Instant fines: instant justice? The use of infringement offence notices in New Zealand.

• Author: Wilson, David
• Position: Statistical Data Included

Abstract

In New Zealand, the use of infringement notices (instant fines) as a way of dealing with minor criminal matters is growing considerably. Infringement notices deal with minor offending in a way that is convenient for prosecuting authorities and defendants. However, their use raises issues of access to justice, equity and natural justice. There is evidence of "net-widening" as a result of their introduction. This paper explores the impact of the use of infringements and raises some issues that should be resolved in light of the probable continued increase in the use of infringements by government agencies.

INTRODUCTION

Infringement offence notices, also known as instant fines, are a rapidly growing feature of our criminal justice system. They have received relatively little attention from the academic community or the justice sector in terms of understanding their effects. This is despite the fact that infringements are the only interaction most people will have with the justice system. Infringements are a low-cost, simple way of punishing minor offending without, in most cases, recourse to the courts.

Infringement notices were first introduced into New Zealand in 1968 for parking offences and vehicle overloading offences. This followed a similar development in the United Kingdom in 1960. Parking or overloading infringements were not criminal offences but it was an offence to fail, without reasonable cause, to pay infringement fees. In 1971 speeding infringements came into force. In 1987, the current standard infringement regime was set out in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Infringement offence notices are now issued for a wide variety of offences including traffic matters, parking offences, resource management offences, underage drinking, under-weighing foodstuffs, dog control and biosecurity offences.

There has been remarkable growth in terms of the range and number of infringements issued in recent years. It is likely that other government agencies will seek to implement infringement regimes in the future. It is difficult to obtain an accurate figure for the number of infringement offence notices issued given the large number of agencies that may issue them and the fact that some infringements are waived. However, the following table shows the increase in the number of infringements filed in court in recent years:

Figure 1 Fines imposed 1993-2001 Year Infringements Court-imposed Fines 1993 210,681 84,411 1994 240,259 88,028 1995 345,122 90,691 1996 413,336 90,630 1997 481,040 81,702 1998 568,954 77,557 1999 626,482 78,543 2000 587,316 73,710 2001 654,970 75,797 It is interesting to note that the level of court-imposed fines has remained relatively steady between 1993 and the present while the number of infringements filed in court for enforcement has grown considerably in most years.

This paper will show that the infringement system is not as straightforward as it first appears and will identify some issues that agencies should be aware of when seeking to create infringement regimes. It will also identify areas where further work is required to improve aspects of the infringement system.

THE INFRINGEMENT REGIME

Infringement offences are provided for in a variety of Acts. However, the basic infringement process is set out in section 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The infringement regime aims to efficiently achieve policy goals, such as improving road safety, rather than to enforce rights and responsibilities. It is a way of altering the behaviour of society as a whole, with a view to increasing compliance, rather than a mechanism for addressing individual criminal behaviour (Hogg 1988, Fox 1995b).

The key aspects of the infringement regime are that a person served with an infringement notice has 28 days to pay the prescribed fee to the prosecuting authority. If the fee is not paid, the prosecuting authority may serve a reminder notice that gives another 28 days to pay. If payment is not received at the end of that period, the prosecuting authority may file the reminder notice in court for enforcement. Prior to the matter being filed in court, the person named in the infringement notice may request a court hearing to defend the charge or to admit liability and make submissions as to the penalty imposed. The defendant may also correspond with the prosecuting authority to explain his or her actions and seek a waiver of the fee.

Significantly, the Act also provides that unless the contrary is proved, the infringement notice and reminder notice are deemed to have been served and the fee not paid. Proceedings for infringement offences do not result in a conviction. The infringement regime provides for punishment without formal prosecution. It differs in a number of significant ways from summary proceedings for criminal offences and therein lie some of the dangers of the system. These are addressed below.

Infringement Liability

Liability for some infringement offences can rest with a person other than the person who actually committed the offence. This is known as vicarious liability. Where an infringement involves a vehicle, the person liable for the infringement fee may be the person in charge of the vehicle, the registered owner, or the person who allegedly committed the offence. The rules relating to liability differ...