EPA May Want Me to Attend Court

SydEng on 06/03/2020 - 11:21
Last edited 07/03/2020 - 20:01 by 1 other user

Hey All

Last November, I reported someone for tossing a cigerette butt out of their car. This especially pissed me off as this was during the total fire ban while we had the bushfires. Today, I got a call from EPA saying the driver wants to dispute the fine and I may have to attend court. Obviously, I do not want to attend court as this means I lose out on a day of work. Wondering what options do I have? Would I just be able to give my dashcam footage of the event happening and avoid court.

Dashcam footage @ 0:19

UPDATE: Told EPA, I had dashcam footage and defendant backed out of going to court and accepted the fine.

Automotive

Related Stores

NSW Environment Protection Authority
NSW Environment Protection Authority

closed Comments

  • spackbace on 06/03/2020 - 11:26
    +12

    https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/litter-and-illeg…

    If you have reported a person for littering from a motor vehicle and that person chooses to have the matter heard before a court, your identity may be known to the court and to the defendant.

    If it is safe to do so, and you are not driving, we encourage you to take photos, videos or voice recordings and submit them with your report. These are a useful record to help you make your report and they can form part of the evidence if the offender chooses to have the matter heard in Court. You can upload up to three photographs of maximum 5MB each and a sound or video file of up to 25MB.

    Did you submit the video with the report?

    What will happen if I register and report an offence but refuse to attend court if requested?
    As part of submitting a report you ticked a box agreeing to attend court if required.

    If you later refuse to attend court, the matter may be dropped and any fine for littering withdrawn. Depending on the circumstances we may not accept any further reports for littering from a vehicle from you.

    Is there compensation available if a person takes time off work to attend court?
    Reasonable expenses may be reimbursed for witnesses, including the costs of attending court.

    • sparkles on 06/03/2020 - 12:28
      +46

      The litterer is effectively banking on you not turning up and it will be thrown out. You should do it, wear a really obvious bad wig disguise and also a GoPro on your lapel.

      • spackbace on 06/03/2020 - 12:44
        +1

        This reminds me, my first rental had mail for someone getting a fine for littering. So it started off small. That then compounded and then became a court date, which then turned into a license suspension!

        Reminds me of Homer's car getting turned into a cube.

        Moral of the story, make sure you have mail redirects in place when you leave (the last tenant may have left the country)

        • Amaris on 07/03/2020 - 14:30
          +8

          I thought it's illegal to open someone else's mail.

        • Bryanalves on 08/03/2020 - 01:27

          How can you tell they might have left the country?

      • holdenmg on 06/03/2020 - 12:48
        +10

        Wear a Corona Mask as a fashion statement…

    • SydEng on 07/03/2020 - 18:14
      +29

      UPDATE: Told EPA, I had dashcam footage and defendant backed out of going to court and accepted the fine.

      • spackbace on 07/03/2020 - 18:21

        Nice!

        • MontyMacaw on 08/03/2020 - 08:45

          And that’s why they say they will contest it because they don’t think witnesses will go

  • Halo375 on 06/03/2020 - 11:26
    +108

    You’re a hero - go to court and get this guy. Probably would only cost you a few hours but totally worth it. Give EPA a call and see if they could just use dashcam video and a signed stat dec as an alternative.

  • xeion on 06/03/2020 - 11:40
    +36

    Definately go to court, how else will they learn to use the ashtray in their vehicle instead of tossing rubbish on our streets.

    • ssquid on 06/03/2020 - 20:05

      Not excusing their behaviour but ashtrays stopped being a standard feature a fair while ago.

      • capslock janitor on 07/03/2020 - 14:32
        +1

        where else do i put my coins

      • Jugganautx on 07/03/2020 - 16:16

        how long a while? my 2014 has a standard ashtray..

        • ssquid on 07/03/2020 - 16:21

          It came with the car as standard or you requested it when ordering? They're normally uselessly small storage compartments unless an ashtray is requested.

  • theHMASfriendship on 06/03/2020 - 11:41
    +13

    Ask if you can just give a statement instead of attending court.

    • wiipantz on 06/03/2020 - 12:56
      -3

      This

      • Vote for Pedro on 07/03/2020 - 16:05
        +2

        Nope. Accused has a right to cross examine the evidence.

