$1600 Covid-19 Lockdown Infringements

[Spidicus]

Hi Sean,

There's been a lot of news about police being able to issue a $1600 infringement to people gathering etc during the Covid-19 lockdown here in Victoria.

I was wondering if you knew under what section of what act the police are using to issue the infringements. I'd like to look them up myself to see the actual wording of the laws etc.

Cheers!

[Gravy]

Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic), section 200. Apparently.

I just so happened to have this document open when I read your question! I found it via a link in a story on The Age.

[Hardy]

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/ ... /s209.html

Haven’t found the bit that let’s police issue the infringement notice.

[Gravy]

Might it be something along the lines of police being authorised officers with a delegation from the Secretary, in a similar way to how police are able to enforce a council's local laws without actually being an employee of the council?

[Gravy]

What a trail of breadcrumbs... but I suppose that's normal for legislation.

From what I can tell as a layperson;
- The document I linked above states that there are penalties under s 203 for not complying with directions.
- Directions are given under "an authorisation given under section 199." This section is about the Chief Health Officer authorising officers appointed by the Secretary.
- Authorised officers are appointed by councils (s29) or the Secretary under section 30.
- Section 30 lists what appear to amount to the requirements to be an authorised officer. Interestingly, this section seems to restrict the Secretary to authorising only persons employed under Part 3 of the Public Administration Act 2004. I can't tell if that includes VicPol or not. Also, authorised officers must carry an ID card signed by the Secretary.

I don't want to detract from or challenge the very important roll that VicPol is playing in present circumstances, nor the need to issue fines to "flogs" (as a certain MP has put it - can't say I disagree with that judgement), though I am curious about the legitimacy of the infringements. It is just as important now as it is at any other time that the governments acts within the law.

[LEO]

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/phawa2008222/s209.html

Haven’t found the bit that let’s police issue the infringement notice.

Section 30 Secretary may appoint authorised officers and those authorised officers can issue infringements.

The Department has been requesting assistance from Authorised officers from all over the public service to become authorised under them and assist with enforcement.

[LEO]

I can't tell if that includes VicPol or not.

Yes it does, Police are public sector.

[Hardy]

https://vpsc.vic.gov.au/about-public-se ... or-bodies/
The Secretary can authorise an individual so only those police who have authorisation can issue the fine, not police generally.
The problem for someone getting a fine is finding out if the person who issued it is authorised or not. If not, what can you really do about it? Complain about it and watch it get fixed? Or take it to court and see if you can win, which is certainly possible on other grounds but unlikely to happen on the authorisation point. And would cost a bit more than $1600 if you use a lawyer.

[Hardy]

I've made a corona virus page on my website that describes the fines situation a bit better.
http://trafficlaw.com.au/covid19.html

[LEO]

Interesting that the girl who was fined in Frankston that made the news https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8194427/Schoolgirl-17-fined-1-652-going-driving-lesson-mum-penalty-dropped.html and later had the fine withdrawn posted a image of the infringement notice.

[ img ]

Seems the police in Frankston have no idea what the offence is either so are just making it as they go along

[LEO]

What no one else picked up the offence they listed??? (yes I know it doesn't matter if it goes to court)

Didn't know there was an offence under the crimes act for this, I am guess the officers thought process was, I have been told its a crime, so most be under the crimes act then.

[Hardy]

Not only is the Crimes Act the wrong legislation "non-essential travel" is not an offence under any legislation.

[benny]

So we can travel anywhere in Victoria to pursue lawful activities?

Example, I live in Seaford and I was planning to go fishing in Ballarat this weekend, maybe even swing the metal detector up in Clunes.

Naturally I would wear face mask and maintain at least 1.5M distance from people.

Cheers

[Gravy]

So we can travel anywhere in Victoria to pursue lawful activities?

No.

I live in Seaford and I was planning to go fishing in Ballarat this weekend, maybe even swing the metal detector up in Clunes.

That would be an offence.

Naturally I would wear face mask and maintain at least 1.5M distance from people.

That makes no difference to the travel issue. I suppose it means you wouldn't be committing a further offence.

[freddie]

Not only is the Crimes Act the wrong legislation "non-essential travel" is not an offence under any legislation.

Assuming you had a runin with our friendly stormtroopers while out and about these days

You are required to produce your license if you are driving a registered vehicle, are you now required to identify yourself if out walking or god forbid sitting on a bench minding your own business in a public place ?

If a question was asked along the lines of "why are you out" are you obliged to answer ? My view would be answering a question like that is potentially self incriminating and the burden of proof should be on the stormtroopers to prove you are violating some "direction" rather than on the individual to prove that they are not.

Can any further action be taken against you if you choose not to answer a question other than providing providing proof of identity ?