Magistrates Court (Charitable Collections Infringement Notices) Regulation 2003

Infringement notice offences. The regulation defines which offences under the Charitable Collections Act can be dealt with by infringement notice. These are listed in Schedule 1: offences under sections 47(1), 47(2), 47(3), 48(1), 53(4), and 56(3) of that Act. The text of those offences is not reproduced in this regulation; one must consult the Charitable Collections Act to know what conduct is prohibited. The regulation only designates them as eligible for the infringement notice pathway. The infringement notice penalty for each offence is set at a fixed dollar amount, not a penalty unit multiple. For the first five offences, the infringement penalty is $150. For the offence under section 56(3) of the Charitable Collections Act, the penalty is $50. Notably, the maximum penalty specified in the parent Act for these offences is much higher: 50 penalty units (five of the six offences) and 5 penalty units for the sixth. At the current penalty unit value ($160 for individuals), the maximum court-imposed fine could be $8,000 for the first five offences and $800 for the sixth, whereas the infringement notice penalty is only $150 or $50 respectively. This creates a strong financial incentive to pay the notice and avoid court, but also means the state collects far less in fines when people pay voluntarily.

Infringement notice penalties for corporations. Section 8(2) provides that a corporation must pay five times the amount listed in Schedule 1 column 4. So for a corporation, the infringement penalty for the first five offences is $750 (5 x $150), and for the section 56(3) offence it is $250 (5 x $50). This multiplier is common in Australian infringement notice schemes and reflects the view that corporations have greater capacity to pay and that the infringement notice regime should not be trivial for corporate offenders. However, the multiplier is applied mechanically without regard to the size or revenue of the corporation. A small incorporated charity would face the same $750 penalty as a large corporation.

Administering authority. Section 6 vests the head of Access Canberra as the administering authority. Access Canberra is a business unit of the ACT government. The head of Access Canberra is responsible for administering the infringement notice system for these offences. This includes decisions such as issuing notices, withdrawing them, and handling correspondence. The wording of section 6 is not a substantive delegation of power to make decisions on penalty amounts or to prosecute; rather it identifies who is the authority for the purposes of the infringement notice system under Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act.

Authorised persons. Section 12 provides that anyone who is an authorised person under section 54 of the Charitable Collections Act may serve an infringement notice or a reminder notice. It does not create its own class of authorised persons. The regulation therefore piggybacks on the parent Act’s authorisation regime. The content of sections 10 and 11 requires that an infringement notice or reminder notice identify the authorised person by either the police officer’s service number or, for non-police authorised persons, by a unique number assigned by the administering authority or by full name or surname and initials. This ensures the recipient can identify who issued the notice, which is relevant if they wish to challenge its validity or make representations.

Reminder notice cost. Section 8(3) fixes the cost of serving a reminder notice at $34. This is a fixed administrative charge, not indexed to inflation or the value of the underlying penalty. This cost can be added to the penalty amount if a reminder notice is served for an unpaid infringement notice.

Charitable collectors and organisations. The primary targets are persons or corporations who engage in charitable collections in the ACT and who commit one of the six eligible offences. This includes individuals who collect money for charity, charities themselves, and any entity that conducts fundraising activities regulated by the Charitable Collections Act. The infringement notice penalties are relatively low compared to maximum court fines, so the regime likely affects smaller collectors and organisations that are less likely to contest a fine. The $150 individual penalty (or $750 for a corporation) is modest enough that many recipients might pay it without legal advice, even if they believe the allegations are unfounded. This has implications for access to justice: the cost of contesting a fine may exceed the fine itself, discouraging challenge.

Corporations (including incorporated charities). Corporations face the five-times multiplier. An incorporated charity that breaches a provision such as failing to hold a receipt book or failing to produce an identity card could be fined $750. For a small charity with limited funds, this is a significant sum. The regulation does not exempt charitable organisations from the multiplier; the term ‘corporation’ is given its ordinary meaning and would include any incorporated association or company, even if its object is charitable. This creates a perverse incentive for a charity to remain unincorporated to avoid the higher penalty, though that choice carries its own legal risks.

Access Canberra and its authorised officers. The administering authority, Access Canberra, bears the administrative burden of issuing notices, processing payments, issuing reminder notices, and managing enforcement. The regulation does not create any new funding or compliance resources; it simply empowers existing authorised persons to use the infringement notice tool. The head of Access Canberra must also assign unique numbers to authorised persons (if they are not police officers) so that those numbers can be used on notices.

