Magistrates Court (Water Resources Infringement Notices) Regulation 2007

The Magistrates Court (Water Resources Infringement Notices) Regulation 2007 (the Regulation) is a subordinate law made under the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). Its sole mechanical function is to activate the infringement notice system under part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act for a defined set of offences against the Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT). The Regulation does not create any new offences, increase maximum court penalties, or alter the substantive content of the Water Resources Act. Instead, it designates which specific Water Resources Act provisions can be dealt with by way of an infringement notice (essentially an expiation or on-the-spot fine) rather than by full prosecution. The Regulation also prescribes the dollar amount payable under such a notice for an individual (the “infringement penalty” in column 4 of schedule 1), and sets a flat five‑times multiplier for corporations. It designates the administering authority for these notices as the “environment protection authority” (defined in the dictionary as “the authority”). It appoints “authorised officers” (as defined in the Water Resources Act dictionary) as the authorised persons who may serve infringement notices and reminder notices. The Regulation further prescribes additional contents that must appear on a notice served on a company (the company’s ACN) and the method by which the authorised person must be identified on the notice and reminder notice (full name or surname and initials, or a unique number assigned by the administering authority). It sets two fixed costs: $34 for the cost of serving a reminder notice, and $200 for the cost of beginning a proceeding if the recipient disputes liability. These amounts are not indexed to penalty units and require separate amendment to change. The schedule lists nine offence provisions, each with a prescribed infringement penalty ranging from $200 to $1,000 for an individual. The Regulation does not set the time for payment, the process for disputing liability, or the consequences of non‑payment; those matters are governed by part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act. The Regulation therefore operates as a procedural bridge: it makes certain Water Resources Act contraventions actionable by infringement notice, defines the penalty amounts, and sets the administrative machinery for who issues notices and what they must contain.

Infringement notice offence: An offence against a provision mentioned in schedule 1, column 2 of the Regulation, to which part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act applies by virtue of section 7. The offence still exists as a criminal offence under the Water Resources Act, but the infringement notice provides an alternative to prosecution. The recipient can pay the prescribed penalty and avoid a criminal conviction, or elect to have the matter heard in court.

Administering authority: Defined in section 6 as “the authority”, which the dictionary clarifies means “the environment protection authority”. This is the entity responsible for administering the infringement notice system under the Water Resources Act. It also assigns unique numbers to authorised persons for identification on notices (section 10(b), 11(b)). The term “administering authority” is defined in the Magistrates Court Act dictionary and imported into the Regulation.

Authorised person: Imported from the Magistrates Court Act dictionary. Section 13 provides that an “authorised officer” (defined in the Water Resources Act dictionary) may serve an infringement notice or reminder notice. This creates a cross‑reference: the class of people who can issue notices under this regulation are those who hold the status of authorised officer under the Water Resources Act, not just any person authorised by the Magistrates Court Act. The note to section 13 references part 19.5 of the Legislation Act for service methods.

Infringement penalty: The dollar amount payable under an infringement notice. For an individual, it is the amount in column 4 of schedule 1 (e.g. $200 for item 8, $1,000 for item 1). For a corporation, section 8(2) imposes a multiplier of five times the amount in column 4. This is not a multiplier of penalty units, but a direct multiplication of the fixed dollar penalty. The penalty amounts are not expressed in penalty units; they are absolute dollar figures. The value of a penalty unit ($150 for an individual, $750 for a corporation at the republication date) is relevant to the court‑imposed penalty for the offence (column 3 shows penalty units for the offence itself), but the infringement penalty is set independently.

Reminder notice: A notice served after an infringement notice if the penalty has not been paid within the prescribed period. The cost of serving a reminder notice is fixed at $34 (section 8(3)). This cost may be added to the amount outstanding.

Cost of beginning a proceeding: Section 12 sets the cost at $200 if the recipient disputes liability and the matter proceeds to court. This is likely recoverable in the event of conviction.

