• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Talking your way out of speeding and parking fines

by Simon Longstaff

There has been only one occasion on which I have been pulled over by a police car while driving. I had just completed a swift, efficient u-turn at a traffic light – in full view of the police car that led the oncoming traffic – when, to my considerable surprise, the lights flashed and siren blared.

Pulling over, I asked the officer to explain what all the fuss was about. It was then that I experienced one of the few limitations arising from the exotic conditions under which I obtained my driving licence. I completed my test at the wheel of a fully laden fire truck navigating the streets of Alyangula on Groote Eylandt (look in North West corner of the Gulf of Carpentaria in Australia). Alyangula has many fine features – but not a single traffic light.

So, apart from the most obvious rules (stop on red, etc), a deeper understanding of the relevant road rules had eluded me (and perhaps my examiner). Fortunately, all of this made some sense to the police officer who, having dismissed my NT driver’s licence, then dismissed me with a stern warning. I count myself lucky. A different officer might have fined me. In that case, I suppose I would have had to accept the outcome. After all, there was no doubt that I had done the wrong thing – even if unintentionally. However, there are plenty of people who rarely submit to the law without a struggle.

So, that’s the question to consider today – is it okay to try to talk your way out of, say, a speeding ticket or parking fine?

The first thing to note is that police have the right to exercise discretion in the conduct of their duties. The origin of this right (perhaps a duty) is to be found in the common law, dating back hundreds of years – and is known as the ‘original authority’ of the constable. The concept is an important one – a formal acknowledgement that the constable (today’s modern police officer) is no mere employee of the state. Rather a sworn police officer has a primary duty to uphold the rule of law.

As such, police are supposed to enjoy a proper degree of freedom from direction by the authorities – who may wish to use police power for their own purposes. All of this suggests that making an appeal to a police officer not to impose a penalty for a speeding offence is at least possible.

However, is such an appeal ever justified? One ground for trying to avoid a fine might be that you genuinely believe the proposed penalty to be unwarranted – simply because you honestly believe that you did not exceed the speed limit. Appealing to a police officer on such grounds would appear to be entirely reasonable. The downside to an appeal to the facts is that you may have no option but to accept the penalty if the factual case against you can be proved conclusively.

On the other hand, some people will try to get out of a fine even if they know that they broke the speed limit. They may do so in the belief that the burden of proof should fall on the state – even in matters like traffic offences. Seen in this light, a person might refuse to admit wrong – forcing the police to make their case. They may even seek to exploit ambiguities – leading the police to waver in their conviction.

Against this approach, some might object that if you have chosen to do the wrong thing and have been caught, then you should be prepared to accept the penalty – voluntarily. In many walks of life, this would seem to be correct. I am a great fan of people like the cricketer, Adam Gilchrist, who will ‘walk’ when out – even if the Umpire has not raised his finger. Yet, I do not think that commendable acts of honesty (and honour) in sport are properly analogous to the issue being discussed here. In this context really matters.

When it comes to speeding offences (and the like) there is a possibility beyond the stark alternatives of either denial or the imposition of penalty. Given the original authority of the constable a further option is to make a frank admission of guilt accompanied by an expression of contrition and a request for leniency.

There will be many cases where no good purpose will be served by applying a fine – with the honest offender learning a better lesson through leniency than through a strict exercise of lawful power. It may seem paradoxical, but In such circumstances seeking to avoid a penalty may actually serve the higher purposes of the law.

discuss this article

---