Police officers. Police officers who are authorised under the Charitable Collections Act may serve infringement notices. They must be identified by their service number. This means that a police officer engaged in a charitable collection compliance operation can issue a fine on the spot.

The court system. The regulation reduces the volume of minor charitable collection matters that would otherwise go to the Magistrates Court. This frees up court resources but simultaneously removes judicial oversight of penalty amounts and factual determinations in those cases. The state benefits from quicker revenue collection and lower enforcement costs.

Solicitors and advisors. Lawyers advising charitable organisations must be aware that infringement notices are available for these offences. They should counsel clients on the option to pay the notice or elect court, and on the implications of paying (which avoids a conviction but may be seen as an admission). The low penalty amounts may lead to a culture of paying rather than contesting, even where defences exist.

Duty to pay the penalty (or elect court). A person who receives a valid infringement notice has the right to pay the penalty by the due date and thereby avoid prosecution. Alternatively, they have the right under Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act to elect to have the matter dealt with by a court. The regulation itself does not spell out this right; it is conferred by the parent Act. The practitioner must consult the Magistrates Court Act to know the precise timeframe and procedure. The regulation does provide that a reminder notice may be served if the initial notice is not paid, and it sets the cost of that reminder at $34 (section 8(3)). The recipient’s duty is to either pay or otherwise respond as required by the Magistrates Court Act if they wish to contest.

Content duties on issuers. Sections 9, 10, and 11 impose specific content requirements on persons serving infringement and reminder notices. Section 9 requires that if the recipient is a company registered under the Corporations Act, the notice must include the company’s ACN. This is additional to the general content requirements under section 121(1)(c) of the Magistrates Court Act. Failure to include the ACN could render the notice invalid. Sections 10 and 11 require that both infringement notices and reminder notices identify the authorised person either by police service number or by a unique number or full name (for non-police authorised persons). This ensures the recipient can identify the officer and possibly verify their authority. There is no corresponding duty on the recipient to verify, but the provision creates an enforceable standard.

No right to a discount for early payment. Unlike some infringement notice schemes, this regulation does not provide any discount for paying early or any penalty for late payment beyond the reminder cost. The penalty amount in Schedule 1 column 4 is fixed; the only additional cost is the $34 reminder fee if a reminder is served. This simplicity reduces administrative complexity but also removes any incentive to pay promptly beyond avoidance of the reminder fee.

Right to challenge the notice. The recipient has the right to contest the infringement notice by electing to have the matter heard in court. The regulation does not create a separate merits review mechanism; it is the standard court process. The low penalty amounts may make it economically irrational to challenge unless the recipient has a strong defence or wants to avoid any admission.

Duties of the administering authority. The head of Access Canberra, as administering authority, has duties under Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act (not reproduced here) which may include the power to withdraw an infringement notice. The regulation gives no guidance on how that discretion should be exercised; it is a matter of general law and policy.

No duty to warn before issuing. The regulation does not require a warning to be given before an infringement notice is issued. An authorised person may issue a notice immediately upon forming a belief that an offence has been committed. This contrasts with some regulatory schemes that require a verbal warning or a compliance notice first.

Infringement notice penalties. Schedule 1 sets out the penalties payable under an infringement notice. For individuals: $150 for offences under sections 47(1), 47(2), 47(3), 48(1), and 53(4); $50 for the offence under section 56(3). For corporations, section 8(2) multiplies those amounts by five: $750 for the first five offences, $250 for the sixth. These amounts are fixed and are not tied to penalty units. The maximum court-imposed fine for these offences is much higher (50 penalty units = $8,000 for individuals for the first five offences, 5 penalty units = $800 for the sixth), so the infringement notice offers a significant reduction. However, the infringement notice penalty for the section 56(3) offence is only $50, which is so low it may fail to deter the conduct, especially if the offender is a corporation (where it is $250, still modest).

Enforcement of unpaid notices. The regulation does not itself create enforcement mechanisms. It relies on Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act for procedures if a notice is not paid and the recipient does not elect court. Typically, that Part would allow the unpaid penalty to be registered as a court order, with additional enforcement costs. The reminder notice cost of $34 is a modest addition that may not significantly affect payment behaviour but ensures the state recovers some of the administrative cost of sending a reminder.

