Magistrates Court (Crimes Infringement Notices) Regulation 2008

This regulation creates a fixed penalty system for four specific offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). It is made under the Magistrates Court Act 1930, part 3.8, which establishes the legal framework for infringement notices as an alternative to criminal prosecution. The regulation designates which Crimes Act offences are eligible for infringement notices, sets the penalty amounts payable for each offence, specifies who may issue notices, prescribes the required contents of those notices, and establishes procedural rules about when an authorised person may properly serve a notice.

The four active offences (schedule 1) are: section 120 (depositing litter etc.), section 179 (damaging property? - the regulation does not name the offence), section 393A (affray? - again not stated), and section 394(2) (offensive conduct). The regulation excludes individuals under 16 from being served for any of these offences. The penalty amounts are fixed: $200 for three of the four offences and $60 for the section 179 offence. A corporation must pay five times the individual amount. The administering authority is the chief police officer. A reminder notice fee of $34 may be added if the initial notice is not paid.

The regulation mechanically provides the operational detail needed to run the infringement notice system for these Crimes Act offences. It does not create new offences; it simply allows an existing criminal penalty to be discharged by paying a fixed sum rather than going through the court process. The stated purpose in section 3 is to provide an alternative to prosecution, with the note confirming that the system is intended as an alternative. The regulation has been amended three times since its enactment in 2008, most notably in 2016 to add a fourth offence (item 3, section 393A) as part of the Crimes (Serious and Organised Crime) Legislation Amendment Act 2016.

Infringement notice. This is a written notice issued by an authorised person alleging that the recipient has committed an infringement notice offence. It offers the person a choice: pay the fixed penalty and avoid prosecution, or elect to have the matter heard in court. The regulation does not define the term but draws the definition from the Magistrates Court Act 1930 dictionary. The notice must contain specific information beyond what the parent Act requires - including, for companies, the ACN; for partnerships, the partnership name; and for licensed litter officers, the officer’s full name or unique identifying number.

Infringement notice offence. An offence listed in schedule 1, column 2. Only four offences from the Crimes Act are eligible. The regulation does not state the elements of these offences; they remain defined by the Crimes Act. The infringement notice scheme applies only where the individual is 16 or older. The effect is that for these four offences, a police officer (or a litter officer, but only for the section 120 littering offence) may issue a ticket instead of charging the person.

Authorised person. Under the Magistrates Court Act, this term includes police officers and any person appointed as an authorised person under another Act for the purposes of issuing infringement notices. Section 14 of this regulation confirms that police officers can serve notices for all four offences, while authorised persons under the Litter Act 2004, section 14 may serve notices only for the section 120 (littering) offence and associated reminder notices.

Administering authority. For these Crimes Act offences, it is the chief police officer. This means the officer is responsible for managing the infringement notice system, including issuing reminder notices and receiving payments.

Penalty units. The regulation expresses penalties in dollar amounts, not penalty units. However, the underlying Crimes Act offence penalties are stated in penalty units in schedule 1, column 3. The infringement penalty in column 4 is the dollar amount fixed by the regulation, not the maximum court penalty. At the republication date, one penalty unit for an individual is $160, so the court penalty for section 120 would be up to $1,600 (10 units), while the infringement penalty is only $200.

Reminder notice. If an infringement notice is not paid within the time allowed, a reminder notice may be served. The cost of serving that reminder notice is $34 (section 10(3)). That cost is likely added to the amount payable.

Individuals who commit a listed Crimes Act offence and are at least 16 years old. They are the primary targets. They receive an infringement notice and must decide whether to pay the fixed penalty (typically $200) or elect to go to court. The regulation does not impose criminal liability; it offers a shortcut to avoid prosecution if they pay. For a person who accepts they committed the offence, paying the fine is cheaper and easier than a court appearance. For a person who disputes the allegation, the system imposes a cost of time and stress to elect court, plus the risk of a higher court penalty if convicted.

Corporations. A corporation that commits one of the four offences faces an infringement penalty of five times the individual amount: $1,000 for three offences and $300 for the section 179 offence. The regulation does not provide a defence of reasonable mistake or due diligence in the infringement notice context; the corporate penalty is automatic if the notice is valid. Small businesses may find this multiplier disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. For a minor littering offence, a corporate $1,000 penalty is substantially higher than a court might impose, but the trade-off is avoiding a criminal record.

