via EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Spot fines: All options must be availed | The Herald February 11, 2015
Comments by Justice Francis Bere pointing out the illegality of spot fines being imposed by traffic police with vehicles impounded if the fines are not paid immediately need to be considered carefully, because the judge was not banning deposit fines but rather warning the police that they were in some cases infringing the rights of an accused by demanding the fine even if the motorist contested the charge or wanted time to pay.
Deposit fines were introduced decades ago as a convenience to those who agreed they had committed minor breaches of the law, allowing them to plead guilty and pay a modest fine without having to go to court, and at the same time reducing the workload of courts in dealing with a multitude of minor offences where there was no doubt of guilt.
Those who carefully examine the form they sign when invited to pay a deposit fine will note that there are warnings that you should not plead guilty if you feel you have been wrongfully charged and that you are renouncing your right to be present at your trial if you do plead guilty.
The “fine” you pay is not actually a fine when you pay it, rather it is a deposit towards whatever fine might be imposed subsequently by a magistrate.
Technically there was still a trial, although the accused was not present, but in practice this amounted to little more than a magistrate going through the submitted forms, checking that they had been properly filled out and that the fines were in line with the agreed amounts for these offences, and then confirming the verdict and imposing a fine equal to the deposit.
Your trial might last little more than a minute or two if the paperwork was in order. Obviously a magistrate suspecting abuse of the system, or seeing evidence of malpractice, would raise the alarm and refuse to confirm the verdict or the fine until everything was sorted out.
Generally this did not happen, because the police officer, or television licence inspector, or whoever was authorised to issue the original form did not collect the deposit. You had to go to a police station or, in larger centres, a central fines office, to pay. So someone more senior in the police could check the forms before the money was collected.
The form gave a deadline for payment of the deposit if you wished to plead guilty or, if you wished to face your accusers or plead not guilty, the date of your court appearance; in this case the form acts as a summons. Those who missed the court appearance were arrested on charges of contempt of court, for disobeying a summons.
Spot fines were introduced to smooth the process. The police found that a number of people simply ignored the deadline and had given false home and business addresses.
While they were now subject to arrest, several escaped the net because it was unlikely that a team of detectives could be deployed to track down someone who had failed to pay $10 or announce his intention to contest the charge in court. At the same time many found it convenient, if they agreed they were guilty and had cash in their wallet, to simply pay the fine on the spot, rather than make a special trip to a fines office, sometimes in a strange town, stand in a queue and go through extra bureaucracy.
So far we do not see a problem.
But, as Justice Bere noted, the problem arises when the police insist on collecting the deposit immediately even if the motorist wishes to contest the case or needs time to pay, and impounding the vehicle until the deposit, refundable if there is a not-guilty verdict, is paid.
Here the judge was certain the police are exceeding their rights and was worried that this insistence could allow forced collection of fines from the innocent. The present system might well satisfy justice in 99 percent of cases, but that cannot excuse infringing rights in the other one percent.
The judge was also concerned over reports that the completed forms are no longer being examined by magistrates, that technical trial, and that the police are retaining the fines collected for their own operational requirements in light of what everyone agrees is underfunding in the budget.
It is these matters, rather than the concept of deposit fines or even the convenience to most of optional spot fines, that must now be sorted out with the law changed if there is general agreement.
Such legal changes might well involve severe penalties for giving false names or addresses to the police and some system of collecting fines from foreign drivers breaking the law before they leave the country.
We need a system that punishes those who break the law, even in just a minor fashion, because our road safety is bad enough as it is, but which is legal and which does not involve teams of detectives having to take time from catching thieves and other serious criminals to hunt down people who have yet to pay $10 or go to court.
COMMENTS
So far, I do see a problem. What do you mean by saying spot fines “were introduced”. Specify for us the legislation which “introduced” the spot fines. If you can’t do that, then they are illegal.
Which Editor wrote this nonsense “comment” and why is he so very uneducated ???
He writes – “The present system might well satisfy justice in 99 percent of cases, but that cannot excuse infringing rights in the other one percent.”
Show me a liar and I will show you a thief.
I think we are referring to spot fines ZIMBABWE STYLE. Spot fines mean that police and other officials can punish people for a series of offences ‘on-the-spot’, without legal checks and balances. Criminal offences that would have been tried in court are now often dealt with like a parking ticket. The Police are supposed to issue the ticket with the fine on the spot but to be paid at an official paying point or Police station. The Problem is that in Zimbabwe it has been changed to mean that you must pay the Policeman on the spot and there he will make you fill in an admission of guilt form. That is wrong. For example if the fine for a bad tyre is $20 that should show on the ticket which should be paid at a pay point.
