Bulletin

Issue: August 2004

News

Fundamental flaws in PERIN Court

The second report by La Trobe Law students was a discussion paper on the PERIN Court.

It found that the court, used to collect unpaid on-the-spot fines, may not be fair in its dealings with the poor, homeless, sick, mentally ill, illiterate and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds.

The PERIN (Penalty Enforcement by Registration of Infringement Notice) Court was established in 1986. Almost 130 agencies, including police, municipalities, EPA, City Link - even universities - often delegate to the court collection of unpaid fines for offences ranging from illegal parking to non-payment of fares.

One problem, says the La Trobe Law report, is that offenders may not receive infringement notices because they do not have a fixed address. Other problems are that they cannot pay fines because they are poor, illiterate, mentally or physically ill, or cannot understand what the infringement notice means.

The problem is exacerbated because a failure to respond to the infringement notice generally leads to further costs and penalties - often greatly exceeding the original fine, and even imprisonment. An initial fine of $51 can blow out to $163 if not paid. In addition, offenders do not have the option of paying a fine in instalments until it has reached the PERIN Court.

The report acknowledges the Enforcement Review Program inaugurated by the Melbourne Magistrates Court and Sheriff's Office to identity offenders with 'special circumstances' who have incurred a number of infringements.

While it notes that the PERIN system works for most people, despite some fundamental problems, the report makes 19 recommendations to improve its efficiency.

These include a cap on penalties, infringement notices in plain English with translations into other languages, and the revocation of fines when an offender's income is a below a certain level.

back to top

back contents next