Source: http://blog.jp-sa.org/post/jpsa-s-submission-on-government-gazette-39482-aarto-regulations-draft-amendments
Timestamp: 2017-02-20 15:22:54
Document Index: 458590484

Matched Legal Cases: ['ARTO 03', 'ARTO\n03', 'ARTO 01', 'ARTO 02', 'ARTO 03', 'ARTO 03', 'ARTO 03', 'ARTO 03', 'ARTO 03', 'ARTO\n03', 'ARTO 03', 'ARTO 03', 'ARTO 01', 'ARTO 02', 'ARTO 01', 'ARTO 02', 'ARTO 03', 'ARTO 08', 'ARTO 08', 'ARTO 08', 'ARTO 10', 'ARTO 03', 'ARTO 07', 'ARTO 03']

Justice Project South Africa | JPSA's submission on government gazette 39482 AARTO Regulations draft amendments
← Planning your journey – it’s not as simple as it used to be Understanding a little about bail and the criminal justice system →
0001ATTENTION: Mr Sello Mokubyane and Adv N Thoka PER EMAIL TO: MokubyaS@dot.gov.za and Thokan@dot.gov.za
No. 39482, NOTICE No. 1204, 7 DECEMBER
Our Ref: GG 39482 Comments Tuesday, 29 December 2015
Dear Sirs,PUBLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
OF ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES ACT, 1998, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION OF ROAD TRAFFIC
OFFENCES AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 2008 FOR COMMENTS
1. We refer to the proposed amendments to the Administrative
Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Amendment Regulations, 2008 tabled in
Notice No. 1204 of 2015 in Government Gazette No. 39482 of Monday 7 December,
2015. 1.1. Justice
Project South Africa hereby submits the following comments and inputs on the
proposed amendments contained in the aforementioned notice for your
consideration. 2. At the outset we wish to thank the Department
of Transport and SANRAL for finally acknowledging that prosecutions for e-toll violations are indeed subject to the
provisions of the AARTO Act and Regulations and NOT the Criminal Procedure Act as was pointed out in our lawyers’ letter
dated 26 November 2013. This is evident by the contents of the proposed
amendments tabled in this gazette, the purpose of which is quite obviously
intended to incorporate the prosecution of e-toll infringements. 3. This said the proposed
amendments to the AARTO Regulations contained in this gazette are hugely problematic
in a number of areas, which we shall address hereunder under separate headings.4. Amendment
of regulation 3 of the Regulations.4.1. The
“An infringement notice contemplated in
section 17(1) of the Act shall be issued and served or caused to be served to
the infringer by registered mail, on a form similar to forms AARTO 03 and AARTO
03e as shown in Schedule 1, within [40 days] 90 days of the commission of the infringement.”4.2. The
proposed amendment of Regulation 3 is problematic in a number of ways, not
least of which is the fact that Regulation 3(1)(a) has been left unaltered and the
AARTO 01 and AARTO 02 forms used for personal service of an infringement notice
do not cater for the multiple counts of alleged infringements the new, and legally
invalid AARTO 03e form caters for.4.3. The
proposed amendment of Regulation 3(1)(b) is furthermore problematic insofar as
the proposed extension of the period in which an AARTO 03 (or AARTO 03e)
infringement notice must be issued and served is to be more than doubled – from
40 to 90 days. This is quite simply, ludicrous.4.3.1. The registered mail service offered by the
South African Post Office is more than capable of serving an infringement
notice upon an alleged infringer in a lot less than 10 days if the issuing
authorities and the RTIA were to bother to use it. Sadly they don’t and thereby
violate both, Section 30(1) of the AARTO Act and Regulation 3(1)(b) of the
AARTO Regulations.4.3.2. We remind you that Section 30(2) of the AARTO
Act states as follows: “A document which is sent by registered mail in terms of
subsection (1), is regarded to have been served on the infringer on the tenth
day after the date which is stamped upon the receipt issued by the post office
which accepted the document for registration, unless evidence to the contrary
is adduced, which may be in the form of an affidavit”. We are aware of the
