Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Imperial Acts Application Act

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by nra303, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. #1 nra303, Mar 2, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2016
    Split from [Vic] Parking Infringment

    It would be worth looking into. Fines issued with out a conviction by a court are not valid. This doesn't mean you can ignore them because they are a commercial claim and certain processes the council could employ may give them access to a security such as some property owned by the individual they are claiming from. Courts are about 99% commercial matters now including many things claimed as crimes which are not.

    Good news is the processes these people use work both ways, also some Federal laws superceed/override state laws due to an inconsistency and where this occurs the state law is null.

    Take a look at aussie speeding fines, no affiliation, they have a face book, which is where most of the discussion on speeding and parking infringements happens. I don't face place so can't see what they are saying. Every know and then I hear some of the discussion read out on a radio show.

    Acts: Imperial Acts Application Act (Vic) - applies throughout Australia - if you want it to. Removed from most other states as a statute.
    Constituion of Australia 1901 - Full faith and credit must be given to the laws of all states. Don't remember the exact section. 50 perhaps?

    Again check the mob I mentioned above. know your rights group is another good one with some stuff on fines. Best of Luck.

    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  2. Its those Pollys conspiring again
  3. Please do not post garbage in this particular forum. If you had a law degree you would understand why your theory is for tossers. To confirm the same, do a little research instead of regurgitating rubbish from a spam website Consumer Affairs has previously issued a warning against.

    Smart v ANZ Bank VSCA [2002]
    Gargan v Magistrate Dillon NSWSC [2005], and/or
    Little v State of Victoria VSCA [1999]

    to name a few of many.

    • Informative Informative x 2
  4. Lolwut!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Complete dribble that never stands the test of a court. In fact 99% of councils and police that receive these letters just feed them straight into the one way fax. The are the holy grail of the lunatic freemans and sovereign citizens. if only they saw the failures of their deity, Scott Cooper
  5. Not sure what your projecting there chopper. FYI No such thing as sovereign citizen, That would be an Oxymoron. You wouldn't bother sending to the police or council, it's a matter for court discussion.

    Noted on the garbage. 8 years now. But that's ok. People can look for themselves or keep it in mind for down the track.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. ok so a couple things.

    Justus, why do you keep answering questions on behalf of other people? Questions not directed to you.

    But seeing as you addressed a question to me, I never said anything about loonies or sovereign citizens at any time. They seem to be comments made when no suitable response came to mind. Its ok though. Anyway I don't think it's anything to be perturbed about.

    Seems to me everything is defensible otherwise there'd be no need for defence lawyers. Or is there something we are not being told by lawyers? I don't know <shrug shoulders> Anyway I'm not here for animosity. Just lurking and reading on peoples bikes and what they are doing to and with them.
  7. Well said I can't believe people believe this rubish. Unless the Commonwealth Government has issued you a traffic infringement not sure how Conmonwealth heads of power come into it.

    And legislation from another state applying on the basis "that you want it to". Hmm I'm sure the court will be persuaded by that argument.

    Please let us know when you want to take a fine to court. I want to watch the show.
  8. Not everything is defensible. A big role of a defence lawyer is to mitigate damage and help get the most lenient sentence in the criminal field or the smallest judgement in the civil field.
  9. Really?

    Link: Imperial Statutes in Australia and New Zealand

    Would rather not waste my time responding to ludicrous statements however to remain silent may give your posts an air of legitimacy to all the readers who are just as gullible and clueless.


    As noted earlier, this theory is for tossers who support this claim by referring to the Imperial Acts Application Act (Vic), Section 8, Division 3, sub-section 12, so lets have a look at what it says:

    "12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void." Link: Section 8 โ€” Imperial Acts Application 1980

    Where do you read that fines without conviction are invalid? It says the grants and promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are void. It does not make the fine or the forfeiture void, just the act of granting or promising them. Understood?

