Interpreting the traffic rules differently and fined by Police. Should I go to court?

I was driving my three-year-old son, My wife and my aged parents for a family day out to Royal National Park on Easter Saturday.

My son was sick, coughing and vomited after our hour long drive, crying and struggling in child Seat; My wife suggested to stop briefly so that we can give my son some water to make sure he didn’t inhale any vomit into his lungs. I also desperately need and toilet break.

I couldn’t stop anywhere along the way as it would block the traffic on the one-way road until Sir Bertram Stevens Drive where there appeared to be stopping lane available on the left with two parked cars.

Public toilet was on the right. There were three ¼ hour parking available in front of the toilet and one car park next to it, which I didn’t enter as it is illegal to cross the double solid lines. So I pulled over into the stopping lane, parked after those two cars, turned the hazard light on and ran across the road when the traffic was clear.

After I got out of the toilet, I saw one Federal police car pulled over after my car. I crossed the road immediately when it was safe to cross.

The officer signaled me over and asked for my driver’s license. He seemed to be in a hurry and promptly denied my request for discretion after asking me if it is a medical emergency. He quickly wrote me one penalty notice of $248 for disobeying no stopping sign with wrong offence location and incorrect address and drove away. I went up the road and found the no stopping sign that was blocked by the two parked cars before me.

My review request for leniency was denied. My son’s medical certificate and the medical emergency was acknowledged but they claimed that only medical emergency of passengers at risk of death or harm would be accepted.

I received my first penalty notice for this honest mistake after 10 years driving.

I guess the legal definition of “emergency” was narrower than my interpretation of “emergency”.

RMS publication on safety and rules states that “ No Stopping signs mean that in the area in the direction of the arrow you must not stop your vehicle at any point on the road, unless there is a medical or other emergency.”

I parked at where the arrow is in the photo below.

http://i67.tinypic.com/1ywx6p.jpg

Do I stand a chance to argue this case in court?

Comments

        • +2

          @jotay:

          If you were sure that the lights turned amber before you entered the intersection, elect to see a photograph of your alleged offending action. In fact, whether you were sure or not, you owe it to yourself to verify if the light was indeed amber or red. This is available in all Australian states and territories.

          It's the least you can do to keep the Police honest.

        • @KaptnKaos: thanks for the tip!

    • +1

      Article from the Age about this Red Light Camera. RACV challenges fairness of Melbourne's most lucrative red light camera

      The camera monitors an intersection where the traffic signals disappear from the line of sight of approaching motorists as they close in on the intersection, potentially increasing the risk that drivers will run the red.

      It appears that there is a little more to it, than just poor driving decisions.

      • You ate right. I have now realised there's much talk by Racv to the authorities about the "problem" at this junction but i think any attempt to appeal will still be futile.This junction makes heaps of $$$!

  • +6

    I would not risk going to court. I would pay the fine.

    Why?

    • It's not illegal to cross double lines if you are driving into a property, shop, driveway. It's only illegal to overtake or do a u turn. Policeman will probably highlight you could have done that.

    • No real proof your son was at serious risk. I know you were taking the care any good parent would, just in case, but if the Policeman didnt see your son in a medical emergency while he was booking you then I expect he would say there wasnt one.

    • The Office of State Revenue (Debt Recovery section) web site has some statistics with regards to contesting fines in court and from memory it says 95% are rejected. So you have a 5% chance of success at best. Not worth all the hassle in my opinion.

    Just put it down to some bad luck, pay the fine and move on. It was 'only' $248, at least it wasnt in the thousands. It's not worth the hassle, stress and potentially more cost.

    If it wasnt for the fact thst you could have legally parked in front of the toilet block, maybe it would be worth a chance, but I dont like your chances of winning.

    Good luck with whatever you choose to do.

  • So did the other 2 cars parked in front of you get fines as well?

    • Wouldn't really help the OP either way…

    • I am not sure but likely. I was busy wiping the vomit off the child seat and floor.

      When I was signaled over to the police car, the police officer immediately start writing a penalty notice after I handed over my ID. I think he was rushed because he wanted to book the other two vehicles before they left.

  • Some peoples idea of an emergency may include dialling 000 for pizza delivery or to feed their dog or to retrieve a pillow as they were too tired to get out of bed.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/triple-zero-caller…

    • People like that need to be financially punished. Do it more than once or twice, and you'll be facing jail time.

      Oh, wait a sec.

      The jails are full.

