Chapter 1 — Fines

This chapter deals with all types of unjust and unlawful fines, but we will focus primarily on traffic fines, as this is an area that almost everyone can relate to.  We dare say that there would barely be a person reading this who hasn’t received some kind of speeding fine, parking fine, etc. at some point in their lives.

The Government propaganda machine constantly tells us that these fines are issued for our ‘safety’, yet this is quite obviously a lie.  The reality is that, in most States, the road toll has stayed the same – or even increased – despite an exponential growth in the number of traffic fines issued each and every year.

The media constantly supports the Government propaganda by reporting stories such as the ones below, which clearly shows that fines are really just all about revenue raising:

“Emails reveal South Australian police push to hit their traffic benchmarks” – The Adelaide Advertiser

“Couple slapped with fine for speeding on the way to hospital to give birth.” – Ninemsn

“Speeding motorists won’t escape hi-tech supercams” – Herald Sun

“Car ‘for sale’ fine enrages driver” - A Current Affair

“Traffic police told to target low-level speeding offenders” – Herald Sun

“Cameras to spy on fine evaders” – The West Australian

“Debt Collectors to recover $20m in unpaid fines” – The QLD Times

“Every road in Australia should have tolls, says report” – News.com.au

“Speed, red light cameras net $3.4 million in 27 days” - Daily Telegraph

“Fixed cameras nab 17,000” – The West Australian

“Motorists hit with tougher fines” – The West

So, our question to you is this: “Is this the sort of rubbish you want to be seeing in the news?”  If not, then you need to take action and do something about it.

One of the first things that we need to do is to remind our elected representatives that they exist to do our bidding, not the other way around – a fact that they tend to conveniently forget.  As with anything in life, though, when only a handful of people take action, not much happens.  However, when we collectively fight back, we can achieve dramatic results.  We only have to look back to the collapse of the Berlin Wall, which stood for 30 years, to see what ‘people power’ can really achieve.

We are not urging people to fight back just to ‘get off’ a fine: we are urging people to fight back collectively so that we can bring about some real changes that will genuinely make travelling on our roads safer and more enjoyable for all motorists.  We would encourage you to visit the Aussie Speeding Fines ‘Vision for the Future’ page to see for yourself the sort of changes that we are working towards.

For example, we would like to see the one billion dollars a year that the Governments are currently raking in from traffic fines directed towards creating better roads and autobahns between Australia’s major cities.  Anyone who has ever driven in Europe will know that motorists often travel at speeds of 150, 200, even 250 kph+ all day every day, and yet there are very few accidents.  Europe, on the whole, is also quite densely populated yet, by comparison, Australia has huge, wide open spaces in between its major cities.  So why on earth don’t we have autobahns between Melbourne and Sydney, Sydney and Brisbane, etc.?

And, speaking of Europe, the reason that motorists there can do those kinds of speeds safely is because the level of education and training they receive before they get a licence is far superior to the pathetic requirements that we have here in Australia. You have to go to school for over a year just to become a hairdresser, where the worst you can do is stab someone in the ear with a sharp pair of scissors, yet to drive a motor vehicle – which is the most dangerous thing that most people do on a daily basis – most States only require you to fill out a logbook for 120 hours or so driving with Mum and Dad.  They, likely, only had to do a trip around the block with the local police officer to get their licence, so how can that minimal preparation possibly create a country of safe drivers?

Something else that we want to change is the concept of how the Government goes about correcting driver behaviour.

Any of you with small children will know that, when you teach them something – like, how to walk – that’s far better done by encouraging them for doing the ‘right thing’ rather than punishing them for doing the ‘wrong thing’.  So how about the Government starts rewarding people for completing defensive or advanced driver training courses, by giving them a percentage off their registration each year?

And, if they are insistent on punishing people, then how about we link demerit points to actual accidents rather than ‘offences’ that might, perhaps, maybe, one day, in a very specific set of circumstances possibly cause an accident?

International studies have shown that ‘speeding’ is only a factor, not the factor in just 5 percent of accidents – it is certainly not the “biggest killer on our roads” as the police would have us believe.  Please see the Crash Statistics table on the Aussie Speeding Fines website, which shows that ‘going too fast for the conditions’, as opposed to simply exceeding some arbitrarily-set speed limit, is the real cause of the majority of accidents.

So, how do we bring about the above-mentioned changes?

First and foremost, you need to learn about the laws and understand your rights.  Once you’ve done that, you need to actually stand up and fight for your rights, and encourage others to do the same. Most importantly, people need to stop blindly paying unjust and unlawful traffic fines because, once the money stops rolling into the Governments’ coffers, they will be forced to take notice of the Will of The People.  Please also keep in mind that, every time you blindly ‘pay up’, you are reinforcing the Governments’ system and encouraging them to keep doing what they are currently doing.  Let’s hit them where it hurts – in their back pocket – like they do us.