  • Euphemistic on 06/03/2020 - 11:42
    +16

    You made your choice when you submitted the report. It says quite clearly you may be required to attend court, and if you don’t all your hard work reporting will be wasted and they won’t listwn to you in the future.

    You choose.

    FWIW I’ve reported about half a dozen and nothing has come of it … yet.

    • Euphemistic on 06/03/2020 - 14:15
      +1

      I also wonder wether if someone does elect to challenge does it end up at a court local to the event or local to the driver? If it is a driver from out of town would I be required to attend court from their location or would the EPA take that into account in terms of blocking my future reports.

      • The mikky on 06/03/2020 - 19:31
        +2

        Criminal Court cases usually are heard in the jurisdiction of where the offence occurred.

  • netjock on 06/03/2020 - 11:45
    +4

    Ask your work for a day off paid. Tell them to offset that against their fighting climate change budget.

  • Caped Baldy on 06/03/2020 - 12:18
    +27

    Set up a go fund me. I'll gladly put up a fiver.

    • Vote for Pedro on 07/03/2020 - 16:09
      +3

      While the choice of wording leaves a lot to be desired, the statement you make is accurate. If you are prepared to accuse someone via a legal system process, you need to also be prepared to follow through.

      If you’re not, then butt out.

      • elgrande on 07/03/2020 - 22:36

        Thanks Pedro, you have my vote.

  • Seraphin7 on 06/03/2020 - 12:22
    -6

    I have no idea what I'm supposed to be looking at in your video??? Who's flicked the cigarette???

    • Caped Baldy on 06/03/2020 - 12:28
      +6

      White van. They roll the window down and up.

    • firestormx on 06/03/2020 - 12:30
      +1

      White van on the left: https://youtu.be/Hh7yhtqlwWs?t=20

    • Seraphin7 on 06/03/2020 - 13:53
      +1

      Holy hell, maybe it's me, but you've got to have keen eyes to see whatever that was. I could only see it when I went frame by frame.

      Are you sure it was a cigarette? It's very hard to tell what actually came out of that vehicle.

      • MrHyde on 06/03/2020 - 14:29
        +10

        whatever came out - it is still littering.

      • djkelly69 on 06/03/2020 - 15:17
        +7

        Ok I think we found the culprit (or his defence lawyer).

      • Speckled Jim on 07/03/2020 - 07:46
        +1

        Bet they claim it was spit.

        • Click_It on 07/03/2020 - 16:37

          Yeah the op needs to video edit and zoom in. See if you can see its a cigarette, otherwise spit is the perfect defence, assuming it wasn't spit to begin with. I'd like to see zoomed in footage.

  • kahn on 06/03/2020 - 12:24
    -5

    I'd be careful with that video footage as the EPA might do you for noise pollution.

  • sparkles on 06/03/2020 - 12:24
    +26

    Had to watch twice because I was expecting it to the thrown from the Range Rover LOL.

    • Euphemistic on 06/03/2020 - 12:55
      +7

      I was waiting for the golf driver. Window was already down.

      • bobbified on 06/03/2020 - 13:03
        +1

        I watched that golf twice and zoomed in with 1080p60, then realised it was the van!

    • serbpie on 07/03/2020 - 19:50

      Me too, i gave up on the video, but then found your comment.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/03/2020 - 12:38
    +5

    I wish my submissions would get this far.

    Take them to court.

  • bobbified on 06/03/2020 - 12:39
    +4

    Well, you agreed to go to court if a fine gets challenged, so here we are. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If it was the other way around, you'd be glad to have the opportunity to face your accuser too.

    I don't like litterers, but I also don't like this dobbing scheme. In the absence of video (which is going to be a large number of cases), it's one person's word against another's. I can easily dob in the next person that cuts me off or looks at me funny. It's way too open to abuse.

    • Euphemistic on 06/03/2020 - 12:57
      +2

      This is why they want you to know up front that you’ll end up in court if they challenge. Less chance of doing a dodgy report if there are repercussions for yourself.

      There should be the same for reporting road traffic offences.

      • bobbified on 06/03/2020 - 13:02
        -1

        Less chance of doing a dodgy report if there are repercussions for yourself.

        I agree that it'll minimise the chances of a dodgey report, but I think the accused still starts off on a back foot in court. Especially if the accuser's word alone is enough to convict someone.