  • I was recently in a similar incident. A truck (fruit delivery) was blocking the no stopping sign and the council rangers gave me (and 4 other cars) a ticket for it. When I contested that the rangers should have rather had the truck towed. I was told its my responsibility to ensure I am aware of all the road signs around me. I don't think you can win this in court mate. But good luck.

    • +1

      Correct. The onus is on you, as the driver, to be aware of all signs enforcing the area that you've parked in.

      If you are not sure, don't park there. Simple.

  • +1

    Sad that big brother has it over its citizens like this.

    I like to fight like the OP but unfortunately we are just pawns to the system and seem to always get the bad side of the deal in court.

    I learned long ago that you can't fight City Hall.

    My advice, pay up and move on.

    The good thing is that in these situations where we are law abiding citizens is that it makes us just that bit more careful in the future. Also you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  • All the comments about don't fight it, its not worth it etc is exactly what the police, parking rangers etc are counting on when they issue dubious fines like this. I would certainly fight it if you have evidence to prove what you are saying is true. Magistrates are much more understanding than you think. I have fought 4 fines one for parking in a no standing, running a red light, parking in a bus zone and turning left when there was sign indicating no left turn. The key is to plead guilty but explain the circumstances around why you received the fine. 3 of the 4 fines I was let off and one parking fine was reduced significantly. Also you do not have to attend court in person. There is a form that you can fill in and send to the court with your supporting evidence. I cannot stress enough though the significance of providing evidence to support your claim.

    BTW all claims where initially rejected by SDRO.

  • "I went up the road and found the no stopping sign that was blocked by the two parked cars before me."

    So you obviously were in a no stopping zone. Ever since I moved to Melbourne I swear I double check every parking sign when I park now, as Ive had two parking fines since I arrived. I dont know it sux but it happens :/

    • How do you do that? You stop your car, get off, go forward maybe 50 meters to check road signs? Then if there is a no stopping sign ahead, you already infringe the rule.

  • My son was sick, coughing and vomited after our hour long drive, crying and struggling in child Seat; My wife suggested to stop briefly so that we can give my son some water to make sure he didn’t inhale any vomit into his lungs. I also desperately need and toilet break.

    … I guess the legal definition of “emergency” was narrower than my interpretation of “emergency”.

    The legal definition is absolutely much narrower.

    For example I picture a legal emergency as something like driving and running over a pedestrian where the law mandates that a driver stop to render assistance, call 000 and wait for police to arrive.

    A mechanical emergency is something like your car tyre exploded or car engine blew up and is pouring clouds of smoke and flames into the cabin and dumping oil on the road.

    Even in the OP's own situation, it becomes a medical emergency at the point when the son stops breathing (ie. medically drowning). At which point the appropriate response is to pull over to a safe breakdown lane, call 000 for an ambulance and let someone perform CPR in the breakdown lane. Like KaptnKaos mentioned earlier its for a qualified medical professional (eg. paramedic, surgeon) to notify the AFP/NSW police/000 operator it is a genuine medical emergency.

    Its easy to find out a NSW police officers point of view on this matter. The OP can walk into several local police stations, enquire about examples of what counts as a NSW road emergency for a NSW police officer. Explain the original scenario of walking out of the toilets and being handed an AFP parking fine. Most station police won't have a problem to provide their own personal opinion and/or point to a traffic law + relevant sub-section.

  • DO IT OP!
    Go to court!
    Especially you have a good clean record for 10 yrs

    You have a good enough reason and vice versa you don't endanger anyone that much.
    We know that police officer are just doing their job. They are not trained to interpret or asses these conditions.
    But we're not robots who only follow a programming routine…. we humans have hearts!

    That's where you should go, go to trial BUT DON'T stress.. just relax explain your case because you're there expecting nothing. If not just for the experience…. Hopefully you will talk to a human justice official with heart (not the showoff or stressed out one) :D
    I reckon you will get leniency or free pass on this one.

  • +1

    i can tell you right now that if the infringement was issued with the wrong offence location and wrong address, you should get off with no troubles at all. The correct steps to take are to request the photos, then to contest based on the infringement not matching the photos. They can only proceed with the infringement if it is accurate, I.e. They can't fine you for something you didn't do, and they can't change the details on the infringement at this stage as that would be illegal.

    Can you tell me more about the errors? Did they quote the wrong street, or what?

    Ps there is a bit more to it, feel free to pm me.

    • Given that the OP thought he was on a "one way" road and was fined by a "Federal" police officer, I'm wondering who who have a better fix on the location.

      What was the address given on the ticket?

      I know exactlt where this stretch of road is but never pondered what address it goes by. It's commonly referred to as Audley Weir, just around the corner from this camera image.