Criminal liability preserved. Paying an infringement notice does not constitute a conviction, but it does preclude prosecution for that same alleged offence. The regulation provides an alternative to prosecution, not an additional punishment. If a person pays the fine, they cannot later be prosecuted for the same conduct. If they do not pay and do not elect court, they may be prosecuted, and upon conviction the court may impose a fine up to the maximum penalty units listed in the Charitable Collections Act, which are far higher. There is no provision for late-payment penalty beyond the reminder cost; the matter simply defaults to enforcement under the parent Part.

Prosecution as alternative. The existence of the infringement notice regime does not oblige enforcement authorities to use it. They can choose to prosecute directly, especially for serious or repeated breaches. The regulation does not limit prosecutorial discretion. The low infringement notice penalties might incentivise authorities to use them for minor infractions and reserve prosecution for egregious cases.

Authorised persons. Only persons authorised under section 54 of the Charitable Collections Act may serve notices (section 12). This ensures that only individuals with some training or qualification in charitable collection regulation can issue fines. However, the regulation itself imposes no training requirement; it simply references the parent Act. Police officers are likely authorised by default under that Act. The identification requirements in sections 10 and 11 ensure accountability but do not prevent unauthorised persons from issuing notices (which would be invalid).

No demerit points or other sanctions. The regulation imposes only monetary penalties. There are no demerit points, licence suspensions, or other non-monetary sanctions. This is consistent with the nature of the underlying offences, which are regulatory rather than traffic-related.

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (Part 3.8). This is the procedural backbone. Section 7 of the regulation expressly applies Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act to the designated offences. That Part (not reproduced in the source) likely contains provisions about the form, service, withdrawal, and enforcement of infringement notices, as well as the right to elect court and the consequences of non-payment. The regulation supplements that Part by specifying the offences, penalties, administering authority, and additional content requirements. Any inconsistency between the regulation and the parent Part would be resolved by the general principles of statutory interpretation: the regulation is subordinate and must not exceed its parent Act. The note to section 3 confirms that the infringement notice system is intended as an alternative to prosecution, which mirrors the purpose of Part 3.8.

Charitable Collections Act 2003. This is the substantive Act creating the offences. The regulation does not amend or replace any provision of that Act. It merely enables an alternative enforcement mechanism for six of its provisions. The regulation’s definition in section 5 makes clear that ‘Charitable Collections Act’ means the Act of that name. To know the elements of the offences, one must consult sections 47, 48, 53, and 56 of that Act. The regulation also references that Act for defining ‘authorised person’ (section 54 of the Charitable Collections Act) and identity cards (section 55). The interaction is purely procedural: the regulation does not affect the scope of the offences or the power to prosecute.

Legislation Act 2001. The regulation is made under the Magistrates Court Act, but it is subject to the Legislation Act. The republication notes refer to the Legislation Act for the legal status of notes (section 127), editorial changes (Part 11.3), and the value of penalty units (section 133). The penalty unit amount ($160 for individuals, $810 for corporations) is set under that Act and applies if a court imposes a fine based on penalty units. However, the infringement notice penalties in Schedule 1 are dollar amounts, not penalty units, so they are fixed and do not automatically change when penalty unit values are adjusted. This means that over time, the infringement notice penalties may become comparatively less significant relative to the maximum court fine. The $150 individual penalty for most offences was presumably set in 2003 and has not been indexed.

Court Procedures Act 2004 and Court Procedures Rules. The amendment history shows that the Court Procedures (Consequential Amendments) Act 2004 amended sections 3 and 7 of this regulation. That Act presumably updated references to align with the new court procedures legislation. The interaction is formal rather than substantive; it does not change the infringement notice regime.

No interaction with other territories or Commonwealth laws. The regulation is confined to ACT legislation. There is no mention of interaction with the Commonwealth Criminal Code, the ACNC Act, or other state charities regulation. A charity registered in another jurisdiction that conducts collections in the ACT would be subject to this regulation and the parent Act. The regulation imposes the same penalties regardless of the charity’s home jurisdiction.