        • Euphemistic on 06/03/2020 - 14:03

          I don’t know all about the law, but it’s not a conviction, it is a fine. There is a difference between criminal activities and fines etc. Where the onus of some stuff (burden of proof etc) is reduced to mean that the fine does not require court dates and a conviction to be upheld. If we did not have this version every time you got a speeding ticket you would have to front court and the magistrate would have to decide your guilt before applying the fine. We skip that step so the courts are left for more serious matters.

    • MITM on 06/03/2020 - 13:14
      +4

      How else do those medium strip fires start - flicking matches out the window ?

    • balkandishlex on 06/03/2020 - 13:17
      +17

      As part of the study, called Can cigarettes butts start (Bush)fires, Ms Dainer conducted outdoor trials, supervised by Station Officer Scott and three firefighters with a fire engine from Parramatta Fire Station. She lit cigarettes and threw them into grass on the side of a road in the Sydney suburb of Prospect where there was no danger to surrounding property. At the time the prevailing conditions were recorded as wind speed of 40km/h, fuel (grass) moisture content approximately 12% of oven dry weight and humidity 14%.

      “On the day it was around 27°C with a north westerly wind, and it was pretty dry,” Station Officer Scott said. In three out of the 75 trials, or 4%, the grass caught alight and started to burn, requiring the firefighters to extinguish the flames.

      “The fires would have progressed quite quickly if we hadn’t been there,” says Station Officer Scott. “It’s no wonder we’re called to so many fires on busy roads and freeways and by railway lines when they can start so easily.”

      As well as the outdoor trials, the study also involved:

      laboratory trials to show whether cigarette butts could ignite grassy fuel (hay) in a well-controlled environment and to identify the parameters which affect ignition potential; and
      a survey of the number of cigarette butts on two median strips on a three lane road in Western Sydney.
      The laboratory trials found cigarette butts ignited the hay in 33% of cases. Ignitions increased when the wind speed increased, fuel moisture decreased (though wetter fuels could ignite with the application of wind) and the degree of the contact between the fuel bed and combustion area of the cigarette increased.

      During the survey, 426 cigarette butts were collected in a 60 square metre area of the median strip of Abbott Road, Seven Hills, over a three-week period. The wind draught created by a line of passing traffic was also recorded and found to be sufficient to increase the potential for a cigarette butt to start a fire on the roadside even if the prevailing conditions were calm.

    • orangetrain on 06/03/2020 - 13:27

      Throw a lit cig onto tissues.

    • Bargain80 on 06/03/2020 - 13:43

      it's still environmental issue

  • MITM on 06/03/2020 - 13:13
    +11

    Do the right thing and attend court - then ask for witness protection and a new identity.

  • cwongtech on 06/03/2020 - 13:20
    +3

    Would I just be able to give my dashcam footage of the event happening and avoid court.

    IANAL, but you should ask to submit evidence - if you pause frame before you pull up to the van, you can CLEARLY see the offending van's carplate.

    Also, on the right, you have a red Gerard Malouf signage on a shop (after the car moves) which could provide the location this happened in.

    You have your timestamp on the dashcam.

    The only thing you don't have is who the driver is, but that's up to EPA to chase.

    • MITM on 06/03/2020 - 13:27
      +1

      Well done Buxton.

  • Ryanek on 06/03/2020 - 13:39
    +10

    Start a crowd fund. I'll donate $1 towards your loss of income for a day.

    • Euphemistic on 06/03/2020 - 14:05
      -3

      Can I set one up to recoup the costs of going to the page and donating? I’ll probably need around $4.86.

    • penting on 07/03/2020 - 08:48

      I am in!

  • scrimshaw on 06/03/2020 - 13:41
    +6

    Contact them and ask them if you can attend court by way of teleconferencing.
    Many courts have remote witness facilities. http://www.districtcourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/facilities…

    • canyoudoitcheaper on 06/03/2020 - 22:09
      +1

      Those facilities are usually only available to child/ DV/ sex abuse matters. There’s no chance of the court using those resources for a littering matter

      • capslock janitor on 07/03/2020 - 14:36
        -2

        so they rather you take a car there or PT… well done eepa

        • callum9999 on 07/03/2020 - 19:50
          +2

          The EPA doesn't run the legal system…

    • kolorijo on 06/03/2020 - 15:53
      +16

      Heya guy in white van!