      • It was maybe an AFP due to it being a national park and therefore Federal land but that is the only reason I can think of.

        However AFP officers can exercise the power of a state police officer if required. Same goes for a state police officer being able to arrest people for Federal offences.

    • Thank you, nieza!

      The officer scribbled down "Audlly RD, AUDLLY" on the notice.

      It is not a significant error as Audley Road is just around the corner. Not kilometers away or in a different suburb.

      I am afraid that any magistrates would not throw out a case based such minor technicality and arguing such might be counter-productive.

      In my review request, I asked the offence street to be corrected to "Sir Bertram Stevens Drive". The location was not updated as requested though.

  • I didn't even know Federal Police issue traffic infringements of that nature

  • All police vehicles have GPS

    But regardless

    No stopping means no stopping

    No parking you can stop for up to 15 min (I think) if you are within 5 meters of the parked vehicle

    Sorry to hear, I know situation like this are not easy

  • I've gotten out of a fine before for having a 10 year clear driving record (NSW), it's an option on the "Contest a fine" page.

    • A parking fine? I've never heard of driving records being taken into consideration for parking offences.

  • +1

    "My son was sick, coughing and vomited after our hour long drive"

    Ideally, sick three year old should get you off any driving infringement, so long as you weren't being dangerous. Not sure what the court will do.

    I have a friend in NSW who fights every infringement and he said he always gets reduced fines that way. He might be lying, but seems legit. He might be a good arguer.

  • +1

    The SDRO review process has only limited reasons they can use for cancelling an infringement.

    The law provides a wider range of reasons, however they are interpreted by a magistrate at local court.

    The exemptions are here:
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/…

    Was the "condition" of your passenger such that it was "necessary" to stop in the interests of safety? Nowhere in that reason does it require that the medical situation be life threatening. It would have been hugely distracting if a passenger was throwing up - thus in the interest of safety you can stop. A distracted driver isn't safe. Sounds like you even have documentary evidence that your passenger was sick.

    There seem to be many people commenting here who have no understanding of the law and have never done "court election" for an infringement. Why exactly they feel competent to comment is beyond me.

    • Quoting from a few websites is consistent with your observations.

    • +1

      Thank you very much for your advice, Factor. The exemption rules help a lot.

      Paragraph (d) should apply to my case. I stopped for the safety of my son and it took 2-3 minutes.

      (d) the driver stops at a particular place, or in a particular way, because the condition of the driver, a passenger, or the driver’s vehicle makes it necessary for the driver to stop in the interests of safety, and the driver stops for no longer than is necessary in the circumstance

      • That is exactly what will get you out of the fine.

        But the golden question stands - how would you impartially prove it?

  • The cop shouldn't have been in a rush though, he/she does have a duty to ensure what you were being fined for was understood and there was no denying that you were not doing the right thing, next time even if the cop is in a rush get him/her to walk you through the alleged offense Within reason to ensure you are not obstructing justice.

    • Yeah and get fines for a non working brake light while you're at it

    • How can you tell if the cop was in a rush? After issuing you a fine, he needs to stay back and comfort you until you sober up?

  • -1

    i'm too stressed bro, where can i get some men hair dye for cheap

    • Wrong thread mate (or perhaps a really bad joke).

      Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

  • -1

    Your heading drew me in but it's a bit misleading. I though you meant the rule in question was ambiguous. But after reading we find its because you ignored intentionally or unintentionally a 'no stopping' sign. No defence possible other than life or death emergency I'm afraid. Unless your about to lose license, no point to fight it.

  • Your heading drew me in but it's a bit misleading. I though you meant the rule in question was ambiguous. But after reading we find its because you ignored intentionally or unintentionally a 'no stopping' sign. No defence possible other than life or death emergency I'm afraid. You can try arguing the vomit was an issue? But don't really seeing that going anywhere. Unless your about to lose license, no point to fight it.

  • +1

    This is a definitely arguable case.

    Also there is a chance that the AFP officer wont show and then the case just gets tossed out.

    Dont get stuck into the overall legality of this because this is a lower court offence. It will be a case of you telling your story and the magistrate making up their mind. The fact you have a 10 year driving history, a sick son as well as the sign itself being obscured would give you a 50/50 shot in my opinion.

    FWIW, I used to work for a DPP.

    • Thank you very much for your professional opinion, Nedski.

