NSW Covid fines for ‘fail to comply with notice of direction’ challenged in court
>
The 3,000 people still challenging their covid tickets in court may still have to pay despite a court ruling that another 33,000 booked for similar alleged offenses should go free.
The NSW High Court ruled in November that 33,121 fines issued for breaching Covid lockdown restrictions were invalid because the offense was not sufficiently described.
However, the Supreme Court ruling does not apply to cases before the courts.
NSW Revenue was forced to withdraw the large number of fines after its lawyer admitted that the wording of the fine – ‘failure to comply with notice of instructions – section 7/8/9’ – was not specific enough.
Only police can withdraw notices to hear court cases so those challenging their tickets will still have to proceed for now.
Despite a ruling that over 33,000 Covid lockdown tickets issued in NSW are invalid, those who challenge breaches in court may still have to pay
According to the Redfern Law Center, which acted on behalf of the defendant at the Supreme Court hearing, there are 3,001 active cases challenging fines totaling $3.8 million.
In one such case, two men are challenging a fine they were given for eating noodles outside in the inner Sydney suburb of Potts Point.
Redfern Law Center lawyer Samantha Lee said the fines were worded identically to those that had been canceled and urged the NSW Police Commissioner to follow NSW Revenue’s lead in canceling them.
“We say it is time for the police commissioner to do the right thing in the public interest and drop these offenses in court,” Ms. Lee said. the sydney morning herald.
A NSW police spokesman declined to comment because the case was before the courts.
The state government is sticking to 29,017 tickets issued during the pandemic that specified exactly how a person violated a public health order, including failure to wear a mask.
The two men said they were appealing their ticket because at the time of the alleged offence, lockdown rules allowed eating out, but the police officer said they had violated the order that only one person could leave the house to buy food.
Judge Dina Yehia will issue a ruling next year explaining the reasons for declaring the fines invalid, and Samantha Lee of the Redfern Law Center said the ramifications could be “enormous.”
“I decided to take my case to court because I thought I would be fined for stopping and eating,” he said.
“Now I’m in this frustrating position that if I hadn’t chosen the court, my ticket would have been withdrawn because I was given the same ticket that the Supreme Court recently declared invalid.”
The two men, one in his 30s and the other in his 50s, have yet to plead guilty.
In November, Ms Lee told Daily Mail Australia that other states and territories may look to the NSW Supreme Court ruling as a test case for overturning similar Covid fines.
“It is potentially possible if each jurisdiction takes its issue to court,” he said.
‘It has to be applied however to the legislation of each state and territory.’
An example of one of the fines declared invalid in New South Wales because the wording of the offense is too vague
Fines withdrawn following the Supreme Court ruling made up more than half of the 62,138 Covid penalty notices issued in New South Wales.
Inner Melbourne Community Legal and YouthLaw has called on the Victorian Government to withdraw over 30,000 outstanding COVID-19 fines.
“Victoria’s community legal centers will be closely watching the implications of the NSW decision and what it could mean for Victorians who are being hounded over outstanding covid-19 fines,” it said.
“The NSW case highlights the inadequacy of a punitive police response to a public health crisis.”
The challenge to the NSW fines was made on the basis that the penalty notices were issued in such vague terms that they did not indicate which law had actually been breached.
The challenge to the NSW fines was made on the basis that the penalty notices were issued in such vague terms that they did not indicate which law had actually been breached.
Lee said the absence of that detail made it nearly impossible for a person to defend their actions in court.
“You don’t even know what you’ve really done or how to fight it,” Ms. Lee said.
‘That’s just a general rule of law that you should know what you’re responsible for.’
Judge Dina Yehia will publish a ruling next year explaining the reasons for declaring the fines invalid and Ms Lee said the ramifications could be “enormous”.
The fines most likely to be declared void were those that did not specify non-compliance with the Covid regulations in the wording.
“If self-isolation is not adhered to, you may be too lazy,” Lee said.
‘Or enter/stay on the construction site.
I mean there are so many different fines. A lot of them just have this brief description which is like a little narrative but no details about the actual law involved.’