    • StalkingIbis on 08/03/2020 - 07:58

      stop littering mate.

  • mbck on 06/03/2020 - 15:11

    Hang on….i know this. The girl other driver was in the news. Oh no, not you different video

  • David2017 on 06/03/2020 - 16:03
    +3

    I had the EPA call me and say the same thing many years ago. This happened long before dash cams became popular but I used to keep a notepad in my car to record the all the details, what the driver looked like, where I was going, why etc. The other driver is bluffing. I said "tell the driver I can't wait to see them in court because I've got everything written down. I don't care if we're in court for a week." I never heard anymore about it. Obviously the other guy backed down.

    • Euphemistic on 06/03/2020 - 16:27

      Maybe I should take better notes! All I do is fill in the form, that’s where my records are. I do recall the instances I have reported, but would need refreshing on the details of time/date etc. ie last report was for a black American brand SUV I followed turning left around a roundabout. He flicked it out just after the roundabout. But without the report I’d have to guess it was a Saturday morning around 9am, no idea what date.

    • SlavOz on 07/03/2020 - 08:50
      -2

      Taking notes ain't the same as video evidence. Anyone can fill out a notebook with random offenses and number plates. Proving it actually occurred is a different matter.

      • Hardlyworkin on 07/03/2020 - 12:00
        +3

        I disagree, contemperaneous notes can be very valuable evidence. In a former life I relied on these often as evidence before a court. Many wrongly think they need an email or recording as evidence. Notes written at the time of the conversation are almost as good, especially if you take a photo of the notes to time stamp them.

        • callum9999 on 07/03/2020 - 19:54

          That's somewhat depressing to hear given its incredibly easy to fake. I could also take a photo of a piece of paper and set the timestamp to absolutely any day or time I'd like.

          Anyone who views this as a reliable document should not be in any position to be making legal judgements! I can see why you'd take someone's word for it in some scenarios, but having it written down shouldn't give any credence to their verbal statement whatsoever.

  • Jbeam on 06/03/2020 - 19:24
    +13

    I’ve had a similar experience in the past.
    Reported someone and had dash cam footage (wasn’t able to upload with report back then).
    They elected to go to court therefore EPA needed me as a witness or else the fine would be withdrawn.
    I was told once the tosser elects to go to court, they can’t then change their mind and withdraw.
    The thought of coming face to face with the tosser was daunting but I agreed to be a witness and attend. I was assisted to make a written statement prior to the Court date.
    In the end, I was never actually required to attend court as a witness.
    The EPA lawyer explained that to me that the tosser was told and shown the dash cam footage at the Court mention and they then decided to plead guilty.
    It’s most likely the tosser had access to my name from my written statement also.
    Hope this helps with your decision.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 06/03/2020 - 19:26
    +5

    Hey OP, you're not alone here, setup a Fund page. If your work or EPA won't help out then I'm happy to donate something towards the wages you'd miss out on. Don't let that (profanity) get off.

    • penting on 07/03/2020 - 08:50

      Like i told above i am in

  • bohn on 06/03/2020 - 19:57
    +2

    Take him down OP. FINISH HIM.

  • SlavOz on 07/03/2020 - 08:59
    -5

    Well, for starters, you can't even see the alleged van's license plate clearly. Who's to say you don't have an envious ex boyfriend who drives a van and want to pin another driver's actions on him?

    I'm not sure what the standard of proof is in these matters, or whether or not the driver has the right to see your footage before the court date. If I knew that was the only evidence against me I'd be strolling quite comfortably to court with positive chances. We can't convict someone based on someone else's word, otherwise I could find any random video footage of a terrorist attack and say it was you.

    If this goes to court I'd imagine it'd be thrown out if the driver bothers to challenge and defend himself. Even with your statement I'd be quite surprised if he gets fined, unless they have technology that can clearly identify his number plate in your footage.

