Magistrates Court (Major Events Infringement Notices) Regulation 2014

Infringement notice. A notice issued under Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 that offers the recipient the option to pay a fixed penalty rather than face prosecution for the alleged offence. Payment of the penalty discharges any liability for the offence. Non-payment may lead to enforcement action, including registration of the debt as a judgment.

Authorised person. Defined by reference to the Magistrates Court Act 1930. Under this regulation, only a police officer may serve infringement notices and reminder notices (s 13). The officer must be identified on the notice by service number, not by name (ss 11-12).

Administering authority. The chief police officer. This person is responsible for the administration of the infringement notice scheme for Major Events Act 2014 offences (s 6). The term is defined in the Magistrates Court Act 1930 dictionary and is imported by the regulation’s dictionary.

Witnessing requirement. A police officer cannot issue an infringement notice unless the officer personally witnessed the person committing the offence (s 8). This is an explicit limitation on the officer’s ability to form reasonable grounds for belief. It excludes situations where the officer relies on statements from third parties, CCTV footage, or other indirect evidence.

Age belief. For offences that depend on the age of the individual (for example, offences that apply only to persons over 16), the regulation provides that an officer who sees documentary evidence of the individual’s identity and age is taken to have reasonable grounds for believing that age (s 7). This simplifies proof but does not override the under-16 exemption in s 9.

Reminder notice. A follow-up notice served when an infringement notice remains unpaid. The cost of serving a reminder notice is fixed at $34 (s 10(2)), which is added to the amount payable.

Penalty units versus infringement penalty. Schedule 1 lists two numbers for each offence. Column 3 shows the maximum penalty in penalty units that a court could impose on conviction. At the republication date, one penalty unit is $150 for an individual and $750 for a corporation (Legislation Act 2001, s 133). Column 4 shows the fixed dollar amount payable under an infringement notice. This amount is always lower than the maximum court penalty. For example, the offence under s 13(2) of the Major Events Act 2014 carries a maximum court penalty of 50 penalty units ($7,500 for an individual), but the infringement penalty is only $1,500.

Schedule 1 offences. Eleven offences are listed, drawn from sections 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24 and 50 of the Major Events Act 2014. The regulation does not describe the conduct constituting each offence; that is left to the principal Act. Penalties range from $150 (items 1 and 7) to $1,500 (items 2 and 10). The variety in penalty amounts suggests a mix of minor contraventions and more serious breaches.

The regulation directly affects police officers, individuals attending or participating in major events in the Australian Capital Territory, and the chief police officer as administering authority. It indirectly affects event organisers, venue operators, and the broader public through the deterrent effect of fixed penalties.

Police officers must comply with the witnessing and identification requirements or risk rendering an infringement notice invalid. They cannot delegate the serving of notices to other enforcement officers or private security personnel. Only police may serve notices, and they must do so only after personally observing the conduct. This limits the enforcement capacity to the number of police deployed at a major event and may reduce the total volume of notices issued compared to a system that allowed other authorised persons.

Individuals who commit an offence under the Major Events Act 2014 are the targets of the scheme. They gain the option to pay a lower fixed penalty and avoid a criminal record, but they lose the opportunity to argue innocence before a court unless they decline to pay and elect to be prosecuted. The under-16 exemption protects minors, though it does not prevent police from referring the matter to a youth justice process. The scheme applies only to individuals; the penalty in s 10(1) is expressed as “payable by an individual”. Corporations and other legal entities are not mentioned. This suggests that bodies corporate cannot receive an infringement notice under this regulation and must be prosecuted through the normal court process. That distinction may create an uneven enforcement landscape.

Event organisers and businesses operating at major events need to ensure compliance with the Major Events Act 2014 because contraventions by employees may result in infringement notices for the individual employee, but the business itself may face prosecution without the benefit of a fixed penalty. The regulation does not impose any direct duties on event organisers, but the underlying Act likely does.

The community bears the cost of administering the scheme through police time and court resources if notices are challenged. One benefit is the potential for quicker resolution of minor offences without court hearings. However, the witnessing requirement may mean that many offences go unenforced simply because no police officer saw them.