    You need to read the whole act preceeding the section you are focusing on. It outlines and explained how it all works. Parts of the act have current relevance, but not for what you are looking at. You have simply picked up on a term in it referring to fines. This was a reference to old English law, so to understand it further you therefore require knowledge in English legal history dating from 1650 to the present. In short, King James had a habit of granting or promising to his mates the wealth of people he didn't like before they were convicted of treason. To stop this, the Bill of Rights stated that the Crown can't grant or promise a person's wealth or property to anyone until after the person is convicted. Link: Bill of Rights 1689 - Wikipedia

    The law is very clear. A court can, and in fact do fine you with or without imposing a conviction. Refer to Sentencing Act 1991:

    s 49 If a person is found guilty of an offence the court may, subject to any specific provision relating to the offence, fine the offender in addition to or instead of any other sentence to which the offender may be liable.
    s 8(3) A finding of guilt without the recording of a
    (a) does not prevent a court from making any other order that it is authorised to make in consequence of the finding by this or any other Act;
    (b) has the same effect as if one had been recorded for the purpose ofโ€”

    (i) appeals against sentence; or
    (ii) proceedings for variation or contravention of sentence; or
    (iii) proceedings against the offender for a subsequent offence; or
    (iv) subsequent proceedings against the offender for the same offence.

    If by "Fines" you are instead referring to traffic infringement notices, your claim remains false.

    Generally, a fine is imposed by a court. An infringement notice invites you to pay a financial penalty (known as an "infringement penalty"). They are not the same thing even though they can both be referred to as "fines". So when you talk about "fines" in a technical discussion like this you need to be clear about what you mean. Under s 3 Sentencing Act 1991, a fine means:

    "the sum of money payable by an offender under an order of a court made on the offender being convicted or found guilty of an offence and includes costs but does not include money payable by way of restitution or compensation or any costs of or incidental to an application for restitution or compensation payable by an offender under an order of a court."

    Under s 3 Infringements Act 2006 "a fine" means "an infringement penalty" which is a completely different thing. An infringement penalty is totally inconsistent with the recording of a conviction. It is impossible for them both to exist together, so how can anyone possibly demand that the infringement penalty occur only after a conviction? It's simply not possible and makes no sense.

    Here's another Q for you to think about: Infringement notices did not even exist in the Middle Ages, so how is it that you argue that "fine" in the 1689 Bill of Rights or the Imperial Acts Interpretation Act has any relevance to traffic infringement notices in today's society?

    You were given (3) examples of tossers who have wasted the Court's time with rubbish claims. Here's another:

    HIS HONOUR: Yes. Mr Fyffe, do you have anything to say in answer to the application for costs?
    MR FYFFE: No, your Honour. I would like to say something. I understood you to hand down your decision. I did not quite hear it properly, your Honour.
    HIS HONOUR: The transcript will be available once it is settled. It will be available at that time. The summons is dismissed with costs. I will certify for the attendance of counsel.
    MR FYFFE: Your Honour, all I would like to say is this, that the International Court of Justice has indicated that I am right in what I have done and they have indicated they are willing to hear my case.
    HIS HONOUR: Mr Fyffe, do you make some application to me? If you do not, sit down and resume your seat.
    MR FYFFE: I beg your pardon, your Honour.
    HIS HONOUR: I said if you have some application to me, make it. If you do not, resume your seat.
    MR FYFFE: Yes, your Honour. I wish for you to stay that finding until I can make application to the Human Rights Commission.
    HIS HONOUR: Your application is refused.
    MR FYFFE: Thank you, sir.
    HIS HONOUR: Court will adjourn.

    High Court Transcripts: Fyffe v State of Victoria [2000] HCA

    No one has ever won a court case based on such an argument and no one ever will, so unless you can produce a transcript of a court case where a judge has accepted this foolish argument to prove otherwise, please do not waste anymore of our time with this nonsense. Thanks nra303.