      • Always better to seek proper legal advice. There are a lot of people on ozbargain claiming to be in a specific profession giving incorrect advice. Not saying that nedski never worked for the dpp just I'd be wary with people on ozbargain. There was another thread where a specific ozbargain member was giving legal advice contrary to the legislation and then was claiming to be a police officer of 30 years…

        • too funny what some people believing things on the internet these days.

        • +1

          R3XNebular makes a good point. I could be a 12 y/o typing behind a keyboard.

          So take any advice over the internet with a grain of salt. However keep in mind, for lower level traffic offences, it is not really cost effective to get legal advice short of going to a community legal centre.

          With the fine being $250, it is not really cost effective getting a lawyer. Lawyers can be of use for drinking driving and getting help with restricted driving license applications.

          But also keep in mind that my advice is merely opinion as the DPP does not get involved in traffic offences as the police prosecutor usually handles those.

  • Personally, take it up with your Local MP. If your story is true, they will see the injustice of it and may act. Most people usually forget (and probably for good reason) that their MP is supposed to serve their electorate. Make use of it.

    • The day you lodge your complaint to your MP in writing, will be the same day their shredder is used to the max.

  • +2

    If your son was sick, why would you take him on a long drive at the first place?
    Baby cry and throw tantrum all the times especially when they got tied up in their seat too long, still doesn't give you right to disobey the road rules.
    After write them a letter and they refuse, just pay the fine and move on, its not that much. Losing day off work and travel back & forth, stressing, and might end up losing more money. For me, isn't worth it.
    You want to fight on principle? what principle? You broke the rule at the first place.

  • +1

    Pay the fine. It is your responsibility to ensure your car is parked legally. You may need to brush up on your road rules because you seem to be confused about the meaning of double lines and no stopping signs.

  • Are you sure the fine was issued by the AFP?

    Im under the impression that the AFP hove no traffic powers in NSW outside of federal territories, the cars you see going around are the old protective services roles and also guarding military bases.

    I am also under the impression that when they want to serve a federal warrant or conduct any policing outside of the federal territories that they must be accompanied by the NSW police.

    This 100% has been the case for years unless it has changed recently that i am not aware of.

  • From the photo it doesn't look like there is much room to park there, poor decision.

    You could have crossed the double white lines to park on the other side, it's perfectly legal. The lines indicate no overtaking.

  • fyi - if it was Federal police, they have no jurisdiction to issue a state offences…

    Also, you can not ask if a matter is reasonably arguable as the magistrate will have to consider all the evidence and without a police brief, you will not be able tell.

    If you believe you were in the right, and you want to take the time off work to argue this case, then by all means, challenge the infringement. You can always argue poor income and ask for a sentence indication in which the Magistrate will probably waive the fine but deduct demerits.

    If the matter is worth your time and effort then by all means go ahead and challenge.
    If you're one of those people who say it's about the principle, then go ahead and challenge, however for most of us, its easier to pay the fine and take it on the chin.

    • if it was Federal police, they have no jurisdiction to issue a state offences…

      Hitting the drinks early I see?

      AFP have issued parking and traffic infringements according to state laws many times. They are just as enforceable as state issued fines. I've personally seen this happen.

      the Magistrate will probably waive the fine but deduct demerits.

      Demerit points for parking offences?

      • You are right, I am just a mere 1st yr law student always up for some healthy debate. I was under the assumption that AFP / Federal officers were only given powers to enforce Federal Offences. As State laws are specific to each state, they are generally only enforceable by the state police, hence why it would seem strange but digging deeper, it appears that the AFP have issued fines before.

        This might be because of summary offences?

        For indictable offences, they can not charge.

        I got the demerits part wrong (I was caught up in a similar matter for driving whilst on the phone) and typed in the heat of the moment confusing my situations.

        Regardless, my end opinion remains the same, you will need a copy of the brief before an opinion can be formed and have to go to court to argue.

        • Cheers, thanks.

  • For your information, you can cross those double lines to enter that parking spot.

    As a rule of thumb if you have to break a law to avoid breaking another law in the case of an "emergency", break the law that leaves no evidence or lasting issue. (Even though in this case it wouldn't even involve breaking the law.)

  • -6

    when police can't catch crims or burglars, they tend to turn to do the traffic and motorway rounds… easier way to stash up some revenue for the police department.

    Just some reading for those interested…
    https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1887…

  • there are some downright stupid people on this forum. every post quoting revenue raising gets downvoted. well done simpletons :)

  • +1

    I got legal advice.

    Lawyer says that 90% of the chance of non-conviction based on mitigating circumstances and driving history.

    • Thanks for posting, good to see a positive outcome on the horizon.

Login or Join to leave a comment