No specific human rights instrument mentioned. The regulation does not reference the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). However, the infringement notice system potentially engages the right to a fair trial (section 21 of the Human Rights Act) because it creates an incentive to waive the right to a court hearing. That interaction is general and not addressed in the regulation.

The regulation was originally notified on 30 October 2003 and commenced on 31 October 2003. It has been amended four times in its history, as shown in endnote 3 and 4.

Court Procedures (Consequential Amendments) Act 2004 (A2004-60). This Act amended sections 3 and 7 of the regulation, effective 10 January 2005. The amendments were consequential to the enactment of the Court Procedures Act 2004. They likely updated references to court procedures or removed obsolete references. No substantive change to penalties or offences.

Administrative (One ACT Public Service Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2011 (A2011-22). This Act amended section 6 (administering authority) effective 1 July 2011. The amendment replaced the previous designation of administering authority with the new model under the ‘One ACT Public Service’ reforms. It substituted the reference to a specific agency with the more flexible ‘head of Access Canberra’ language seen in the current section 6. This change centralised administration under the Access Canberra umbrella.

Statute Law Amendment Act 2015 (A2015-15). This Act amended section 12 (authorised people) effective 10 June 2015. The amendment updated references to align with the Charitable Collections Act’s own provisions regarding authorised persons. It likely replaced a specific list with a cross-reference to section 54 of that Act.

Housing and Consumer Affairs Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (A2024-29). This is the most recent amendment, effective 16 July 2024. It substituted a new section 6 (administering authority) and amended Schedule 1 (offences and penalties). The substitution of section 6 refined the definition of ‘head of Access Canberra’ to clarify that the person occupying that position (however described) is the administering authority. The amendment to Schedule 1 appears to have changed the infringement penalty amounts. The table in Schedule 1 shows $150 for the first five offences and $50 for the sixth. It is not clear from the source what the previous amounts were, but the amendment was likely to increase them from lower levels. This amendment also renumbered items in Schedule 1. The penalty amounts are now fixed dollar figures, whereas earlier republications may have used penalty unit multiples.

The regulation has been republished six times (R1 through R6). The current republication R6 reflects the 2024 amendments.

The source document contains no references to any court cases involving this specific regulation. The endnotes do not list any litigation history. This is not surprising for a procedural regulation that merely designates offences and penalties. Most challenges to infringement notices would likely be brought under the Magistrates Court Act or the Charitable Collections Act directly, not under this regulation. The regulation’s content is largely mechanical; it sets the amount of the penalty and the content of notices. Cases might arise if a person disputes the validity of an infringement notice on grounds that it did not comply with the content requirements in sections 9, 10, or 11. For example, if a notice fails to include a company’s ACN, a court might find the notice invalid. But no such cases are recorded in the source.

There may have been cases concerning the underlying Charitable Collections Act offences, but those are not listed. The regulation itself is unlikely to be the subject of significant litigation because it is not the source of the offences or the power to prosecute. Any challenge to the infringement notice system as a whole would be directed at Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act, not this regulation.

The absence of litigation history suggests that the regime operates without much controversy, at least in terms of reported cases. It could also mean that penalties are so low that recipients rarely bother to challenge them, or that challenges are resolved administratively before reaching court. Practitioners should be aware that a challenge based on technical non-compliance with this regulation’s content requirements could succeed, but the low stakes may make it uneconomical.

The five times multiplier for corporations applies even to small charities. A tiny incorporated charity that forgets to display an authorised person’s identity card (section 56(3) of the Charitable Collections Act) could be fined $250 (5 x $50) under an infringement notice. The multiplier is not discretionary. There is no hardship or capacity to pay adjustment. An unincorporated association would pay the individual rate of $50. This creates a trap for incorporated charities that may not realise they are treated as corporations for penalty purposes.

The infringement notice penalty for the section 56(3) offence is only $50. This is very low. It may be seen as a trivial cost of non-compliance, especially for a charity that conducts a large collection. The deterrent effect is minimal. Yet the maximum court fine for that offence is 5 penalty units ($800), which is a significant jump. An authorised officer may choose to issue an infringement notice for $50, but if the recipient pays, the state collects very little. If the recipient believes the fine is too low to bother contesting, they may pay regardless of guilt, but the state loses potential higher penalties.

The reminder notice cost of $34 is fixed and may not cover actual administrative costs. Inflation will erode its value over time. It is not indexed to the CPI. At some point, the $34 may be less than the cost of printing and postage. However, the regulation does not allow the administering authority to adjust this amount; it would require an amendment.