minor amendment to this provision in the AARTO Amendment Bill, 2015 which
changes the word “regarded” to the word “deemed”, however this has little
influence on the matter.4.3.3. In light of this provision in the originating
Act, it is not unreasonable to assume that it is now being proposed that issuing
authorities should be allowed 80 days
to issue an AARTO 03 or AARTO 03e infringement notice. In this regard we refer
you to paragraph 6.1(b) of the December 2012 TCSP prosecuting guidelines for
speed measuring and traffic light violation monitoring equipment which holds that “a notice in terms of section 341 of
the Criminal Procedure Act, 55 of 1977, shall be posted to the licensed owner
of the motor vehicle within 30 days of the date of the offence, or where AARTO
is in place, in accordance to AARTO legislation”. 4.3.3.1. Of course we are aware of the latter part of
that provision which says “or where AARTO
is in place, in accordance to AARTO legislation”, however point out that
having two separate periods within which an infringement notice must be issued
would not pass constitutional muster albeit that the method of postage differs
in practical application. 4.3.3.2. Besides anything else, the intention of the 40
days was to allow issuing authorities to continue to be sloppy in issuing infringement
notices timeously by giving them 30 days to do so, and then further allowing
the South African Post Office 10 days to serve them on infringers by registered
mail. This would be in line with the requirements of the TCSP with respect to
camera fines.4.3.4. Allowing a period of 90 days to elapse before
an alleged infringer is so much as made aware of the fact that he or she has
allegedly infringed is quite simply unconscionable and malicious in the extreme
and/or shows that the legislators have absolutely no idea of what the practical
implications of enacting laws are.4.3.4.1. As things stand, alleged infringers only become
aware of alleged camera-based infringements significantly after the fact and are therefore grossly prejudiced
by the inefficiencies of both, the issuing authorities and the South African
Post Office.4.3.4.2. This is particularly relevant in roads like Main
Road (M71) in Kyalami where the JMPD has changed the speed limit from 80km/h to
60km/h then back up to 80km/h on several occasions and seemingly in the pursuit
of greater fines revenues. This is not
the only place where this happens, but it is a good example.4.3.4.3. A person who fails to notice this speed limit
reduction and drives along that road to and from work daily would, over a
period of 80 days, incur at least 58 infringement notices (29 in each
direction) for driving at 80km/h along that stretch of road.4.3.4.4. The penalty amount for each infringement would
be R500 at the undiscounted penalty, with 1 demerit point applicable to each infringement
under charge code 4543 in Schedule 3 of the AARTO Regulations. 4.3.4.5. In other words, what you are proposing is that
a person should be allowed to build up R29,000 (R14,500 after discount) in
fines and 58 demerit points, representing a 138 month (11½ years) ban on
driving before even becoming aware that they have allegedly infringed and being
granted the opportunity to adjust their behaviour. Surely you cannot be
serious!4.3.5. The same goes for e-toll infringements, which
we might add appears to be the primary reason for the drafting of these proposed
amendments.4.3.5.1. Should an alleged infringer’s vehicle have
passed under 100 gantries in the 80 day period you propose to allow for an AARTO
03e infringement notice to be issued, they will incur an undiscounted penalty
amount of R25,000 (R12,500 discounted) before
they are made aware of the fact that a single alleged infringement exists.
Again, surely you cannot be serious!4.3.6. We respectfully remind the Department of
Transport that “justice delayed is
justice denied” and the concept of waiting 90 days (THREE MONTHS) to inform
a person of their alleged infringement is the personification of this principle.
