WA Traffic Law - Worth Contesting No Seat Belt Fine?

[lmoores]

Hi

I was looking for a little help please.

My husband was in a taxi that got stopped for the driver to be breathalysed. After a short while the officer looked in the rear of the taxi and as my husband was not wearing his seat belt at the time gave him a fine. However the vehicle was stationary and had been for some time so he had already removed his seat belt. So basically it's his word against the officer, so is it worth taking the matter to traffic law court?

Many thanks

 

[Lance]

Hi,

Were there two police officers who are likely to give supporting testimony? What would the taxi driver say and would they be willing to provide a statement supporting your husband? Is your husband of good community standing (clean record) and how would his statement stand up against the police statement?

I'm just saying there are a number of questions to be answered before you can answer that question.

 

[imanlore]

Hi

I was looking for a little help please.

My husband was in a taxi that got stopped for the driver to be breathalysed. After a short while the officer looked in the rear of the taxi and as my husband was not wearing his seat belt at the time gave him a fine. However the vehicle was stationary and had been for some time so he had already removed his seat belt. So basically it's his word against the officer, so is it worth taking the matter to traffic law court?

Many thanks

Just ask a simple question in your claim - who is the man claiming I did wrong?

No man will appear. The police prosecutor has to swear under oath and affirmation that you did him wrong. He won't do it

 

[Tim W]

just ask simple question in your claim
who is the man claiming i do wrong
no man will appear
the police prosecutor has to swear under oath and affirmation that you did him wrong
he wont do it

The suggestion in the post quoted above is not reliable.

Unless there is footage from the in-taxi security camera (if there even is one),
that supports your husband's claim, then he has nothing.
My usual opinion in such cases is to pay the fine and move on with your life.

 

[imanlore]

The suggestion in the post quoted above is not reliable.

Unless there is footage from the in-taxi security camera (if there even is one),
that supports your husband's claim, then he has nothing.
My usual opinion in such cases is to pay the fine and move on with your life.

get the lawyer to read out the code
all traffic codes use the word "shall" it means some time in the future there's your loop hole
point this out
case closed

 

[Tim W]

get the lawyer to read out the code
all traffic codes use the word "shall" it means some time in the future...

No, this is not correct.

 

[imanlore]

No, this is not correct.

what part

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

The "shall" part. Shall means must.

Or (and I don't know why I'm about to actually do this) to use your reasoning, it could mean "in the future". However, that is on the basis that it pertains to all things happening in the future from when the instrument was created. That follows the rule that all legislation is prospective unless specifically determined to apply retrospectively. Therefore the act in question did happen "in the future" from the time when the instrument was created. No loophole - legislation working as intended.

 

[imanlore]

The "shall" part. Shall means must.

Or (and I don't know why I'm about to actually do this) to use your reasoning, it could mean "in the future". However, that is on the basis that it pertains to all things happening in the future from when the instrument was created. That follows the rule that all legislation is prospective unless specifically determined to apply retrospectively. Therefore the act in question did happen "in the future" from the time when the instrument was created. No loophole - legislation working as intended.

i dont doubt your beliefs on that word
i dont understand your words, legalese is doublespeak
do you mean must is like order

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

What it means is that where you read 'shall', it has the same effect as the word 'must'.

For example: "You shall not go faster than the speed limit" can be read as "you must not go faster than the speed limit".

The effect is a provision which uses shall or must denotes it as a mandatory requirement. This is as opposed to the use of the word may, which denotes it is optional.