It was set to be argued in the case that the offence description provided on the fine was so vague that it did not comply with legislation,which made the infringements invalid.
On Tuesday,Crown Advocate David Kell,SC,said his client – the Commissioner of Fines Administration – accepted that the two remaining fines did not sufficiently state or describe the offence,so did not meet the requirements of section 20 of the Fines Act.
Loading
Kell said his client consented to a declaration that the fines issued were invalid. However,he questioned if the court needed to make additional orders to halt enforcement of the fines and issue a refund.
He said it “may be taken as likely” that his client’s concession would have consequences for other penalty notices,but said other cases might have different factual circumstances.
Katherine Richardson,SC,appearing for the plaintiffs Brenden Beame and Teal Els,said Els had been fined $3000 for “unlawfully participating in an outdoor public gathering”.