DPP v Korybutiak [2004] VSCA 29

88. The costs of appeal will go in the normal fashion, in favour of the appellant. We will order an indemnity certificate in your favour, Mr Hardy, and you will have to attend to the drawing up of that certificate and submit it to my associate.

[1] See article by Richard Fox, "On Punishing Infringements", 7-37 at 16-17 in Sentencing: Some Key Issues, 1995, edited by Andros Kapardis. Also see Richard Fox, Criminal Justice On the Spot: Infringement Penalties in Victoria, at 283.

[2] It seems that the format of the notice in question is common to numerous like notices that have been issued to other Victorian motorists. Notably, however, since his Honour's decision, the police have changed the form of such notices so that the address to which the notice of objection is to be sent is plainly set out on the reverse side of the infringement notice.

[3] It is apparent that the judge considered that the warning box (and remainder of the reverse side of the notice) did not form part of what he described as "the Notice of Objection". It is true that his Honour acknowledged that the warning box contained the name of the entity to which the notice of objection was to be forwarded, namely, Civic Compliance Victoria, but effectively disregarded it because he considered that that part of the notice did not form part of the "Notice of Objection".