So, what are the laws, and what are your rights?

The laws are simply guidelines, not laws at all.  Traffic regulations were originally brought in simply to assist traffic flow.  They were never intended to be a revenue stream for the State Governments!   The truth is that the laws themselves are written in such a way that they tell you they are not law, and we would encourage everyone to get a copy of the Aussie Speeding Fines e-book to find out more.  The simple fact is that these purported laws have not been lawfully enacted and cannot be, due to Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution (we cover this in greater detail in the Constitution chapter), and that cannot be changed without a Referendum.

In regards to your rights, when it comes to traffic fines, one of your fundamental rights is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Section 8, sub-section 12 of the Imperial Acts Application Act dictates that “All promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.” Quite simply, that means that until you have been convicted of something by a court of competent jurisdiction, all fines are illegal.

That means speeding fines, parking fines, red light camera fines, infringement notices, expiation notices, failure to vote fines, failure to register dog fines and any other type of fine you can name are all completely illegal!

Even if there was no such thing as an Imperial Acts Application Act, the Imperial Acts would still apply anyway because, as is stipulated in the Commonwealth Constitution, all the laws that applied in England at Federation still apply in the Commonwealth of Australia today because only the UK Parliament can repeal them.

This powerful right of a presumption of innocence can be used in many different circumstances.  For example, if you have a court order or warrant issued against you, you can apply to have it revoked/annulled on that basis.  If a sheriff’s officer tries to clamp your car, or a police officer attempts to confiscate your car (under some purported anti-hoon laws), you can quote Section 8, sub-section 12 of the Imperial Acts Application Act and demand your day in court before having to pay any fine or forfeiting anything.

Although the Imperial Acts Application Act is an Act of the Parliament of Victoria, if you go to our Constitution chapter and refer to sections 117 and 118, you will see that all states are required to give full force and effect to the Victorian Act, and you cannot be punished or penalised because you live in another State that does not have that same Act, has repealed it, or has changed it in some other way.

Another fundamental concept that all motorists should understand is that driving is a right, not a privilege.  In the US Supreme Court, in the matter of Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579, the judge confirmed that “the right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Please note that US cases are regularly used in Australian courts, so you can rely on this ruling as a precedent in any case which you may have.  There are plenty of other similar cases, and a simple Google search for ‘Driving is a right not a privilege’ will provide numerous links, in particular, this page.

Keeping these fundamental rights in mind, there are some key arguments that you can raise when challenging various unjust and unlawful fines.

In regards to speeding fines, no speed detection device currently in use in Australia has been tested and certified pursuant to Section 10 (G) (H) of the National Measurement Act 1960.  This fact has been confirmed by Dr Richard Brittain, the Chief Metrologist at the National Measurement Institute. Although the Police will claim that State legislation controls the testing of speed detection devices, Section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution dictates that “when a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”  We recommend that you refer to the WA Fisheries Case (Breedon v Kongras) in the Aussie Speeding Fines e-book for further details.

Hand-held devices, such as radar and laser guns, are being used incorrectly by the police, and they are actually trained on how to deliberately create false readings with those devices.  Please watch the following two short videos to see how that is done by creating a ‘slip’ or ‘sweep’ error. The Police are also required to provide a tracking history before the reading from the device can be tendered as evidence – ie. they need to visually estimate the speed of your car first, and then confirm their estimation with the device.  Obviously, no-one has ever been booked just coming over the crest of a hill or around a corner, have they???

Speed cameras are fundamentally flawed because there is no human involvement in the process at all.  As noted above, hand-held devices have a two-step process of human estimation and instrument confirmation, but where is the two-step process when it comes to cameras?  Furthermore, the security code that the Police rely on to claim that a photograph has not been altered or tampered with, and therefore meets the evidentiary requirements, is not actually secure at all.  The security code they use is known as the MD5 algorithm and, if you type “MD5 algorithm crack” into Google, you will come up with endless ways to crack that allegedly secure code!

When it comes to red light camera fines, the Police are required to provide two photos, one showing you behind the white line when the light is red, and another showing you continuing through the intersection after the light has turned red.  They never provide the first photo, and therefore they cannot prove that you didn’t simply enter on green or amber, but completed your movement on red, which you are legally allowed to do.

All parking fines are unlawful unless imposed by a jury or by consent because our roads are all owned by We, The People, as we have already paid for them and our presence on the roads, as well as through the fuel excise tax.

In regards to fines for driving an unregistered vehicle or driving whilst unlicensed, in addition to the other arguments and principles that are provided elsewhere in this chapter, you can also refer to Section 8, Division 4, Sub-sections 5 and 9 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 which brings in the Statute of Monopolies 1623, which states, "That all monopolies, and all commissions, grants, licences, charters and letters patents made ... to any person or persons, bodies politick or corporate whatsoever ... are altogether contrary to the laws of this realm, and so are and shall be utterly void and of none effect, and in no wise to be put in use or execution.”  As you are only allowed to use the one agency in each State to issue you with a Driver's Licence or registration, those agencies (VicRoads, RMS, QLD Transport etc.) have a monopoly, which is contrary to this Act.