Duties of police officers. A police officer serving an infringement notice must have witnessed the commission of the offence (s 8). This is a mandatory precondition; without it, the officer cannot form the reasonable belief required by section 120 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (as noted in the regulation). The officer must also identify themselves on the notice only by their police service number (ss 11-12). Where the offence involves an age element, the officer may rely on documentary evidence such as a driver’s licence or passport to form a belief about age, but is not obliged to accept that evidence if it appears false (s 7). The officer must not serve a notice on a person believed to be under 16 (s 9). The duty to witness personally imposes a significant operational constraint: a single officer cannot issue notices based on the observations of another officer or based on video evidence.

Rights of the individual. The primary right is to receive an infringement notice only if the police officer witnessed the conduct. This forecloses the possibility of a notice being issued on the basis of a complaint or anonymous report without direct police observation. The individual also has the right not to receive a notice if under 16. Upon receiving a notice, the individual may pay the fixed penalty within the time allowed under Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (typically 28 days) and thereby discharge liability. Alternatively, the individual may elect not to pay and instead have the matter dealt with by a court. The note to section 5 states that the infringement notice system “is intended to provide an alternative to prosecution”, meaning the individual retains the right to a court hearing. The individual also has the right to know the identity of the issuing officer, albeit only through a service number, which may be used to verify the officer’s authority but is less informative than a name.

Duties of the administering authority. The chief police officer is responsible for administering the scheme (s 6). This likely includes maintaining records of notices issued, receiving payments, issuing reminder notices, and referring unpaid notices for enforcement. The regulation does not specify procedures for withdrawal of a notice if issued in error, but the broader Part 3.8 framework may provide for that.

No private right of action. The regulation does not create a private cause of action for an individual against a police officer for breach of the witnessing or identification requirements. Any challenge to a notice would occur within the infringement notice enforcement process.

The regulation establishes a schedule of fixed penalties for eleven offences. The penalties are set out in schedule 1 and are payable by an individual upon receipt of an infringement notice. The amounts range from $150 to $1,500, as follows:

• Item 1 - s 13(1): $150
• Item 2 - s 13(2): $1,500
• Item 3 - s 15(1): $400
• Item 4 - s 16(2): $300
• Item 5 - s 17(2): $300
• Item 6 - s 18(2): $300
• Item 7 - s 20(2): $150
• Item 8 - s 23(1): $300
• Item 9 - s 23(2): $400
• Item 10 - s 24(7): $1,500
• Item 11 - s 50(6): $400

Each of these amounts is considerably lower than the maximum court penalty shown in column 3. For instance, the offence under s 24(7) carries a maximum of 50 penalty units, which at $150 per unit equals $7,500 for an individual. The infringement penalty of $1,500 represents a 20% discount on the maximum. This discount is typical of infringement notice schemes: it encourages payment and reduces court workload. The individual must weigh the cost of paying against the risk of a higher penalty if convicted in court.

Enforcement proceeds under Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930. If the penalty is not paid within the prescribed period, a reminder notice may be served. The cost of serving a reminder notice is $34 (s 10(2)), which is added to the amount outstanding. Further non-payment may lead to the notice being registered as a judgment debt in the Magistrates Court, with additional enforcement costs. The regulation does not provide for demerit points, imprisonment, or any penalty other than the monetary amount.

The witnessing requirement (s 8) effectively limits enforcement to offences observed by police. This may reduce the number of notices issued for offences that are difficult to detect in real time, such as ticket scalping or unauthorised trading. The regulation does not address multiple offences; presumably each observed contravention can attract a separate notice. There is no provision for aggregated penalties or for issuing a notice to a corporation.

This regulation is subordinate to the Magistrates Court Act 1930. It operates within Part 3.8 of that Act, which sets out the general infringement notice regime including procedures for service, payment, enforcement, and the right to elect court proceedings. The regulation does not replicate those procedures; it merely designates certain offences as infringement notice offences and sets the penalties. Any matter not covered by the regulation is governed by the Magistrates Court Act 1930.