No discount for early payment, but no late fee beyond the $34. If a recipient ignores the notice entirely and does not elect court, they will eventually face enforcement under the Magistrates Court Act. That enforcement may include additional costs, but the regulation does not cap them. The $34 reminder cost is added only if a reminder is served. A recipient who pays after the reminder but before enforcement still pays only the original penalty plus $34.

The authorised person’s identity must be included; failure to do so may invalidate the notice. Sections 10 and 11 require specific identifiers. If a police officer omits their service number, or a non-police authorised person omits their unique number or full name, the notice may be legally defective. A recipient who wishes to challenge could argue that the notice is invalid and therefore the enforcement is void. However, this is a technical gotcha that may not be widely known.

The regulation does not specify a period for payment. That is left to Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act. Similarly, the regulation does not specify how a recipient may elect court. Practitioners must consult the parent Act. Failure to know these procedures could lead to inadvertent default.

The administering authority is the head of Access Canberra, not the regulator directly. The head of Access Canberra is a senior bureaucrat who may have no expertise in charitable collections. Decisions on withdrawal of notices may be delegated to officers with limited knowledge. Internal processes may be opaque.

No requirement for a warning or compliance notice before issuing an infringement notice. An authorised person can issue a fine for a first minor breach. This contrasts with some charity regulators that issue warnings first. The regulation does not require proportionality.

The regulation does not apply to all Charitable Collections Act offences. Only six offences are designated. For other offences, the only enforcement route is prosecution. This creates an uneven enforcement landscape: some minor offences have an infringement notice pathway, while others (perhaps equally minor) do not.

For a person or organisation that receives an infringement notice under this regulation, compliance is straightforward: pay the penalty amount by the due date specified in the notice (under the Magistrates Court Act). Alternatively, elect to have the matter heard in court by the method prescribed in that Act. Do not ignore the notice, as it may lead to enforcement with additional costs.

For an organisation that conducts charitable collections in the ACT, the best strategy is to avoid the offences altogether. The regulation does not list the elements of the offences, so one must refer to the Charitable Collections Act. The offences likely relate to: failing to hold a collection permit or licence (section 47), failing to comply with conditions of a permit (section 48), failing to produce identity cards or documents (section 53(4)), and failing to comply with a requirement to produce records or information (section 56(3)). Regular compliance training for staff and volunteers, proper record-keeping, and ensuring authorised persons carry identity cards are prudent.

If an infringement notice is received, verify that it complies with the regulation’s content requirements. Check if it includes the company’s ACN (if the recipient is a company), and that the authorised person is properly identified (police service number or unique number/full name). If any of these are missing, the notice may be invalid, and legal advice might be warranted. However, correcting a technical defect may not preclude reissuance.

For charities that are incorporated, be aware of the five-times penalty multiplier. Consider whether incorporation is necessary for the charity’s activities. If the charity is unincorporated, the individual penalty applies, which is lower. However, incorporation provides limited liability and other benefits; the decision should not be driven solely by penalty amounts.

If a reminder notice is served, the additional $34 becomes payable. The original penalty remains the same. Pay immediately to avoid enforcement.

For authorised persons serving notices, ensure strict compliance with sections 9, 10, and 11. Use the correct identifier. For non-police authorised persons, either use a unique number assigned by Access Canberra or the full name/surname and initials. The unique number system is not detailed in this regulation; it would be managed internally by Access Canberra. Authorised persons should confirm they have been assigned such a number if they intend to use it.

The administering authority (head of Access Canberra) should maintain a register of unique numbers for non-police authorised persons and ensure that notices are served only by persons who are authorised under section 54 of the Charitable Collections Act.

Overall, the regulation creates a simple, low-cost compliance mechanism for minor charitable collection infractions. The penalty amounts are low enough that many recipients will pay without question. The compliance burden is minimal for those who abide by the parent Act. The real gotcha lies in the multiplier for corporations and the necessity to know the procedural details of the Magistrates Court Act. The regulation itself is a thin procedural document; it does not warn of pitfalls outside its text. Practitioners must read it together with the Charitable Collections Act and the Magistrates Court Act Part 3.8 to fully understand the rights and obligations.