rules says, “A driver at an intersection with a stop sign or stop line, but without traffic lights, must stop ….”. So, if the stop line’s clearly marked, then the presence/absence of a stop sign is irrelevant.

So, where I said “a stop intersection”, read, “an intersection where the driver’s required to come to a stop”.

p1 said :

What can be changed is a written record, especially f they include a typo.

A typo and a change of facts is a bit different imho. I’m quite surprised they can just print out a new ticket with the correct details, instead of adding changes onto the bottom (at the very least)

vg said :

Can the evidence be changed?

Yes

Pay the fine

Next question

The evidence cannot be changed. Evidence is evidence.

What can be changed is a written record, especially f they include a typo.

Best to take a photo of the exact location before the Officer contacts Roads to request another Stop Sign or sign is erected that relates to the fine, before your complaint reaches the Ombudsman.

For instance, I was booked ten years ago for parking in an area that had a sign entirely covered by a climbing creeper plant in red flowers at the other end of the street. No obstruction of traffic or pedestrians, arrows, no markings, no sign for at least 100 metres where I parked.

I paid the fine and complained after taking a photo of the climbing creeper plant (intuition told me to do it).

A few days later a letter arrived in the post stating that the sign was erected, visible and no creeper plant existed.

I developed the film and sent one of the photos into the Appeals Commissioner with a copy of my complaint, their response and my annoyance that the sign and the plant had been removed and replaced with another one right where I had parked.

My money was later reimbursed with a little apology.

Jono said :

Surely you use common sense here. Did she commit an offence or not? If she went through a stop intersection without stopping, then just pay the fine and don’t try to get off on a technicality. (Remembering, of course, no stop sign is required for it to be a stop intersection).

If she didn’t, then take it further.

What is a stop intersection?

And by the way, its not changing the evidence, its correcting a mistake. One that you stupidly did for them.

But take it to the Ombudsman. Go your hardest. By the way, they can do jack about it

Grumpy Old Fart said :

Thank you for your feedback and just some clarification to the points raised.

The new fine is for driving through a stop sign but this time a different intersection has been named time and date are still the same.

It is not an issue about whether she did or did not drive through a stop sign it is about tha apparent ability of a Police Officer to change his evidence and the Delegate of the Chief Police Officer to allow this.

The matter may still be taken before the court and I will of course be questioning the credibility of the evidence given the Police have put forward two versions of events and it is not possible to be at the two mentioned intersections at the same point in time.

Yes I do have a copy of the original ticket which is for proceeding through a stop sign as is the second ticket that was issued.

So she obviously did. Just pay the fine and be done with it. I asked one of my AFP friends and he said that they would have just dismissed it if they didn’t have the dash cam footage for the second TIN they issued. Trust me, pay it and save the court hassles.

Grumpy Old Fart said :

It is not an issue about whether she did or did not drive through a stop sign

But you still are dodging the simple question… did she or did she not drive through a stop sign?

People make mistakes, the cop mightve written down the wrong intersection at the time and later realise when you appealed the fine.

The question isnt so much whether you should pay the fine for a cop’s error (despite the offence being committed)…. it is whether she actually ran the sign or not, whatever the intersection was.

Does this make sense to you or are you still blindly trying to worm your way out of shit in any lame way you can?

A TIN can be withdrawn and a new one issued. It’s perfectly legal and happens from time to time. Sorry but you have no grounds to dispute based on the incorrect info bring on the first infringement. Your argument won’t wash in court as what was done is 100% legal. You can check the legislation to confirm this.

Can the evidence be changed?

Yes

Pay the fine

Next question

Grumpy Old Fart said :

…It is not an issue about whether she did or did not drive through a stop sign it is about tha apparent ability of a Police Officer to change his evidence and the Delegate of the Chief Police Officer to allow this….
.

I hate to sound like a holier-than-thou twat, but for mine, it IS about whether she went thru a stop sign or not. She knows if she did, the cop knows if she did.
I know personally i’d feel like a bit of an idiot going into court saying: ‘yes, she did it but i’m arguing about the paperwork’…
Where does it end? This is probably the sort of thing that set a presedent for blatant murder evidence in other cases to be made inadmissable because a search warrant wasn’t signed in the right place, or some such BS…
Anyway, end of rant, good luck with the court case. However, you should work out how many hours of your life (work and pleasure time) you spent fighting this and see if it was worth it personally (and financially) at the end. It certainly might be for you, but I don’t think i’d bother (if I knew I was guilty of the issue at hand). Sorry….