This editorial is patently biased. The scribe of this hogwash has ulterior motives in going to great strides supporting despicable, illegal and corrupt activities by the police. WHY on earth should Zimbabwean motorists be subjected to such blatant abuse by people purported to protect them is best known to this hired propagandist masquerading as an editor. If u have nothing constructive/progressive to write please don’t parade your prejudice. Don’t take people for a ride. Don’t insult our intelligence
What the judge said makes sense in a democratic and normal state but ours is not. The police have become the wittness, the prosecutor and the judge. They, in the process, have conviniently became the benefactors of this foolish arrangement.
With the number of road blocks along our roads one cannot imagine the amount of cash along the roads. It beats the idea of electronic transaction. We thought the idea of road blocks was to enforce the rules of the roads than collect funds for police day to day operations which must be left to treasury. This method denies motorists the right to argue their case in a free and fair environment.
It would be noble if our legislative arm of govt looks into Bere’s comments with seriousness it deserve than be dismissive as Prof. Moyo sounds.
“Spot fines were introduced to smooth the process.” Thus empowering private police pockets-ZimASSET option and modus operandi.
For quite some time, there had been raging debate concerning the collection and retention of spot fines by the police.There is no law that compels motorists to deposit a fine to the police. Any fine and monetary collections made by police should be done in accordance with Section 356 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (Chapter 9:07). That piece of legislation does not support the manner in which the spot fines are being collected and handled by the police.The section does not give the police the power to force a motorist to pay a fine if the motorist does not wish to do so or if he does not have the money on his person.The once respected, responsible and credible Zimbabwe Republic Police has unexpectedly become one of the most disturbingly and unbearably dirty force, unfortunately at a time we seriously need a responsible, professional police force.
The general mandate of the police — enforcing the law, securing peace and order — has been gradually fading as the law enforcers dramatically turned to opportunists and corrupt money-mongers.
It has become public knowledge that the Zimbabwean police is turning roadblocks into money-spinning ventures, worsening most people mistrust of them. When bribery and nepotism rise like how it has in the police force, it doesn’t affect involved parties alone, but the whole nation suffers the consequences. Some people begin to take the law into their own hands the same way police have done, and anarchy slowly grows.Who disagrees that most of our police officers are now absolutely corrupt? Not only on the roads where their corruption now seems normal to many; but in almost all areas. Where one or two officers deal with a case, they can safely change goal posts, demand bribes and release criminals.Form 265 enables the traffic offender to pay the imposed fine at the nearest police station within seven days, failure of which they will be prosecuted.
Snr Asst Comm Mhiripiri condemned the confiscation of driver’s licences by police officers, saying such practice was illegal as there is no law permitting such.
Pointing out that Form 265 gives police headaches in following up on offenders, the police chief said it remained the duty of traffic officers to explain to the motoring public the available options before issuing out a ticket.Snr Asst Comm Mhiripiri said it was regrettable that some traffic police officers were abusing the system by demanding spot fines from traffic offenders, and detaining motorists who would have failed to pay the fines until they raised the required amount.“We used to issue Form 265 left, right and centre. The challenge we then faced was on following up on these fines, most of which are trivial fines. Some motorists gave false information, which made it difficult for us to follow up.“As a convenience for both members of the public and the police we introduced spot fines as an alternative to the Form 265. The idea was to give an option for one to either pay immediately or get a ticket for future payment. Police officers should explain all this to the motoring public.It was believed at the height of the economic crisis they had been authorised to use roadblocks as the force’s main revenue stream. Ever since they were given the permission to keep all their collections, unlike in the past when such collections were remitted to Treasury, the police had gone into overkill. They set up roadblocks literally everywhere much to the inconvenience of the travelling public.In many cases motorists were asked to pay spot fines for the most innocuous reasons. Travellers began to refer to these roadblocks as tollgates, because they served no other purpose that to extort money from the public.The practice didn’t affect only local motorists, tourists too were not spared. During the festive season it became common for tourists to protest through the media the amount of extortion and inconvenience they had to endure.The practice bred corruption as policemen and policewomen demanded bribes. This was easy for them to do since they didn’t have to account to any court of law. Much of the money collected ended in individuals’ pockets. This was evidenced by the fact police details began to exhibit signs of riches. They began to own vehicles which the public knew they could never afford from their meagre salaries. Commuter omnibuses were the worst hit since they had to pay some kind of extra-judicial tax to the ZRP.Most omnibus operators were driven out of business and replaced by police officers who began to own fleets which were immune to these “taxes”.