Warren v Road Transport Authority

[2021] ACAT 31

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

WARREN v ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (Administrative Review) [2021] ACAT 31

AT 9/2021

Catchwords:               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – review of decision to refuse to withdraw infringement notice for disobeying a no stopping sign – particular offence generally considered unsuitable for withdrawal unless exceptional circumstances exist – no exceptional circumstances – decision confirmed

Subordinate

Legislation:Road Transport (General) Withdrawal of Infringement Notices Guidelines 2019 DI2019–211

Tribunal:  Senior Member K Katavic

Date of Orders:  29 March 2021

Date of Reasons for Decision:         20 April 2021

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY          )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          AT 9/2021

BETWEEN:

JOHN THOMAS WARREN

Applicant

AND:

ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Respondent

TRIBUNAL:     Senior Member K Katavic

DATE:29 March 2021

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.The decision dated 27 January 2021 is confirmed.

………Signed………..

Senior Member K Katavic

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.On 17 February 2021, the applicant, John Warren, sought review of a decision of the respondent, the Road Transport Authority, regarding traffic infringement notice 2761326430. The respondent refused to withdraw the infringement notice for disobeying a no stopping sign.

2.On 29 March 2021, the Tribunal heard this application. After hearing from the parties, the Tribunal made orders and gave oral reasons.

3.Those oral reasons are set out below with some minor editing.

4.On 15 April 2020 an inspector driving a licence plate recognition vehicle captured the vehicle, the subject of the infringement notice stopped in a no stopping zone along Anketell Street in Tuggeranong. The applicant concedes he was responsible for the motor vehicle the subject of the infringement notice at the time.

5.The applicant made a request to have the infringement notice withdrawn. On 17 December 2020 that request was refused. The applicant sought internal review of the decision refusing to withdraw the infringement notice. On 27 January 2021, the applicant was advised the respondent had upheld the earlier decision again declining to withdraw the infringement notice.

6.The Tribunal now stands in the shoes of the decision-maker in order to consider whether the decision to uphold the earlier decision refusing to withdraw the infringement notice was correct or preferable. The Tribunal must do so based on the evidence before it at the time of hearing.

7.Directions were made requiring the parties to give to the Tribunal and each other any further evidence upon which they intended to rely upon at the hearing. The applicant lodged a document which I regarded to be both the evidence he wished to give before the Tribunal and a submission. Attached to it were a series of photographs and diagrams. The respondent did not object to the Tribunal accepting the applicant’s document on that basis. He also gave evidence before the Tribunal and was cross-examined.

8.The respondent gave to the Tribunal and the applicant relevant documents upon which the decision was based. These included the image of the vehicle captured by the camera, the inspector’s notes, the infringement notice, the applicant’s request for withdrawal, the original decision refusing withdrawal, the applicant’s request for further internal…