The Regulation directly affects three groups. First, persons who commit the nine specified Water Resources Act offences. These will typically be individuals and corporations engaged in water extraction, damming, or other water‑related activities in the Australian Capital Territory. Such persons may receive an infringement notice and must decide whether to pay the fixed penalty or dispute the matter in court. Second, authorised officers under the Water Resources Act gain the power to serve infringement notices and reminder notices under section 13. These are likely compliance officers from the environment protection authority or other designated officials. They must comply with the identification requirements in sections 10 and 11 when serving notices. Third, the administering authority (the environment protection authority) bears the administrative burden of issuing notices, receiving payments, assigning unique numbers to authorised persons, and managing reminder notices. The Regulation also indirectly affects legal practitioners advising clients on water‑related compliance, and the Magistrates Court, which may receive disputed notices. The costs set in the Regulation,$34 for a reminder notice and $200 for commencing a proceeding,affect recipients who dispute liability, as those costs become payable if the court finds the offence proven or if the penalty is otherwise enforced. The five‑times corporate multiplier under section 8(2) means that a corporation will face a significantly higher fixed penalty than an individual for the same offence. For example, the $1,000 individual penalty for a section 77A(2) offence becomes $5,000 for a body corporate. This creates a strong incentive for incorporated entities to ensure strict compliance, but also concentrates a large cost on business operators that may be disproportionate to the actual harm. The Regulation does not apply to offences under the Water Resources Act that are not listed in schedule 1; those must be prosecuted in the usual manner. Nor does it apply to other environmental or water‑related laws not falling under the Water Resources Act. Because the infringement penalties are fixed dollar amounts rather than a proportion of the maximum court penalty, the Regulation may create a situation where the infringement penalty is low relative to the seriousness of the contravention (for some offences) or high relative to minor breaches. The schedule shows, for example, that section 77G(3) has a maximum court penalty of 10 penalty units ($1,500 for an individual at the republication date) but an infringement penalty of only $200,a significant discount that may encourage recipients to pay rather than litigate even if they have a defence. Conversely, section 77A(2) carries 50 penalty units ($7,500) but an infringement penalty of $1,000,still a substantial discount but larger in absolute terms.

For a person served with an infringement notice under this Regulation, the principal duty is to either pay the prescribed penalty within the period specified in part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act, or elect to have the matter heard in court. If the person does nothing, additional enforcement action may follow, including service of a reminder notice (cost $34) and ultimately prosecution. The recipient has the right to dispute liability by notifying the administering authority and having the matter dealt with by the Magistrates Court (which then triggers the $200 cost under section 12 if liability is established). The recipient also has the right to be served with a notice that complies with the content requirements: for a company, the notice must include the company’s ACN (section 9); for any recipient, the notice must identify the authorised person by full name, surname and initials, or a unique number given by the administering authority (section 10). If the notice fails to meet these requirements, its validity may be challenged, though the Regulation does not specify the consequences of non‑compliance. The authorised officer serving the notice has a duty to include that information. The administering authority has a duty to maintain a system for assigning unique numbers to authorised persons if it chooses to use that option. The recipient has no obligation to pay the penalty if they validly dispute the notice, but they bear the risk of higher court‑imposed penalties (up to the maximum in column 3 of schedule 1, plus costs) if convicted. The recipient does not have a right to negotiate the penalty amount; it is fixed. There is no provision for hardship, waiver, or payment plan in this Regulation. The recipient’s right to silence or against self‑incrimination is not affected; paying the infringement notice is an alternative to prosecution, not an admission of guilt for any purpose (see part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act, which usually provides that payment is not an admission). However, the Regulation does not restate that protection. The recipient also has the right to know that the cost of beginning a proceeding is $200, but the Regulation does not require that this be stated on the notice. Careful practitioners should ensure clients understand the full cost implications of disputing.

The penalties under the Regulation are not the maximum court penalties for the underlying Water Resources Act offences (those are set out in column 3 of schedule 1 in penalty units). Instead, the Regulation provides the monetary amounts payable under an infringement notice as an alternative to prosecution. For an individual, the penalties range from $200 (item 8, section 77G(4)) to $1,000 (items 1, 2, 3, 9). For a corporation, section 8(2) multiplies each of those amounts by five, resulting in penalties from $1,000 to $5,000. This multiplier is a blunt instrument; it does not vary according to the size or nature of the corporation. The cost of serving a reminder notice is fixed at $34 (section 8(3)). If the recipient disputes liability and the matter goes to court, the cost of beginning the proceeding is $200 (section 12). These costs are presumably recoverable if the court finds the offence proven, but the Regulation does not explicitly state that; the general law on costs in the Magistrates Court would apply. Enforcement of unpaid infringement notices is governed by the Magistrates Court Act part 3.8, which typically allows for the registration of the penalty as a judgment debt or the commencement of a prosecution for the original offence. The Regulation does not create any new powers of entry, search, or seizure. The only enforcement mechanism referenced is service of documents. The penalty units noted in schedule 1 column 3 are the maximum court penalties for the offences if prosecuted. For example, section 77A(2) carries 50 penalty units (at $150 per unit, $7,500 for an individual; $750 per unit for a corporation, $37,500). The infringement penalty of $1,000 is thus a significant discount, potentially encouraging early payment even in borderline cases. This creates an economic incentive for the administering authority to issue notices rather than prosecute, and for the recipient to pay rather than risk a higher court penalty plus costs. However, the discount also reduces the deterrent effect of the maximum penalty. The fixed nature of the penalties means they do not automatically adjust for inflation; amendment is required to change them. The penalty for a corporation is not capped at a proportion of the maximum court penalty. For a given offence, the corporate infringement penalty may be much lower than the maximum court penalty (e.g. $5,000 vs $37,500 for a 50‑unit offence), which may under‑deter corporate misconduct. Conversely, for a low‑maximum offence like section 77G(3) (10 penalty units), the corporate penalty of $1,000 is close to the maximum of $7,500, giving less discount.

