I'll probably send it off tomorrow morning, but if my fabulous and valued readers (was that enough sucking up??) could cast their eagle eyes over it and let me know how it sounds, I would be extremely grateful!
Ticket No: 4760XXXX
Vehicle Reg: XXXXXX
To Whom It May Concern,
On Sunday, 30 July, I parked my car in Johns Lane, which runs between Gilles Street and Hurtle Square/Pultney Street. I entered the laneway from the southern end (Gilles Street), drove north to the far end of the laneway, before it turns back towards Pultney Street, and parked in the northern most end of the parking zone, with my car facing north.
When I returned to my car later that afternoon, I found a parking ticket attached to the car, Ticket No 4760XXXX, for "Fail to park vehicle facing in direction of travel of vehicles".
I believe that this ticket was issued on an offence that was trifling, as the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 describes a trifling offence. In my particular case, I believe the third subsection is the one that most accurately applies. Section 4(2)(c) of the Act states that: "the conduct allegedly constituting the offence was merely a technical, trivial or petty instance of a breach of the relevant enactment."
While technically I had parked on the eastern side of the laneway, which would make it the "wrong" side of the road, the laneway in question is, discounting the parking zones, only wide enough for one car to travel in any given direction at a time. I've parked in that laneway on more than one occasion, and I know that if a second car enters from the northern end heading in the opposite direction to my car, one car has to give way and move into the "No Standing" areas (or other empty parking zones) to allow the second car to pass.
I hadn't crossed over into the "right hand lane" of traffic in order to park (since Johns Lane is basically a single lane road) , nor was parking in such a manner going to cause any other drivers either inconvenience or danger. At no time, either entering or leaving the laneway did my actions contradict common sense driving.
If you require any other information about this issue, do not hesitate to contact me.
What do you think? Will it get me out of having to pay $31?
Current Mood:
7 comments:
Sounds good. Would even be better if you can back yourself up with common law precedents as well, especially in terms of how the subsection was applied before by the courts.
What's the deal if you challenge it though... I'm not sure of the actual numbers, but here you pay $x now, or challenge it and if you win, great, but if not it's a fine of $x,xxx,xxx...
Sounds like a good letter though. They'll get 1 logical and rational letter for every 100 F*** S*** W*** @#$@%@!@ letters. :P
Sunshine: If I could do that online I would, but since I can't... :P
Tom: It's not going to court... it's just a review by the people in charge of these things at the council... if they knock me back then I still only have to pay the $31... and if they DO knock me back, I'm just going to pay the thing... it's not worth all the extra bother to fight it further.
Hmmm.... I couldn't find anything useful online either... normally www.lawpoint.com.au is good but couldn't find anything, and you already had the austlii library. Searching on google for that para of the act came up with your blog!
Hope it works. If not though, think yourself lucky you're not in Sydney where an afternoon's legal parking costs almost $31!
Sounds good to me. I'll send my next speeding ticket to you and let you get me out of it:)
Try these:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=boolean&query=Expiation%2BOffences&meta=%2Fau&mask_path=au%2Fcases
Good luck. :D
Thanks Sunshine... there wasn't anything relevant in there, but I think that's more a case of things not progressing that far... which hopefully is good for me...
I'll keep you all informed ;)
Post a Comment