Police officers. They are the default authorised persons for all four offences. They must have personally witnessed the conduct before issuing a notice (section 8). They must include their service number on the notice (section 12). Failure to witness the conduct invalidates the notice.

Authorised persons under the Litter Act 2004. These people (such as rangers or council officers) may issue notices only for the section 120 littering offence. Their identification on the notice must be their full name or surname and initials, or a unique number from the administering authority.

The chief police officer. This officer (or their delegates) administers the system, sets up reminder notice processes, and handles payments. The regulation does not specify any further duties.

The Magistrates Court. If the recipient elects to have the matter heard, the court deals with the case as a normal criminal offence. The court can impose a higher penalty (up to the maximum in penalty units) or dismiss the charge. The infringement notice system removes some minor cases from court lists but does not eliminate court involvement for contested matters.

Duty of authorised person to witness the conduct. Section 8 is a mandatory gatekeeper. An authorised person is taken not to have reasonable grounds for believing a person committed an offence unless the authorised person witnessed the commission. This is a significant constraint. It means no notice may be issued based on CCTV footage, witness reports, or admissions alone. The authorised person must have seen the act with their own eyes. Failure to comply means the notice is likely invalid.

Duty to have reasonable grounds for age belief. Section 7 provides a safe harbour: an authorised person is taken to have reasonable grounds for believing an individual is of a particular age if they have seen evidence of identity and age. This matters because the scheme excludes under-16s. If the person looks young, the officer should ask for ID. Issuing a notice without seeing ID and relying on appearance alone may be challenged as lacking reasonable grounds.

Right to be served a compliant notice. The recipient has the right to receive a notice that identifies the authorised person correctly. For police officers, that means a service number. For litter officers, full name or unique number. The notice must also include the company ACN if the recipient is a company, or the partnership name if a partnership. If the notice does not meet these content requirements, it may be unenforceable. The regulation does not state consequences of non-compliance explicitly, but the parent Act likely does: a notice that fails to include required information is invalid.

Right to elect to have the matter heard in court. This right is found in the parent Act, not this regulation. The regulation merely creates the fixed penalty option; the recipient retains the right to contest the allegation.

Duty to pay the penalty or elect court within the time frame. If the recipient does not pay or elect court, the reminder notice fee of $34 is added. Ultimately, the matter can proceed to enforcement as a fine.

For corporations: duty to pay five times the individual amount. There is no discount for small size or limited means. The fixed penalty applies equally to large and small corporations.

The infringement penalties are fixed amounts set out in schedule 1. For an individual: section 120 - $200; section 179 - $60; section 393A - $200; section 394(2) - $200. For a corporation, each amount is multiplied by five, so $1,000 or $300.

The $200 figure for three offences is notable. It is well below the maximum court penalty (10 penalty units = $1,600). The $60 for section 179 is even more modest relative to the two penalty units maximum ($320). This suggests the regulation aims to dispose of these low level offences cheaply. The $34 reminder notice fee is modest but adds up if the person pays late.

The regulation does not detail enforcement if the penalty remains unpaid. That falls under the Magistrates Court Act part 3.8 and general fine enforcement provisions. Unpaid infringement notices can lead to registration as a court fine, enforcement by the sheriff, deductions from wages, or seizure of property.

Corporate penalty multiplier. The five times multiplier for corporations is standard in ACT infringement notice schemes. The rationale is that corporations benefit from limited liability and should face a deterrent that reflects their capacity to pay. However, for a small business owner operating as a company, the $1,000 penalty for a littering offence is severe and may be disproportionate to the contravention. The regulation does not allow means testing or mitigation; it is a blunt instrument.

No criminal conviction. Paying the infringement notice does not result in a criminal conviction. This is a key benefit for the recipient. It avoids a criminal record and the collateral consequences (employment checks, visa issues). For some people, paying a $200 fine is worth that benefit even if they are technically innocent.

Court penalty risk. If a recipient elects court and is convicted, the court can impose a penalty up to the maximum in penalty units. For section 120 that is $1,600, significantly higher than $200. This creates a potential penalty for exercising the right to contest.