The Regulation is made under the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), and its effectiveness depends entirely on part 3.8 of that Act, which establishes the infringement notice system. If part 3.8 were amended or repealed, the Regulation would become inoperative. The Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT) is the primary law that creates the offences listed in schedule 1. The Regulation does not define the elements of those offences; it merely designates them for infringement notice treatment. The dictionary defines “authorised officer” by cross‑reference to the Water Resources Act dictionary, meaning the scope of who can issue notices under this Regulation is governed by that Act. The Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) applies throughout: its part 19.5 governs service of documents (note to section 13), its section 133 sets the value of a penalty unit (relevant to court penalties), and its interpretation provisions apply to definitions within the Regulation (notes to the dictionary). The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is referenced in section 9(2) for the definition of “company” and the requirement to include the company’s ACN on the notice. This creates a small but necessary interface with Commonwealth law for the purposes of identifying corporate recipients. The Regulation does not interact with any other ACT or Commonwealth laws such as the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) or the Environment Protection Act 1997 (ACT), except to the extent that the environment protection authority is the designated administering authority. Any overlap between water resources offences and other environmental offences (e.g., pollution under the Environment Protection Act) would be dealt with by separate infringement notice regimes, not this Regulation. The Regulation does not affect civil remedies or contractual rights; it is purely criminal‑procedural. There is no provision for double jeopardy; if an infringement notice is paid, the recipient cannot be later prosecuted for the same offence (part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act would prevent that). If the recipient disputes and is acquitted, no further action can be taken. The Regulation does not create a separate civil penalty regime; it is entirely within the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court.

The Regulation was originally notified on 2 October 2007 and commenced on 3 October 2007 (subject to a later commencement provision that brought the substantive provisions into force the day after notification). Since then, it has been amended three times.

Water Resources Amendment Act 2010 (A2010-31): Notified 1 September 2010, with schedule 1 part 1.1 commencing 18 October 2010. This amendment modified schedule 1 of the Regulation (the list of infringement notice offences and penalties). The amendment history notes “sch 1 am A2010-31 amdt 1.1”. The precise change is not detailed in the source, but it likely added or adjusted offences following amendments to the Water Resources Act.

Water Resources Amendment Act 2013 (A2013-27): Notified 21 August 2013, with schedule 1 part 1.1 commencing 22 August 2013. Again, schedule 1 was amended by “amdt 1.1”. This suggests the list of offences was expanded or the penalty amounts were changed. The amendment history also notes “items renum R3 LA”, indicating that after the 2013 amendment, the items in schedule 1 were renumbered (likely a consequence of insertion or deletion of items) by the Legislation Act editorial power.

Statute Law Amendment Act 2015 (A2015-15): Notified 27 May 2015, with schedule 3 part 3.42 commencing 10 June 2015. This amended section 13 (authorised people for infringement notice offences) by amendments 3.141 and 3.142. The source does not specify the nature of the amendments, but they likely updated cross‑references or terminology following changes to the Water Resources Act or the Magistrates Court Act. Section 13 originally referred to “authorised people” and was amended; the current version now refers to “authorised officer” as defined in the Water Resources Act dictionary.

The amendment history also notes that the commencement section (s 2) was omitted by operation of the Legislation Act 2001, section 89(4), a standard editorial change for subordinate laws that have commenced. There have been no further amendments since 2015 as of the republication date (10 June 2015). The Regulation therefore reflects the position as of mid‑2015. Users should check for any subsequent amendments beyond that date, though the source provided does not indicate any.

The text of the Regulation as provided does not mention any court cases that have considered its provisions. The endnotes and amendment history contain no reference to litigation. It is possible that the Regulation has been the subject of judicial review proceedings, but none is recorded in the source material. The Regulation is a relatively obscure subordinate instrument, and its provisions are largely administrative in nature. Most challenges to infringement notices would likely be in the context of defending the underlying Water Resources Act offence, not by contesting the validity of the Regulation itself. Nonetheless, a few potential litigation areas exist. The identification requirements in sections 10 and 11 could be litigated if a notice fails to identify the authorised person properly, though the consequence of non‑compliance is not stated. The corporate multiplier of five times (section 8(2)) might be challenged as exceeding the power under the Magistrates Court Act or as being arbitrary, but no such challenge is recorded. The interaction with part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act is unlikely to give rise to separate litigation on this Regulation, as that part is well‑established. The cost of beginning a proceeding ($200) might be contested as excessive or not authorised, but the Regulation is explicit. Practitioners should be aware that if the Regulation has been amended after the republication date (2015), any litigation would consider the version in force at the time of the offence. The source material does not provide any case law, so one must assume there is no reported decision of an ACT court specifically interpreting this Regulation. Any search for litigation would need to look at decisions of the ACT Magistrates Court or Supreme Court involving infringement notices under part 3.8 for Water Resources Act offences, and then see if the Regulation’s provisions were in issue.