of Schedule 1 of the Regulations5.1. We
take note of the proposed AARTO 03e form entitled “INFRINGEMENT NOTICE MULTIPLE
CAMERA OR ELECTRONICALLY CAPTURED INFRINGEMENTS” as contemplated in this government gazette.5.2. The title
of this form implies that issuing authorities will be allowed to use it for “multiple
speed and red light camera” violations, as well as for e-tolling infringements.5.3. For
reasons stated supra it is our belief
that this form is both unconscionable and malicious. We are however also of the
opinion that it is unlawful, since it contravenes and/or paralyses other provisions
contained in the AARTO Act.5.4. The
form only makes provision for a single photograph
and then states that “More photos of vehicle at above locations can be viewed
at www.aarto.gov.za”.5.4.1. This presupposes that every single motorist has
access to and knows how to use the internet, which presupposition is neither
correct nor lawful.5.4.2. Nowhere in the National Road Traffic Act, the
National Road Traffic Regulations or the AARTO Act is there any prescript that
any person who holds a driving licence or owns a motor vehicle must have access to the internet or even
so much as own any device, including but not limited to a cell phone capable of
accessing the internet.5.4.3. It is submitted that any charge sheet,
including an AARTO infringement notice which seeks to prosecute road traffic
infringements must contain all of
the relevant information to allow an alleged infringer to properly understand
and answer the charge thereon. For this reason, a single image of a motor
vehicle with a single image of the number plate of the vehicle alleged to have
been uses in the commission of an infringement is not sufficient on an infringement notice, unless that infringement notice pertains only to one alleged infringement.5.4.4. Additionally, it is evident that the legislator
has never visited the aarto.gov.za website whereon the images displayed thereon
measure 300 pixels by 176 pixels, with the underlying image measuring 150
pixels by 112 pixels, thus rendering them completely useless to anyone wishing
to look at them in any detail. An example of each of these images in their actual sizes appears below:5.4.5. The burden of proof when accusing a person of wrongdoing
always resides with the accuser and not with the accused and it is quite
simply unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional for anyone to hold otherwise.5.5. It is
submitted that this proposed AARTO 03e form violates the prescripts of the
AARTO Act in many ways, thus rendering it unlawful.5.5.1. Section 17(1)(b) of the AARTO Act states that “If a person is alleged to have committed
an infringement, an authorised officer or a person duly authorised by an
issuing authority, must instead of a notice contemplated in section 56 or 341
of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977), and subject to
section 23, serve or cause to be served on that person an infringement notice (singular),
which must state the prescribed particulars
of the infringement (singular)”. (my
emphasis)5.5.1.1. This provision caters for one infringement notice per alleged infringement, not for a combination of alleged
infringements, or counts thereof to be included on a single infringement notice.
5.5.1.2. It is conceded that the current AARTO 01 and AARTO 02 documents do cater for three separate infringements on each
form, however they also contain three
separate infringement notice numbers.5.5.2. Section 17(1)I of the AARTO Act states that “If a
person is alleged to have committed an infringement, an authorised officer or a
person duly authorised by an issuing authority, must instead of a notice
contemplated in section 56 or 341 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No.
51 of 1977), and subject to section 23, serve or cause to be served on that person an infringement notice (singular), which must specify the amount of the prescribed penalty (singular) payable in respect of that infringement,
the issuing the authority to which
the penalty is payable (singular) and
the place where the penalty (singular) may be paid”. (my emphasis)5.5.2.1. This provision does not cater for multiple penalties payable, nor does it cater
for a grand total to be presented as would be the case on an invoice. This is
supposed to be an infringement notice, not
an invoice.5.5.2.2. It is conceded that the current AARTO 01 and AARTO 02 documents also cater for a grand
total, however, this does not detract from the fact that the total in question
is for three separate infringement
notice numbers.5.5.3. Section 17(1)(f)(i) states that “If a person is alleged to have committed an infringement (singular), an authorised officer or a person duly
authorised by an issuing authority, must instead of a notice contemplated in
section 56 or 341 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977), and
subject to section 23, serve or cause to be served on that person an
infringement notice, which must inform the infringer that, not later than 32
days after the date of service of the infringement notice, the infringer may pay the penalty (singular), as reduced by the discount contemplated in
paragraph (d), or make
representations to the agency, in the case of a minor infringement”.
