Wgtn City’s parking fee schedule impotent?

Press, 11 February 1983, Page 10

Wgtn City’s parking fee schedule impotent?

PA Wellington A traffic officer has told the High Court at Wellington that if, as a result of a recent matter raised in Court, some Wellington City Council bylaws were found to be a nullity, a schedule of fees relating to parking offences would have no effect.

David George Alfred Allo, the Ministry of Transport chief traffic officer (Wellington), was a Crown witness at the trial of four Justice Department clerks. Michael Peter Waluszewski, aged 25, Kevin Joseph McGlinchey, aged 24. David John Thompson, aged 26. and Linda Anne McQuade, aged 24, have denied conspiring with one another and other persons to obstruct prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

They are charged with interfering with proper Court procedures in relation to notices of traffic prosecution filed by the Ministry of Transport in the District Court at Wellington in respect of parking infringements allegedly committed by themselves and others. The four have also denied alternative charges of willfully attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice by returning to the District Court at Wellington notices of traffic prosecution relating to parking infringements for the purpose of having those notices filed “not served,” knowing at the time that in fact those' notices had been served.

The trial is before Mr Justice Greig and a jury. In evidence, Mr Allo said that in April, 1982, he and the regional • director visited the District Court at Wellington and spoke to Court staff there generally on the subject of minor offences. “It was a courtesy visit,” he said. “I had not been a chief traffic officer long and the regional director had only just taken up his appointment.” Asked by Crown counsel, Mr Robert Fardell, whether during subsequent visits to

the Court he became aware of a problem concerning minor offence prosecutions in the District Court, Mr Allo said he became aware that certain persons had several “not served” documents.

"The first two persons that I was involved with were persons who contacted me and were concerned about the number of outstanding notices and wished to havethese matters cleared up,” he said.

Mr Allo said he approached the Court and asked that they arrange to have a hearing given in respect of the documents and then returned to him for service. He had then become aware of a further person who had several outstanding documents.

“On this occasion I telephoned the District Court and spoke to the registrar,” he said.

Asked whether in April he spoke to someone at the District Court, Mr Allo said he recalled speaking to Waluszewski and to a Mr Fallon.

“One matter I do recall is I confirmed that the minor offence notices that were not being served by registered post be returned to us at the Ministry of Transport for personal service,” he said. Mr Allo said he was aware — he could not recall exactly when — that a lot of documents being sent out by the Court by registered post were coming back unserved. To Mr Fardell, Mr Allo said he was aware of a schedule with a scale which set out the amount of fees payable in relation to parking offences. It was the second schedule to the Transport Amendment Act, 1980. Mr Desmond Deacon, representing Waluszewski, said during cross-examination that one particular issue arose from the schedule of fees to the act.

Told by Mr Deacon that he would now be aware that a “very real challenge” had been made to the legality and validity of the Welling-, ton City Council by-laws and

proceedings. Mr Allo said he was aware there were to be some defended cases which were going to challenge the validity of the by-law. “I believe in some parts there will be a dispute as to whether certain things the Ministry is doing are legal or not.” he said.

Asked by his Honour what he meant by some parts. Mr Allo said. “Some parts of the specific notices of traffic prosecutions.” Mr Deacon: And, more particularly, whether the Wellington City Council has complied with the act to enable the Ministry to legally enforce the so-called restrictions? Witness: I am not certain of the defences to be raised. Has it been brought to your attention that a defend-

ant (not one of the four accused), not a lawyer, in person raised these matters within the last two weeks in Court? — Yes. it has. Is it correct that as a result of what he raised, your prosecutions section has sought • advice from your legal branch of the head office 9 — Yes. I think to be fair that prior to that matter being raised we had consulted our legal section. If it subsequently turns out to be the case that the bylaws and proceedings upon them are a nullity, that schedule of fees you have referred to the Court will have no application to prosecutions based on the Wellington City Council by-laws? — Yes, if" what is suggested is correct the by-laws will have no effect.