Several aspects of the Regulation could catch the unwary. First, the corporate multiplier is five times the dollar penalty in schedule 1, not five times the penalty units. This is a direct multiplication of a fixed sum, not a scaling relative to the maximum court penalty. For a corporation, the infringement penalty could be much lower than the maximum court penalty for serious offences (e.g., $5,000 vs $37,500 for 50 penalty units). But for minor offences (e.g., 10 penalty units, maximum $7,500), the corporate penalty of $1,000 is still a substantial discount, but less so proportionally. This inconsistency may affect corporate compliance decisions. Second, the penalty amounts in schedule 1 are not automatically indexed. They remain at the figures set at the time of the last amendment (likely 2013). As inflation erodes their real value, the deterrent effect weakens. Third, the infringement notice must identify the authorised person by full name/surname and initials or a unique number. If a notice uses a number that was not properly assigned by the administering authority, the notice may be invalid. Practitioners should verify whether the authority has a system for assigning numbers and whether the number on the notice matches that system. Fourth, a notice served on a company must include its ACN. If the ACN is omitted, the notice might be challenged. However, the Regulation does not state that omission renders the notice void; court interpretation would be needed. Fifth, the cost of serving a reminder notice ($34) is added to the penalty if the recipient does not pay on time. This is a relatively small amount but can accumulate if multiple reminders are served. The Regulation does not specify a maximum number of reminder notices. Sixth, the cost of beginning a proceeding ($200) is payable if liability is disputed and the matter goes to court. This is not a filing fee; it is a statutory cost set under the Regulation. It may be added to any fine imposed. Recipients considering disputing a minor penalty (e.g., $200) should weigh whether the $200 proceeding cost plus potential court penalty (up to penalty units) makes it uneconomic to contest. Seventh, the Regulation only covers nine specific Water Resources Act offences. Other water‑related offences under that Act (or other Acts) cannot be dealt with by infringement notice under this Regulation. A person receiving a notice for an offence not listed should check whether the notice is valid. Eighth, Confusing the two could lead a recipient to believe the infringement penalty is lower or higher than it actually is. Ninth, The class of people who can serve notices may have changed. Tenth, The recipient must pay the full penalty by the due date or dispute.

For a person who receives an infringement notice under this Regulation, the compliance path is straightforward. First, verify the notice is valid. Check that the notice identifies the offence by reference to the correct Water Resources Act provision listed in schedule 1. Check that the authorised person is identified in accordance with section 10 (full name or surname and initials, or a unique number). If the notice is served on a company, confirm that the ACN is included (section 9). If any of these elements are missing or incorrect, the recipient may have grounds to challenge the notice. Second, check the penalty amount. For an individual, the amount should match the column 4 amount for that item. For a corporation, the amount should be exactly five times that figure. If the amount is incorrect, the notice may be invalid. Third, decide whether to pay or dispute. Payment within the period specified under part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act (usually 28 days, but check that Act) resolves the matter. Make payment to the environment protection authority as directed on the notice. Keep a record of payment. If disputing, the recipient should notify the administering authority in writing that they wish to have the matter heard in court. The notice should indicate how to do this. Be aware that if the court finds the offence proven, the recipient may be liable for the maximum court penalty (column 3, in penalty units) plus the $200 proceeding cost (section 12) and potentially other court costs. Fourth, if served with a reminder notice, pay the original penalty plus the $34 reminder cost unless already paid. Fifth, for authorised officers, ensure that all notices served comply with the identification requirements. If using unique numbers, ensure they have been validly assigned by the environment protection authority. Ensure that the penalty amount for a corporation is correctly multiplied by five. Keep records of all notices served. Sixth, for the administering authority, maintain a register of assigned unique numbers for authorised persons, and update the schedule if the Water Resources Act is amended. Ensure that reminder notices are only served after the initial notice has not been paid within the relevant period. Training of authorised officers on the specific requirements of sections 9, 10, and 11 is essential. Finally, practitioners advising clients should also consult part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act for the full procedural framework, and the Water Resources Act for the elements of the offences. The Regulation alone does not provide the complete picture. Cross‑reference with the Legislation Act for service and interpretation provisions.