While this may not mean much to the (below) average 'footy fan' or anyone who comprehends Australia's legal procedure, apart from 'facebook lawyers' who obtain their 'legal' information from memes, laws can ONLY be made and passed by parliament.
Before an 'idea' becomes law, the Bill passes through stages where it becomes an Act, whereby it's called 'law'.
This law can then only be amended again by none other than the parliament.
If this actually did occur that the 'police changed laws' then Australian have a huge problem that the police have acted outside their capacity.
Many comprehend that Australia's police 'force' is corrupt from the core, but if true this is a huge concern.
What the corporate media WILL NOT TELL you is that all speed camera and red light camera fines are unlawful.
Read the Herald Sun article from 15 October 2013 of the title:
New rules allow speed cameras to be concealed, but police say it's OK to flash lights and warn others
POLICE say they are happy for drivers to flash their lights to warn other motorists about speed cameras.Traffic Superintendent Dean McWhirter today said he was happy for motorists to flash their lights to warn other motorists they were approaching a speed camera.
"If that occurs I am comfortable with that because it means actually people are getting the message," Supt McWhirter said today.
New speed camera rules explained
Supt McWhirter also defended rule changes, revealed in the Herald Sun today, which allow the hiding of speed cameras behind bushes and road signs.
"It was done to make sure that there was some protection in relation to the mobile speed camera operators," he said.
"To make sure the risk to them is mitigated.
"Unfortunately, what we know is that there have been a number of incidents where mobile speed camera vehicles have been swerved at.
"In the last 12 months there have been 247 incidents of threats in relation to mobile speed camera operators.
"And of those 247 incidents, 110 of those have been swerving at mobile speed cameras."
Supt McWhirter confirmed there would be occasions that operators would be concealed by bushes or signs to protect them.
"That's a commonsense approach," he said.
Police have changed laws that means mobile speed cameras can be hidden.
It also used to ban them on downhill stretches of road unless the site had a significant speed-related crash record.
The new rules - effective immediately - permit mobile speed cameras to be hidden behind trees, bushes, posts and road signs to lessen the risk of harm to camera operators from angry motorists.
They also allow them to be used at the bottom of hills and on slopes if the "road safety objective" can't be achieved at an alternative location.
"There is no restriction from a technical, legislative or enforcement perspective on a mobile road safety camera being operated on a slope, hill or gradient," the new rules say.
The force spent months creating its new policy after the Herald Sun revealed some cameras were being hidden despite the ban and also that fines had to be scrapped because a camera was wrongly set up on a steep hill.
Almost 510,000 motorists paid more than $103 million in mobile speed camera fines in the past year.
Mobile speed cameras will now be able to be concealed or parked on hills.
"The amendments were made to specifically focus on the occupational health and safety of mobile speed camera operators, which is paramount in ensuring they can work in a safe environment," force spokesman Leonie Johnson said.
Police told Mr Lewis the use of concealed or partly hidden cameras was necessary to protect camera operators from injury.
Mr Lewis yesterday congratulated Victoria Police for clearly spelling out its mobile speed camera policy in a document that will be publicly available on the camerassavelives.vic.gov.au website.
Police using mobile radar guns monitor motorists on the Western Ring Road.
Police rewrote the rules after Mr Lewis asked Herald Sun readers in October last year to report any mobile speed cameras they believed were being used in breach of force guidelines.
He did so after the Herald Sun revealed speeding fines had to be scrapped because a mobile camera was wrongly set up over the brow of a hill to snap motorists going down a steep slope on Warrigal Rd, Surrey Hills.
Mr Lewis's plea to Herald Sun readers resulted in reports about 116 mobile camera sites they believed breached Victoria Police guidelines.
An officer targetting speeding drivers.
While he did identify three camera sites that were placed on unsuitable downhill stretches of road, he agreed with the decisions of regional police inspectors to override the rules and allow the use of cameras on those hills for safety reasons.
Mr Lewis said it was Herald Sun readers who discovered the controversial hidden camera tactic.
He asked Victoria Police for a ``please explain'' and was told the hidden cameras identified by the readers were put behind shrubs and road signs to protect the camera operators.
Mr Lewis was shown CCTV footage shot from inside a number of camera vehicles showing cars and trucks being driven at camera cars.
Police told him the drivers were ``deliberately intimidating'' the speed camera operators.
keith.moor@news.com.au
An officer checks speeding drivers on Melbourne’s roads.
2 comments:
Interesting that they refer to "rules" and "laws" as the Law lords have long ruled that only courts can interpret law and that policy made by government departments is not an interpretation of law but merely what a department would like to see.
Explanations by government departments.
"When an Act has been passed by Parliament, the government department which is responsible for enforcing the Act sometimes sends out a circular explaining what the department believes the Act to mean. The fact that the circular is issued by the department does not make it part of the Act itself. The basic rule is that what has to be found is the meaning of the Act itself, not what the department thinks the Act does mean or should mean. In finding the meaning of the Act, therefore, the courts will not look at the departmental circular, except possibly for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief the Act was intended to remedy."
1. London County Council v Central Land Board [1959] Ch 386
and reinforced in:
2. Auckland Lai v Warringah Shire Council (1985) 58 LGRA 276 at 285-286.
"How To Understand An Act Of Parliament" Eighth Edition -
D J GIFFORD and KENNETH H GIFFORD pages 114-115
LEONARD WILLIAM
@LEONARD WILLIAM. The problem is they have back-doors, called Legislative Instruments. If an Act has a vector that allow inclusion of content, then the scope of the legislation isn't static. Then there is discretion of particular figures, like Ministers of Departments and the Secretaries.
Post a Comment