(my emphasis)5.5.3.1. This proposed AARTO 03e infringement notice,
whilst seemingly complying with this prescript does not in fact comply
therewith, insofar as it caters for 100 alleged infringements.5.5.3.2. Should an alleged infringer wish to make
representation on any one or more of the counts of the alleged infringement, he
or she will have to do so on an AARTO 08 representation form, thereby challenging
all of the counts which appear on
that infringement notice.5.5.3.3. An AARTO 08 representation form makes provision
for only a single infringement
notice number and a single date of
infringement. This is relevant insofar as the infringement notice number goes.5.5.3.3.1. Should that infringer’s representation be successful,
the entire infringement notice including all
counts thereon must be
cancelled since Section 18(6) of the AARTO Act which states that “If the representations are allowed the agency must forthwith cancel the
infringement notice (singular), and
inform the infringer in the prescribed manner of the decision”. (my
emphasis)5.5.3.4. As stated supra, an AARTO 08 representation
form does not cater for multiple counts of the same alleged infringement on
different days. It therefore stands to reason that should an alleged infringer
have a valid and provable representation to make on a single count thereon, for
example, “my vehicle was in another City on that day”, then the representation
cannot be lawfully made unsuccessful.5.5.4. Section 17(1)(f)(iv) states that “If a person is alleged to have committed an infringement (singular), an authorised officer or a person duly
days after the date of service of the infringement notice, the infringer may elect in the prescribed manner to be
tried in court on a charge of having committed the alleged offence (singular)” (my emphasis)5.5.4.1. Should an alleged infringer wish to elect to be
tried in court on one count thereon but wish to admit guilt on another, he or
she may not do so.5.5.4.2. An AARTO 10 election to be tried in court
document caters for a single
infringement notice number and a single date
of infringement. It therefore stands to reason that an alleged infringer must
elect to be tried in court on all counts, or not elect to be tried in court,
thereby depriving him or her the right to face his or her accuser in court as
is enshrined in Section 35 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.5.5.5. Section 17(1)(f)(v) states that “If a person is alleged to have committed an infringement (singular), an authorised officer or a person duly
days after the date of service of the infringement notice, the infringer may provide information, in the
prescribed manner, to the satisfaction of the issuing authority that he or she
was not the driver of the motor vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement,
coupled with the name, acceptable identification and residential and postal
address of the alleged driver or person in control of the vehicle” (my
emphasis)5.5.5.1. This particular prescript is of great relevance
to fleet owners and in particular, car hire companies where it is unlikely, if
not impossible that a single driver would have been the same driver in each and
every count cited on this proposed AARTO 03e document.5.5.5.2. The AARTO 07 “nomination of driver or person in
control” document makes provision for a single
of alleged infringement.5.5.5.3. Fleet owners and car hire companies would
thereby be denied the ability to nominate the driver of that vehicle on a particular
day if more than one person drives that vehicle. The same goes for any person
who allows more than one other person to drive their motor vehicle.5.6. It is
our submission that the sole purpose of this proposed, but clearly unlawful
form can only be seen to be a feeble
attempt to save the issuing authorities, and in particular, SANRAL money on
postage by attempting to circumvent the provisions of the AARTO Act and Regulations,
thereby maximising profiteering from
road traffic “enforcement” with
absolutely no regard being paid to road safety, or indeed, saving lives. 6. Amendment
of Schedule 3 of the Regulations.6.1. The
proposed amendment of charge codes 3820 and 3821, despite going against the
grain of every other infringement listed in Schedule 3 of the AARTO Regulations
insofar as the demerit points under column 7 thereof and applicable to all other
infringements with a penalty of R500 being one demerit point goes, are noted
and we have no objection to this amendment.7. Amendment of Schedule 4 of the Regulations.7.1. The
amendments herein are noted and we have no objections thereon.8. Conclusion8.1. It is
clear that, save for the schedule of issuing authorities contained therein, the
proposed amendments tabled in this government
gazette are intended solely to facilitate the prosecution of e-toll “offenders” and ensure that the
proliferation of speed cameras which contribute nothing to road safety but
everything to the coffers of issuing authorities and the RTIA alike continues
to spiral out of control.8.2. Furthermore,
it is clear that these proposed amendments have been drafted without due, or
more accurately, any regard to the
contents of the AARTO Act so much as being considered.8.3. We
therefore urge you to take very seriously the contents of our submission and
rather stick to the tried, tested and lawful method of issuing and serving
AARTO 03 infringement notices, albeit that not one issuing authority nor the
RTIA has served a single AARTO document by registered
mail in compliance with the prescripts and from the inception of the
AARTO Act, instead of attempting to take unlawful shortcuts and maximise
profits for greedy issuing authorities.8.4. Should
the Department of Transport decide to proceed to promulgate these draft Regulations, we shall be left with no alternative but to seek relief in the
Yours sincerely; towards safer roads and Justice
for all who use them, Howard DembovskyChairperson - Justice Project South Africa (NPC)Please consider joining JPSA if you are not already a member so we may continue to bring you information the authorities choose to withhold from you. Believe it or not, we too have expenses. You can join JPSA at https://www.jp-sa.org/join.asp.
Tags : Legislation, Draft Regulations, AARTO, Democratic Processes, Abuse of process, e-tolls, eTolls
461a7b2e-258e-4f87-af95-c1e638b221f5|5|5.0|96d5b379-7e1d-4dac-a6ba-1e50db561b04
0001ATTENTION:
Mr Sello Mokubyane and Adv N. ...
0001PER E...