If you ever receive a fine or infringement notice for “failing to vote”, you simply quote Section 245, Sub-Section 14 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 – as a Protestant and subject of the Queen of the United Kingdom, your religious and Constitutional duty requires you to abstain from voting.

Another fundamental principle that you will understand more clearly once you have read the Strawman chapter is that all road rules only apply to ‘persons’ and not to flesh and blood men and women.

So, how do we use these arguments to challenge our fines?

We recommend that you start by writing to the agency that has issued the fine, requesting proof of their claim against you – Aussie Speeding Fines members have access to some 25 pre-written letters that you can simply cut and paste your details, as well as the details of the fine, into and these are a great starting point.

If those letters do not get the desired result, the next step is to challenge the fine in court.  Before going to court, we strongly recommend that you write down all your arguments and points, so that you do not forget them.

Please remember that, as a self-represented defendant, the court must show you some leeway, and you are quite entitled to read your notes at the hearing.  Feedback that we have received suggests that this is extremely helpful for first timers in court.

If you are a little more advanced, you can take the time to prepare formal affidavits and outlines of submissions and, especially at the Magistrate’s Court level, that really blows them out of the water. Again, there are great examples of those documents that you can access, download and edit from the Aussie Speeding Fines Advanced Membership website.

Here are some powerful arguments that you can raise during the hearing:

Can you prove to this Court that another vehicle could not have triggered the camera?

Can you prove to this Court that the photo from the camera could not have been altered or tampered with?

If they claim that your vehicle is ‘unregistered’, ask them how they know.  If they looked it up on a database, then it is ‘registered’ to that database and therefore the charge is wrong.  At worst, you simply failed to pay a private corporation an administrative fee, and that renders it a civil claim and not a criminal matter and, once you have paid that fee, there is no valid civil claim anyway.

Demand proof of every claim they make because, without proof of claim at every stage, there is no case to answer.  If you don’t object to their claim, the prosecution will proceed under the assumption that you agree/consent to what they are saying.

Evidence from the devices used by the Police is what is known as ‘prima facie’ evidence – on the face of it.  To rebut that evidence, you are required to provide evidence to the contrary. That can be as simple as making a statement from the stand, under oath, that you did not do what they claim you did.  We have found the following statement to be very powerful: “Your Honour, I have just provided evidence by way of sworn testimony that I am not guilty of the offence of which I am being charged. If you believe my evidence then you are required to dismiss the charge on the grounds that I have established “reasonable doubt”.  If you don’t believe my evidence, then you have a judicial requirement to have me charged with perjury – what are you going to do?” This backs the Magistrate into a corner, and gives you the best possible chance of having the charge against you dismissed.

The following is a list of useful court precedents that you may want to refer to, depending on your particular case:

Liberato v R - references the fact that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution in any criminal case to prove their claim against you ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’  As mentioned above, your sworn testimony establishes that reasonable doubt.

Lee v NSW Crimes Commission – deals with the presumption of innocence against self-incrimination.  If a prosecutor or Magistrate claims that you must answer a question, you can refer to this case as your grounds for refusing to answer it.

Dolheguy v Becker & Anor – discusses the concept of ‘owner onus’ and how it does not always apply.  Many agencies, prosecutors and even Magistrates will claim that owner onus applies and, as you are the registered owner of a particular vehicle, you are ‘deemed’ to be guilty of the offence.  The first issue with that claim is that you are the registered ‘operator’ not owner and, secondly, legal maxims dictate that one cannot be held accountable for, or be found guilty of, an offence that they can prove they did not commit.

Port of Portland v State of Victoria – all seven Justices confirmed the validity of the Imperial Acts Application Act and the Bill of Rights.  Many States will claim that the Imperial Acts Application Act has been repealed or does not apply, or that Australia has no Bill of Rights.  This case can be used to refute those claims.

Munday v Gill – dictates that officers must prove every aspect of the case, including the lawfulness of the Acts referred to.  No ‘Traffic Act’ has been lawfully enacted in the name of The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty as it is required to be.  Advanced people can also complete a Notice of Discovery requesting a copy of the Proclamation Certificate for any Acts that the Police may refer to.  Obviously, they cannot comply with that notice and, therefore, their case fails before it even begins.

South Australia v Commonwealth ("First Uniform Tax Case") HCA (High Court of Australia) 1942 (65 CLR 373 at 408) - “Common expressions such as: ‘The Courts have declared a statute invalid’,” says Chief Justice Latham, “sometime lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour, but such a decision is not an element that produces invalidity in any law.