Magistrates Court Act 1930. This regulation is made under that Act, specifically part 3.8. The parent Act provides the overarching framework for infringement notices: how they are served, what happens on payment, the right to elect court, and enforcement. Key definitions are imported from the Magistrates Court Act dictionary: "authorised person", "infringement notice", "infringement notice offence", "administering authority", "reminder notice". Practitioners must read the regulation together with part 3.8 of the parent Act to understand the full scheme.

Crimes Act 1900. The four offences are defined in the Crimes Act. The regulation does not repeat elements, penalties, or defences. Any amendment to the Crimes Act that changes the offence definition or penalty units may affect the infringement notice scheme, but the regulation would need to be amended to update the schedule. For example, if the Crimes Act increases the penalty for section 120 to 20 penalty units, the infringement penalty in schedule 1 ($200) would not automatically change. It would remain unless the regulation is amended.

Litter Act 2004. Section 14 of that Act allows appointment of authorised people for litter enforcement. Those appointed people may then serve infringement notices for the section 120 Crimes Act offence under this regulation. This is an unusual cross referencing arrangement: a litter enforcement officer can issue a ticket for a Crimes Act offence (depositing litter). That reflects the overlap between littering under the Litter Act and the Crimes Act offence of depositing rubbish.

Legislation Act 2001. This Act governs service of documents (part 19.5) and definitions. The dictionary of the regulation notes that terms like "chief police officer", "corporation", "individual" are defined in the Legislation Act dictionary. The regulation also uses the standard note system and rules about editorial changes.

Corporations Act 2001 (Commonwealth). Section 11 of this regulation requires an infringement notice to include the company's ACN if the recipient is a company registered under the Corporations Act. This ensures identification of the corporate entity.

Other ACT infringement notice regulations. This is one of many regulations made under the Magistrates Court Act for different Acts (e.g., road transport, public health). The fundamental mechanics are the same, but each regulation has its own schedule of offences, penalties, and authorised persons.

The regulation was made on 14 April 2008 and commenced on 16 April 2008.

2015 amendment (Statute Law Amendment Act 2015 A2015-15). This made changes to section 14 (Authorised people for infringement notice offences). The exact changes were amendments 3.76 to 3.79. Based on the text, the original section 14 likely only referred to police officers. The 2015 amendment added the ability for authorised people under the Litter Act 2004 to serve notices for the section 120 offence. This reflects a policy decision to let rangers and council officers issue tickets for littering under the Crimes Act.

2016 amendment (Crimes (Serious and Organised Crime) Legislation Amendment Act 2016 A2016-48). Section 38 amended schedule 1. It added a new offence: section 393A of the Crimes Act, with a penalty of 10 penalty units and an infringement penalty of $200. This was part of a broader package targeting organised crime. The items in schedule 1 were renumbered. Before 2016, schedule 1 had three items; after, it had four.

2019 amendment (Statute Law Amendment Act 2019 A2019-42). Amendment 3.76 made a further change to schedule 1. The text does not specify what changed, but it likely adjusted wording or penalty amounts. No substantive change to the list of offences.

The regulation has remained stable since 2019. The republication date is 14 November 2019.

The regulation text does not cite any cases. No reported decisions are referenced in the endnotes or body. This suggests that the regulation has not been the subject of significant litigation. However, that does not mean no challenges have been made. Challenges may have been mounted in minor proceedings and not reported.

Potential grounds for legal challenge include: failure to satisfy the witnessing requirement (section 8); failure to have reasonable grounds for age belief (section 7); incorrect identification of the authorised person on the notice (sections 12 and 13); omission of company ACN or partnership name (section 11); service on a person under 16 (contrary to the schedule note). Also, the regulation's requirement that the authorised person must witness the conduct may be challenged if the offence is one that can be proven by other evidence.

There is a theoretical question: if an authorised person issues a notice without witnessing the conduct (e.g., based on CCTV footage), is the notice void, or is it merely irregular? The regulation uses the language "taken not to have reasonable grounds", which likely means the notice is invalid. No court has ruled on this in the context of this regulation.

