Parking Infringement Notices Defective

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32392, 3 September 1970, Page 7

Parking Infringement Notices Defective

Parking infringement notices in use throughout New Zealand were defective, and wouid have to be redrafted, Mr P. L. Molineaux, S.M., said in the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court yesterday. In a reserved decision given four hours after an hour-long hearing, the Magistrate dismissed two charges of failing to pay parking infringement fees against Paul Joseph McManus, an insurance representative. McManus pleaded not guilty, submitting that the fact that he had not known of the infringements until about 20 days after they had occurred had prejudiced any defence he' might have had. He said he had not seen the initial notices placed under his windscreen wipers by parking-meter wardens and had not known of the infringements until the second notices arrived through registered mail. This, McManus said, was reasonable cause for not paying the fees.

At the completion of evidence the Magistrate said he was concerned that the Ministry of Transport had not served the first notice on McManus. A small boy running along the street, or a strong wind, could have removed the notice from under the windscreen wiper, he said. “And, again, an unscrupulous defendant could claim he had never seen it. “Not Very Reliable” “I don’t think placing the notices under the windscreen wiper of a car is a very reliable method of serving it on a driver. The second notice does not arrive until up to 20 days after the infringement. Could you remember where in Manchester Street you parked your car 10 days ago?” the Magistrate asked the prosecutor (Senior Traffic Officer W. J. Tait). Dismissing the charges, the Magistrate Said he had not come to the conclusion without some concern. “I realise that the infringement notices must be in use throughout the country,” he said, “but the wording of the notice is defective and does not in-

elude amendments to the Transport Act. What will probably have to be done now is to draft new notices.”

The Magistrate said subsection 6 of section 194 a of the Transport Act (1962) provided that infringement forms should be in the form prescribed by the Ministry of Transport and that it should include a statement warning the defendant that if the fee was not paid within a specified date a prosecution would follow. The notice, which had to be issued no later than 14 days after the infringement, should include a copy of section 194 a. Wording Of Notices

“The wording of the actual infringement notices purports to set out section 194 a, but in my view this is not strictly correct,” the Magistrate said. “The notice does not set out the wording of the sub-section pertaining at its time of issue, as there has been an amendment since the passing of the section that has not been included.

“The amendment to which I refer was effected by section 21 of the Transport Amendment Act, No. 2 (1969), and deletes from subsection 8 of section 194 a the words ‘without reasonable cause, proof of which lies with the defendant.’

“This is a matter of some significance in these proceedings because the wording of the notice purports to set out section 194 a, sub-section 8. The wording of sub-section 6, paragraph e, is quite explicit in that notice is required to set out sub-section 8, but for the reasons I have stated it must be apparent that the notice sent to the defendant does not and to that extent fails to comply with the mandatory code contemplated by sub-section 6.

“Under these circumstances it does not seem necessary to consider further the defences of prejudice and reasonable cause, but to simply say that by the failure of the notice to set out the correct wording of subsection 8 of section 194 a the prosecution has failed to comply with the administrative procedure set out in the. act.”