The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it – and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is ‘void ab initio’” This is yet another case that dictates that the Government has to prove their authority to lawfully enact the laws that they are charging you under - if they can't prove they possess that power, then the purported law is void and has no legal force or effect, and there is no case for you to answer.

And, those who want to start by challenging the jurisdiction of the Court can refer to the 2001 statement by Chief Justice Murray Gleeson, where he said “No citizen can be judged by anything other than a court that complies with Section 71 of the Commonwealth Constitution.”

Jurisdiction is such a powerful argument because, if the court and/or prosecution can’t establish jurisdiction to hear the matter, then it cannot proceed. Please note, however, that if you do not raise a jurisdictional challenge, they will proceed on the basis that your silence is deemed to be acquiescence, and that you consent to the jurisdiction of the court.

You can find a number of very powerful cases on jurisdiction on-line and, in particular, this page details some really great cases.  Be sure to read that page in its entirety so that you can familiarise yourself with some of the more important concepts such as:

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed ...” – Melo v US, 505 F2d 1026

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” – Hagens v Lavine, 415 US 533

 “A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid” – Old Wayne Mut L Assoc v Mc Donough, 204 US 8, 27 S Ct. 336 (1907)

“The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” – Main v Thiboutot, 100 S Ct. 2502 (1980)

 “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” - Basso v Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910

 “There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction” – Joyce v US, 474 F2d 215

 “The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction” – Rosemond v Lambert 469 F2d 416

So, as you can see, challenging jurisdiction up front is one of the most powerful defences that you can raise to any claim made against you in court. Given that most fines are issued by private corporations that simply contract to the various State Justice departments – ie. Civic Compliance Victoria (CCV), Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), State Debt Recovery Office (SDRO), State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER) etc. - there is no way that they can prove jurisdiction over you.

In fact, one of the most well known and powerful cases on jurisdiction is the High Court case in the matter of State of NSW v Kable [2013] HCA 26 (5 June 2013) otherwise known as the ‘Kable principle’. That principle, and its application to the determination by a court of the constitutional invalidity of a statute purporting to confer jurisdiction or power on the court itself, was established 100 years before the establishment of the High Court.

And, if you read through the ‘The Kable decision’ fully, you will note that it also refers to the First Uniform Tax Case as well, reiterating the fact that any law made in excess of power to do so is no law at all. That means that all the private agencies detailed above, who rely on purported State statutes for their existence and their power or authority to issue fines, actually have no authority/jurisdiction to do so at all!

As you can clearly see, after using the applicable arguments and case references detailed in this chapter, you have an excellent chance of having any charges against you dismissed.  Please don’t think that’s the end of it, though, because you then have an opportunity to ask for costs.  So many people are so relieved that they won their case that they rush out of the Court, dancing on air.  But, to ensure your victory has even more of an impact on ‘the system’, be sure to ask for costs.

Many Magistrates will argue that you can’t claim costs for defending traffic cases, but the reality is that you are entitled to compensation for any costs/expenses that you have incurred as a result of successfully defending the claims against you – including the cost of this e-book.  Be sure to remind the Magistrate of the legal maxim that “costs follow the order”.  It already costs the State thousands of dollars to run each and every case in court.  By hitting them with costs, you are sending a strong message that this kind of behaviour will no longer be tolerated by Aussies.  Anyone who runs their own business will understand that, if you have to spend thousands of dollars to generate a 100-odd dollar “sale”, then you won’t remain in business very long – and that’s exactly what we want to do to the Government’s ‘business’ of issuing fines to raise revenue.

Imagine for a moment that you own a business and every invoice you send out is paid automatically within a month – you’d be very happy. That is what these agencies are currently doing when they sent out fines.

Now imagine that stopped happening and, instead, every time you sent out an invoice, someone wrote back and questioned the amount or the times or dates. You would then have to write back and respond to them and verify your claim. Imagine they complained again and you couldn’t reach an agreement, so you had to take them to court to get them to pay your invoice – all over a few hundred dollars. Can you imagine what that would do to your business?

So, now imagine what would happen if everyone wrote in and challenged every fine they received. If they sent letters back and forth and challenged these agencies and then, eventually, they forced these agencies into court to settle these matters, and then raised all of the arguments covered in this chapter and won their cases, and then asked for costs against them, too! Imagine what kind of impact that would have on ‘the system’ – that is the power that you now have in your hands!

So, if you are facing any kind of fine, or you know someone who is, we would urge you to check out the Aussie Speeding Fines website because they have a proven, step-by-step system for successfully challenging all manner of unjust and unlawful fines.  The principles in this chapter, and in the Aussie Speeding Fines e-book, can be applied to all manner of unjust and unlawful fines, not just traffic fines.

Read Chapter 2 now.