    • terrys on 07/03/2020 - 09:35
      +2

      "unless they have technology"

      The time of day, the area, the direction of travel, the vehicle itself and high resolution traffic cams along the route. All they need now are computers that could parse and collate such information.
      Oh, wait…

      • SlavOz on 07/03/2020 - 09:50

        Even so, if they can't clearly identify the number plate there's going to be problems. Even if they have irrefutable evidence that this particular van was in this vicinity location at the exact time of day the offense occurred, the driver is still innocent until proven guilty. It's not an offense to be driving the same car in the same location as someone who committed a crime. There could be 5 other vans of the same make/model behind OP's car.

        This is why I find the dobbing in system way too complicated. Police use multi-million doar equipment in their traffic cameras and even then fines can easily be given in error or argued against if the equipment wasn't calibrated correctly and other legal procedures weren't followed. I can only imagine how far footage from a $40 dash cam is going to go.

    • Ryanek on 07/03/2020 - 10:52
      +3

      Play the video in 1080p, the license is quite clear.

      • mrvaluepack on 07/03/2020 - 17:46

        And what do you say the licence plate is? Because i still cant make it out?

    • spackbace on 07/03/2020 - 11:32
      +3

      Well, for starters, you can't even see the alleged van's license plate clearly.

      What setting do you have your video set to? It's clearly legible! And that's just from Youtube, which compresses, we haven't seen the raw footage.

      And on a registration lookup, that rego matches a 2006 Hiace.

      So your whole comment is null and void

      • SlavOz on 07/03/2020 - 11:54
        -4

        My Internet is slow so I have bad video quality, but I wouldn't call that photo clear by any measure. I can only see a few letters chopped up - definitely not clear enough to distinguish between a 5 and an S, or a the number 0 or letter D.

        • Euphemistic on 07/03/2020 - 13:46

          I couldn’t see it on my phone, but the driver clearly says the rego into the recording a couple of times.

          • SlavOz on 07/03/2020 - 14:59
            -6

            @Euphemistic: Ye but like I said, I doubt that would hold up in court.

            • Euphemistic on 07/03/2020 - 15:53

              @SlavOz: Thing is though, this is a littering fine. It’s a few hundred dollars so you don’t need to go all CSI on it. If the original video footage can be shown and the rego is ‘fairly clear’ and matches what the driver calls out that’s probably close enough for a littering fine.

              If the van driver says I was on the other side of town and has some sort of evidence it’ll get thrown out as a mistake and that’s the end. Maybe He accuser will get blocked from the report system but not much more.

      • mrvaluepack on 07/03/2020 - 17:46
        -1

        And what do you say the licence plate is? Because i still cant make it out?

        • spackbace on 07/03/2020 - 18:22
          +3

          Check your glasses then

          • mrvaluepack on 07/03/2020 - 20:55
            -1

            @spackbace: you check yours because you are making things up. unable to determine without a benefit of a doubt that was the vehicle, court will throw out the case.

            • spackbace on 07/03/2020 - 20:57
              +1

              @mrvaluepack: It's easy to make out, and confirmed with a simple registration check. It's no fluke that the plate that can easily be read, matches with a 2006 Hiace

              And again, as I've said previously, you're looking at Youtube compressed footage, not straight off the memory card footage.

    • canyoudoitcheaper on 07/03/2020 - 16:46
      +2

      We can't convict someone based on someone else's word

      Yes, they can. How do you think people get done for sexual assault where it's the word of the complainant against the accused? It doesn't sound like you've ever stepped foot inside a courtroom - you should refrain from giving "advice" on things you know nothing about.

      • SlavOz on 07/03/2020 - 17:14
        -4

        Yes, they can. How do you think people get done for sexual assault where it's the word of the complainant against the accused?

        I would imagine that there's usually more than just someone else's word when one is convicted of something as serious as sexual assault. Why do you think lawyers and detectives exist in this country?

        The law is quite clear on this:

        A core principle of the Australian criminal justice system is that a person is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

        https://queenslandlawhandbook.org.au/the-queensland-law-hand…

        • canyoudoitcheaper on 07/03/2020 - 17:27
          +1

          I'm not questioning the presumption of innocence. I'm saying that one can be proven guilty in court on the oral evidence of a lay witness without any additional evidence.

          People seem to think they need to be caught red handed on camera (which is actually the case with the OP) to have an offence proven beyond reasonable doubt. The reality is that cases are successfully prosecuted every day on the strength of a single witness's oral testimony, particularly with summary offences in the Local Court.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join