The regulation references the Major Events Act 2014 as the source of the substantive offences. That Act defines the conduct that is prohibited at major events, such as unauthorised entry, ticket scalping, possession of prohibited items, and failure to comply with directions. The regulation does not modify or interpret those offences; it only provides an enforcement mechanism. A person cannot know what conduct attracts an infringement notice without reading both the regulation and the Major Events Act 2014.

The dictionary at the end of the regulation imports definitions from the Legislation Act 2001 and the Magistrates Court Act 1930. Key terms such as “authorised person”, “infringement notice offence”, and “administering authority” are defined in the Magistrates Court Act 1930 dictionary. The regulation relies on those external definitions.

The penalty unit value is set by the Legislation Act 2001, section 133. At the republication date, the value was $150 for an individual and $750 for a corporation. Although the regulation’s schedule shows penalties in dollars for individuals, the underlying maximum penalties in penalty units would apply if a matter proceeds to court. For a corporation, the maximum court penalty would be calculated using the higher corporate penalty unit value. However, the regulation does not provide corporate infringement penalties; only individual penalties are listed.

The regulation does not interact with the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) in any express way. The Major Events Act 2014 may contain its own fault elements. The infringement notice scheme typically applies to strict liability offences; if the underlying offence requires proof of intention or recklessness, the notice system may operate only where the evidence supports that fault element. The regulation does not address fault.

The regulation was made as a subordinate law on 17 November 2014 (SL2014-30) and commenced on 18 November 2014. Section 2, which would have contained the commencement provision, was omitted by operation of the Legislation Act 2001, section 89(4). This is a standard editorial change that removes the commencement clause after it has taken effect. No substantive amendments have been made to the regulation since its commencement. It remains in its original form as at the republication date of 18 November 2014. There are no uncommenced amendments or scheduled expiry dates. The regulation has not been reissued or renamed. The legislation history endnote confirms that the regulation has not been amended.

Because the regulation has not been amended, its penalties have not been updated since 2014. The fixed dollar amounts in schedule 1 have not been adjusted for inflation. The $34 reminder notice cost has also remained unchanged. This lack of indexation means the real value of penalties has declined over time, potentially reducing the deterrent effect. Conversely, the penalty unit values in the underlying Major Events Act 2014 may have been adjusted if that Act was amended; but the infringement penalties in the regulation remain frozen. A future government may need to amend this regulation to increase penalties or to add new offences if the Major Events Act 2014 is amended.

The regulation itself has not been the subject of any reported litigation in the ACT courts, according to the source text. There is no note of any case that has considered the validity or interpretation of the regulation. This is unsurprising given its narrow scope and the fact that it has not been amended. Most disputes over infringement notices under this regulation would likely be resolved within the infringement notice enforcement process under the Magistrates Court Act 1930, without reaching a higher court. Challenges could arise on grounds such as whether the police officer genuinely witnessed the conduct, whether the identification requirement (service number only) has been satisfied, or whether the person was wrongly believed to be under 16. However, no such cases are cited in the republication.

The absence of litigation may indicate that the regulation operates without controversy, or it may reflect that the Major Events Act 2014 is rarely enforced through this scheme. Major events in the ACT may be infrequent, and police may prefer to use other enforcement options such as ejection or warnings. Alternatively, individuals served with notices may simply pay them rather than challenge them, given the relatively low amounts.

The witnessing requirement is absolute. A police officer cannot issue an infringement notice based on a report from security staff, CCTV footage, or another officer’s observation. Section 8 states that an authorised person “is taken not to have reasonable grounds” unless the officer witnessed the offence. This is a higher standard than the general criminal standard for reasonable grounds. If a notice is served without the officer having personally witnessed the conduct, it is likely invalid. Recipients who receive a notice for conduct they know was not seen by the officer may have grounds to contest it.

The under-16 exemption is based on belief, not proof. Section 7 says an officer is taken to have reasonable grounds for believing an individual’s age if the officer sees evidence of identity and age. But if the officer does not ask for ID and mistakenly believes the person is over 16, the notice may still be validly served. The exemption applies only if the officer “believed” the person was under 16 (s 9). There is no objective age test. If the officer believed the person was 16 or older, the exemption does not apply even if the person is actually younger. The individual would have to argue that the officer’s belief was not reasonable.