Grumpy Old Fart said :

It is not an issue about whether she did or did not drive through a stop sign it is about tha apparent ability of a Police Officer to change his evidence and the Delegate of the Chief Police Officer to allow this.

What an astonishing sentence. The question of whether the driver was, or wasn’t, obeying the road rules is not an issue when it comes to being fined. But, if a copper makes an administrative error, and later corrects it, then that’s, apparently, a serious issue, and worth going to court about. Wow.

Grumpy Old Fart said :

Thank you for your feedback and just some clarification to the points raised.

The new fine is for driving through a stop sign but this time a different intersection has been named time and date are still the same.

It is not an issue about whether she did or did not drive through a stop sign it is about tha apparent ability of a Police Officer to change his evidence and the Delegate of the Chief Police Officer to allow this.

The matter may still be taken before the court and I will of course be questioning the credibility of the evidence given the Police have put forward two versions of events and it is not possible to be at the two mentioned intersections at the same point in time.

Yes I do have a copy of the original ticket which is for proceeding through a stop sign as is the second ticket that was issued.

Go to court, see what the magistrates says.

I think you will find the old Traffic Infringement Notice would have gotten you off the fine, the new one will get you found guilty.

While I understand your outrage at another human being making a typing error, at the same time your wife made a traffic violation, which as it turns out, can get people killed.

The old ticket was withdrawn, a new ticket, with a new reference number was issued, therefore the new ticket will be the one that is in dispute.

If you go to court you will probably find the Constable has written in his statement of facts that he was advised that the ticket contained the wrong information and he subsequently issued one with the correct information.

Give it a whack at court instead of trying for the whole Police can’t do their job properly routine, then when you win or lose you can come and tell us how the case went.

Court costs are only $120 or so, plus a day or four off work, then a solicitor if you want to hire a solicitor – that’s well worth the effort for saving $273 and 3 points, for an offence that was committed. Go for it…

So she did drive through a stop sign?

Had a similar experience. Received a TIN for failing to give way to a vehicle on the right. I actually failed to give way to a vehicle the left. I did consider asking for it to be withdrawn, but decided just to pay it anyway, although possibly it would have been chucked out if I took it to court. It is concerning that the police don’t get some basics right and the implications that someone would get off a serious offence on a simple error.

Grumpy Old Fart6:25 pm 20 Aug 11

Thank you for your feedback and just some clarification to the points raised.

The new fine is for driving through a stop sign but this time a different intersection has been named time and date are still the same.

It is not an issue about whether she did or did not drive through a stop sign it is about tha apparent ability of a Police Officer to change his evidence and the Delegate of the Chief Police Officer to allow this.

The matter may still be taken before the court and I will of course be questioning the credibility of the evidence given the Police have put forward two versions of events and it is not possible to be at the two mentioned intersections at the same point in time.

Yes I do have a copy of the original ticket which is for proceeding through a stop sign as is the second ticket that was issued.

Surely you use common sense here. Did she commit an offence or not? If she went through a stop intersection without stopping, then just pay the fine and don’t try to get off on a technicality. (Remembering, of course, no stop sign is required for it to be a stop intersection).

If she didn’t, then take it further.

Why can’t you take it to court on the basis that they can’t get their facts right? Surely you could argue that the first TIN was misleading, and therefore any further “amendments” by that officer would be inadmissible. I’m not a lawyer, but i’m sure if a statement is found to be incorrect, any future comments by that witness would have almost zero standing. Do you still have a copy of the old fine?

However if there is a photo, a video, or a recording – you’ll probably lose, particularly if the stop sign in visible.

If your wife ran a stop sign then pay the fine. If she didn’t run a stop sign, then take it to court.

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.

Yes you are wrong, but if you want some clarification, why not contact someone in ACT police and ask them?

Thank you, GOF, for saving the ACT taxpayer a considerable amount of money. It would appear that if you had not had the first notice withdrawn and let the matter go to court, it is most likely that the magistrate would have thrown the matter out to the cost of the AFP. As it is, your wife has been properly fined.

Rawhide Kid Part33:38 pm 20 Aug 11

If the “revised” TIN refers to the same intersection I think it plausible for the re issue. Other than that the proof of anything different goes to the person issued with the infringement. (Just my opinion only.)

Did she run a stop sign?

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)

So if the old fine was for driving through a stop sign, what’s the new fine for?

Seems there’s something not being told.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.