XN000022-1974-01-30 — Page 7

Daily Information Bulletin 新聞公報 All

5

Wednesday, January 30, 1974

Mr. Hobley also pointed out that the evidence required to support

a demand for payment of the fixed penalty would obviously not be any less

than that required at present because non-payment would be followed by a

normal criminal prosecution.

Another point he emphasised was that a person who had been given

the opportunity to pay the fixed penalty might decline to do so and contest

the charge in the ordinary way.

However, the Attorney-General said that the new system, whilst

enabling drivers or owners to be given an opportunity to discharge their

liability by payment of a fixed penalty, did not affect the right of the

Crown to institute normal criminal proceedings where that was considered

appropriate.

Normal criminal proceedings would also be instituted if a person

who had been given the opportunity to pay the fixed penalty did not do so,

he said.

In such a case, he added, the Bill provided that the Court might

order a convicted person to pay costs up to $500.

Mr. Hobley said Part Three of the Bill concerned the additional

deterrent.

The essence of the proposal, he said, was that the persistent offender

against traffic laws should lose his right to drive for a specified poriod,

The period of disqualification will be six months on the first

occasion when a driver builds up 15 "demerit" points within a three-year

period and 12 months on any subsequent such occasion.

The Attorney-General

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.