Identification by service number only may hinder verification. The notice must identify the authorised person by “police officer service number” (ss 11-12). No name is required. A recipient who wishes to contact the officer or challenge the notice may find it difficult to identify the specific officer, particularly if multiple officers were present. The service number is internal to the police force and may not be easily looked up by the public. This could be an administrative convenience for police but a transparency cost for individuals.

The penalty is payable by an individual, not a corporation. Section 10(1) says “the penalty payable by an individual”. Schedule 1 lists dollar amounts without specifying to whom they apply. Because the section explicitly says “individual”, a corporation cannot be issued an infringement notice under this regulation. If a corporation commits an offence under the Major Events Act 2014, it must be prosecuted in court and faces the full maximum penalty in penalty units (which for a corporation is $750 per unit, not $150). A business operating at a major event should be aware that its employees may receive $150-$1,500 notices, but the business itself could face a court penalty of up to $37,500 for a 50-unit offence.

Reminder notice cost is added automatically. If the infringement notice is not paid within the initial period, a reminder notice is served at a cost of $34 (s 10(2)). This cost is added to the penalty. The regulation does not allow for any waiver or reduction of the reminder fee. Prompt payment avoids this additional charge.

The schedule 1 penalties are not indexed. The dollar amounts have not changed since 2014. Over time, inflation erodes their real value. Meanwhile, the penalty unit value under the Legislation Act 2001 may be adjusted by regulation, but the infringement amounts are fixed in this regulation. An amendment would be required to increase them. This means that the discount for paying an infringement notice may become even more favourable relative to the court penalty if the court penalty increases with inflation.

No provision for error correction. The regulation does not empower the issuing officer or the administering authority to withdraw or cancel an infringement notice once served, except as provided under the general Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930. If a notice is issued to the wrong person or for a non-existent offence, the recipient may have to go through the formal election process or seek judicial review. The regulation itself offers no internal remedy.

Reminder notice identification requirement. Section 12 requires that a reminder notice also identify the authorised person by service number. If the reminder notice is served by a different officer, that officer’s number must appear. Failure to do so may make the reminder notice invalid, and the $34 fee may not be recoverable.

For individuals attending a major event in the ACT, compliance begins with understanding the offences listed in the Major Events Act 2014 that correspond to the schedule. Without reading that Act, the regulation alone is insufficient. However, some common categories can be inferred: unauthorised entry, ticket resale, possession of prohibited items, failure to leave when directed, and obstructing an authorised person. To avoid receiving an infringement notice, individuals should follow all directions from police and event staff, comply with entry conditions, and not engage in prohibited conduct.

If an individual receives an infringement notice, they should check whether the officer witnessed the conduct personally. If the individual was not observed by the officer at the time of the alleged offence, the notice may be challenged on that basis. The notice should also be checked for the officer’s service number; if it is missing, the notice may not comply with s 11. The individual should also consider their age: if they were under 16 at the time and believe the officer knew or should have known that, they may have grounds to argue the notice was invalidly served.

The decision to pay or contest involves a cost-benefit analysis. The infringement penalty is lower than the maximum court penalty, but paying it amounts to an admission. If the individual contests, they must elect to have the matter heard in court under Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930. They face the risk of a higher penalty if convicted. Legal advice may be prudent for higher-value notices ($1,500).

For police officers, compliance requires strict adherence to the witnessing requirement. An officer should not serve a notice unless they personally saw the person commit the offence. The officer should also verify age if the offence has an age element, and should record the basis for their belief. The officer must ensure that the notice includes their service number and no other identifying information. If serving a reminder notice, the same identification rule applies.

For event organisers, the regulation imposes no direct compliance burden, but they should coordinate with police to ensure that any enforcement action is based on observed conduct. Organisers may wish to train their staff to report offences to police in real time rather than relying on post-event evidence.

For corporations operating at major events, there is no infringement notice pathway under this regulation. Compliance with the Major Events Act 2014 is still essential because the corporation can be prosecuted. The corporation should ensure that its employees understand the offences and that any infringements by employees are dealt with individually. The corporation cannot pay an infringement notice on behalf of an employee under this scheme; the employee is personally liable.