13 Aug 2024
The magistrate correctly found that although the appellant did not receive the notice, he failed on the balance of probabilities to prove absence of fault because of multiple prior incidents of missed mail and failure to take substantive remedial steps; therefore the review was properly refused and the payment order upheld.
19 Mar 2024
The conviction was upheld because the trial judge's acceptance of the enforcement officer's clear, consistent oral evidence was supported by an authentic high‑definition video and photograph that visibly showed the appellant smoking and discarding a white object; there was no irrationality or material error in the trial judge's findings and no basis for appellate interference.
29 Jun 2022
Because the appellant was found unable to pay the recovery order of $10,300 and having considered his explanation about non-receipt of notices, the court exercised its discretion to substitute a custodial term of 14 days in lieu of payment, thereby discharging the monetary obligation for this case.
8 May 2018
The appellant failed to prove on the required standard that it did not receive the fixed penalty notice or that any non-receipt was not attributable to its negligence; the Special Magistrate was entitled to conclude the fixed penalty was likely unpaid and to dismiss the review — therefore the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the magistrate's payment order.
31 Oct 2017
Court accepted the police evidence that the vehicle parked on an unlined passage narrowed the available space such that larger vehicles could be obstructed; a minor discrepancy in lamp‑post numbering did not invalidate the fixed penalty notice because the notice need only indicate the approximate location; prior non‑enforcement did not excuse the offence; thus the conviction was upheld.
20 Oct 1999
The court held the appellant's complaint letter amounted to valid notification to dispute liability under s15(5) even if the prescribed counterfoil was not used, the notification was timely (posted 4 February 1999 and received 5 February 1999), the police should have proceeded under s16 rather than obtain ex parte penalties, and therefore the ex parte order imposing fixed penalty, additional penalty and costs was quashed, the amount paid was refundable, and further proceedings are time-barred.