MINISTRY OF JUSTICE REVIEW OF THE INFRINGEMENT SYSTEM Comments by YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki For: Ministry of Justice Policy and Legal Branch 19 May 2004
1. YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki (Inc.) is a community law centre vested under the Legal Services Act 2000 that provides a free, nationwide legal service to children and young people aged below 25 years. 2. Young people commonly come into contact with the infringement system, often through traffic infringements, alcohol infringements or breach of local government bylaws. It is usually their first experience with the mechanics of the justice system. 3. We welcome the proposed review of the infringement system, as we consider that the current system contains many problematic aspects, all of which are outlined by the list of issues highlighted by the MOJ and the Law Commission. Issues Affecting Young People 4. Of particular relevance to the demographic we deal with are issues relating to: (i) (ii) (iii) The ability to impose infringements irrespective of age The offenders ability to pay The lack of alternative penalties when issuing an infringement notice
5. Young people frequently contact us complaining that the fine on the infringement notice is beyond their financial means. This is often the case with traffic fines, and is not suprising given the quantum of fines for many strict liability infringements such as licencing or registration breaches, particularly where a fine has been issued for multiple offences (see Wilson, p75). 6. The other obvious factor in these cases is that most young people do not have a great deal of money, and in most cases cannot rely on their parents or caregivers to cover the costs of such fines. This calls into question whether infringement notices are always an appropriate means of censuring young people, especially those of school age. 7. As is noted in the Wilson paper (p76), there is no discretion for authorities to vary the penalties to fit the circumstances of the case. In addition, the nature of the infringement regime, with its basis being summary punishment, is not consistent with the principles of the youth justice system.
1
Payment and Review Procedures 8. These problems tend to be compounded by systemic difficulties in the areas of payment options and review procedures. 9. Payment by installment is usually the only viable means for a young person to pay off a fine. However, currently only the Courts have this as an available option, and even then there is a penalty fee. Therefore in order to access this option a defendant has to delay paying the fee until the informant refers the matter to the Court for recovery. 10. Installment options should be available in an accessible format, free of charge via the informant, or a centralized registry, so that young people can commence paying their fines as soon as possible, without having to wait for a matter to be referred to Court. 11. Review procedures are also problematic. In the case of police infringements, the defendant has 28 days to appeal the decision to the Police Infringement Bureau. In most cases, the defendant will receive, in response, a standard form letter, with little explanation of the Bureau’s decision-making process or consideration of the defendant’ evidence or circumstances. 12. The next step, notwithstanding a section 78B application regarding a technical irregularity, is to have the matter heard at a defended hearing. This process takes time, and is costly. 13. It may be that if the initial review process is amended so that it is more transparent and systematic, there will be a reduction in the number of defended hearings. It may also enhance public perception about the integrity of the system. Structural Amendments 14. We would also support the Law Commission’s suggestion that the infringement system be consolidated into a single statutory regime, so that there is consistency of practice between informants. An autonomous infringement agency located at individual District Courts could also be a viable option in terms of processing infringements and may help divert mainstream Court resources from these matters. John Hancock For: YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki 19 May 2004
2