The absence of litigation may indicate that recipients usually pay rather than contest, or that the small amounts involved do not justify legal proceedings. But compliance professionals should not assume the scheme is immune to challenge. The witnessing requirement is a vulnerability: if not complied with, the recipient might successfully argue the notice is unenforceable.

Witnessing requirement is strict. Section 8 says an authorised person is taken not to have reasonable grounds unless they witnessed the commission. This is stronger than a mere requirement to have reasonable grounds; it sets a condition precedent. A notice issued based on a report from another officer, a member of the public, or a camera is likely invalid. But note: the section uses "taken not to have reasonable grounds". That is a deeming provision. If the authorised person did not witness the conduct, the notice should not have been served. Recipients should check if the officer actually saw the act.

Age belief safe harbour requires evidence, not guess. Section 7 requires the authorised person to have seen evidence of identity and age. If an officer serves a notice on someone who looks young but does not ask for ID, they cannot rely on the safe harbour. That does not automatically make the notice invalid, but it weakens the officer's position if challenged.

Corporate multiplier applies to all corporations, including non-profits and small companies. There is no exemption for charities, social enterprises, or family companies. A $1,000 penalty for a small business that drops a cigarette butt might be disproportionate. The regulation does not provide an ability to apply for a lower penalty.

Only four offences are covered. It is easy to assume that any minor Crimes Act offence can be ticketed. Only these four are eligible. Others must go through the court system. This might lead to inconsistency: two similar offences, one ticketable and one not, based on arbitrary legislative choice.

The reminder notice fee is added automatically if the penalty is not paid on time. The $34 fee is not large but is an additional cost that the recipient may not anticipate. The regulation does not state that the fee is waivable.

Identification requirements on the notice are mandatory. If a police officer writes their name but not their service number, or a litter officer uses a number but not the full name when that is required, the notice may be defective. Recipients should check the identification. If it is wrong, the notice may be invalid and should not be paid.

Partnerships must be identified by the partnership name, not the individual partners' names. If a partnership is served and the notice names the individual partners, that may not comply with section 11(b). Partnerships are unincorporated, and the liability may be joint, but the regulation requires the partnership name.

For a person served with an infringement notice. Read the notice carefully. Check that the authorised person is identified correctly: police service number or full name/initials. Check that your name and address are correct. For companies, check that the ACN is on the notice. For partnerships, check the partnership name. If any of these are missing or wrong, the notice may be invalid. Do not pay automatically; consider whether you have a defence.

If you accept you committed the offence and wish to avoid court, pay the amount shown within the due date. Note that if you pay later, the $34 reminder fee may be added. Do not pay if you believe the notice is invalid; instead, seek legal advice or elect to have the matter heard in court. The election must be made within the time specified in the parent Act. If you are under 16, the notice should not have been issued; you can ignore it or contest it.

For corporations. The five times multiplier applies. Ensure that the person who receives the notice (e.g., a director or employee) knows the company is liable. The company can pay the higher amount or elect court. If the company pays, ensure the payment is recorded as an expense. Consider whether the offence was committed deliberately; if not, the company might contest the notice in court and argue that it had no knowledge or control, but the regulation does not provide a due diligence defence for infringement notices.

For authorised persons (police and litter officers). Before serving an infringement notice, you must have witnessed the alleged offence. Do not issue a notice based on reports, camera footage, or admissions unless you personally saw the conduct. If the person appears to be under 16, request and view identity evidence. Do not serve a notice without seeing ID if there is any doubt. On the notice, include your police service number or, for litter officers, your full name or surname and initials or your unique number from the chief police officer. For companies, obtain and record the ACN. For partnerships, obtain the partnership name. Ensure all other required content is completed.

For the administering authority. Ensure that authorised persons under the Litter Act are appointed and given unique numbers if needed for identification. Maintain a system to issue reminder notices at the correct time. Collect and administer penalties. Ensure that the reminder notice fee is applied only where the parent Act allows.

For legal advisers. When reviewing an infringement notice for validity, check the witnessing requirement first. If the person who served the notice did not see the offence, the notice should be challenged. Also check the age evidence and identification content. If the notice is invalid, advise the client not to pay and to write to the administering authority or elect court.