It states that there are instances where fines are considered void and unlawful, when they are issued without a conviction (ie. court case, or trial by jury). Does this conflict with state legislation?
See (Constitution Section 109 – Inconsistency of laws)
The legislation below simply states that you can only be fined after a valid court conviction.
Also bear in mind that courts must comply with Chapter 3 of Australia’s Constitution (plurality of judges and a jury of your peers, for the indictment of any offence).
Note that the Infringement’s Court is not a constitutionally recognised court, as it is a computer.
Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 – SECT 8
PART II TRANSCRIBED ENACTMENTS Transcribed enactments
8. Transcribed enactments
[1688] I William and Mary Sess. II (Bill of Rights) c. II
12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons
before conviction, are illegal and void.
Legislation source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/iaaa1980240/s8.html
Please find in the link below a full copy of the Bill of Rights (1689).
http://www.clrg.info/wp-content/uploads/Bill-of-Rights-Act-1689-UK-from-WA-Premier-and-Cabinet-site.pdf
See also the Port of Portland v State of Victoria High Court case, where WA Attorney General confirmed the Bill of Rights, on page 5. Whereas all 7 justices confirmed the Bill of Rights Act (1688), and Victoria’s Imperial Act Application Act (1980) on page 6 paragraph 13.
Port of Portland Pty Ltd v Victoria [2010] HCA 44 (8 December 2010)
Also regarding any forfeiture of property refer to Attorney-General [NT] v Emmerson [2014] HCA 13 (10 April 2014), drug case, where only a court of competent jurisdiction can forfeit property.
So, can these binding High Court cases relate to seizure of animals, livestock or motor vehicles under any Act, regulation, rule or alleged by-laws?
Source Supplied.
No comments:
Post a Comment