CARR Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - - to open the entire CARR website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein


CARR does not condone dangerous speeding and there is a difference between driving at a high speed safely and competently and driving at dangerous speeds for the conditions. However, state governments have imposed speed limits (some really stupid) but nevertheless we are required to comply with them. But state governments have found that they can make many millions of dollars by extorting money from motorists in the way of penalties by placing revenue-raising speed and red light cameras everywhere and rigging conditions that frustrate motorists into speeding and thus being booked.

State governments have made this racket work by passing laws that completely violate all tenets of proper jurisprudence and flout the requirements of the Australian Constitution that is the highest law in Australia. The only way that they have got away with these travesties is because most motorists have no idea of the law and no idea of their legal rights.


The Victorian Road Safety Act s84BC permits and encourages employees of the Victorian government to presume guilt without due legal process or conviction of an offender by a court of competent jurisdiction. This idiotic and unsustainable law states:

How on earth can a person be deemed guilty of a criminal offence without first having been found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction? How can a person be declared guilty merely because he owned a vehicle or trailer that may have been pinged by a camera that may even have been defective at the time? This is Star Chamber material and this sort of miscarriage of justice was outlawed some centuries ago.

This insane law allegedly allows public servants such as police and infringement bureau personnel to impose fines without complying with any established due legal process and also violates the accused person's legal, constitutional and civil rights. Therefore as Justice Latham of the High Court would have described it, the Victorian Road Safety Act is complete and utter garbage and is a pretend law that anybody is entitled to ignore. All Australian states have similar pretend laws and they all need to be confronted and beaten.


So if you do not wish to be a victim of this government extortion, the most important thing to understand is that you have a number of legal rights and nobody can take them away from you.

  1. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE – You are INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction. Until the state prosecutes you and a magistrate or judge finds you guilty of an offence, you cannot be penalised in any way.

  2. THE RIGHT TO SILENCE – Infringement notices make all sorts of demands, that the receiver MUST either confess to the alleged offence or nominate a responsible person – in other words, rat somebody out. But the truth is that no person is required or compelled to say one single word or cooperate with the state or police and cannot be penalised for upholding their right to silence.

  3. RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PROVIDE ANYTHING THAT MAY TEND TO INCRIMINATE THEM – An infringement notice carries the demand that the receiver MUST provide a statutory declaration or affidavit nominating another person as the driver if the receiver was not actually driving the vehicle that was pinged by the speed camera and threats of penalties are attached to this demand. This is a completely hollow threat, because no accused person is compelled to provide anything that may tend to incriminate them and cannot be penalised for upholding this legal right.

To raise revenue by ripping off motorists, the government has installed hundreds of speed cameras that photograph vehicles that are allegedly speeding. Then the government sends out demands for money with menaces – dire threats of penalties and even worse if the recipients do not succumb to these threats. The most important thing to understand that NONE of these threats have any legal force of law behind them – they are merely bits of paper. The scam operates in much the same way in all states, but let’s examine the Victorian government scam in order.


The Victorian government has literally institutionalised a blatant scam against motorists by passing a swag of illegal and unsustainable laws and setting up a corrupt system where motorists are targeted and intimidated into paying penalties without any consideration for due legal process. To that end, the Victorian government has handed the issuing of fines to a private company, Civic Compliance Victoria (ABN 68 122 448 122), which was operated by Tenix Solutions, another private company (ABN 47 126 390 378) that was formerly owned by the very wealthy Salteri family.

Tenix Solutions, the company that issued infringement notices and infringement warrants, was formerly owned by a family-owned company of the Salteri family. According to the BRW Rich 200 list, the Salteri family was ranked as the 7th wealthiest family in Australia ($1.18 Billion). So the Salteris had obviously been funded by the fines that they managed to extort from motorists by issuing them with penalty notices that were not worth the paper that they were printed on and they relied on scaring them into paying without adhering to any due process of law.


The Victorian Infringements Court government gazetted address is different to the one that appears on their return mail address. In fact this bogus court uses three addresses.

None of these premises can accommodate or actually do hold court hearings, so this so-called court is not a court at all. It is effectively a Star Chamber that convicts motorists without a properly bonded magistrate hearing traffic matters and does not give defendants the legal right to confront their accusers or any opportunity to present their defence or rebuttals to the allegations.

All proper Australian courts must function in accordance with the Australian Courts Act (1828) and the Australian Constitution Act, or more accurately an Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (9th July 1900) Chapter 3. The Victorian Infringements Court does not operate at all under any of these Acts, therefore it is completely bogus. There are no premises where traffic infringement hearings are held and that is the most important thing to know when dealing with any infringements issued by this so-called court. If there is no hearing (trial), then there can be no penalty imposed and it's as simple as that.

The Victorian Infringements Court completely violates the Australian Constitution that guarantees citizens a fair trial. It issues automatic infringement notices and infringement warrants that allegedly empower the Victorian Sheriff to penalise motorists by seizing their vehicles, preventing the re-registration of those vehicles and other punitive measures. This occurs before the accused people have been brought before a properly convened court presided by a magistrate with a valid bonding certificate and writ of commission and convicted of any offences, thus violating their presumption of innocence. Therefore, what the Victorian Infringements Court is doing is highly illegal.

Not only that, the Victorian Infringements Act 2006 under which the Victorian Infringements Court operates and allegedly assumes its authority has been validly challenged by Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka on 23 February 2011. Accordingly, it is Ultra Vires until or unless a court declares it otherwise. It has been challenged on Constitutional grounds and therefore no court can hear or determine any case involving the Infringements Act 2006.


The victim of the extortion attempt will receive the infringement notice that will accuse him of committing an offence and will impose a fine. At this point, this is meaningless because no conviction has been recorded. That is the most important thing, to understand that under our legal system, a person cannot be punished in any way until he is proven to be guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. So this is what is on the infringement notice.

That is the first extortion attempt and it is vitally important for the receiver of such nonsense to NEVER be tempted to ring up the Infringement Bureau and try to argue about it. The most important method of dealing with these matters is to lay a paper trail – all contact must be made in writing. The infringement bureau has no evidence against the owner of a car – all they have is a photo. However, all their responses to the accused person can be used as evidence, whereas a phone call can be denied.

So if you get a camera infringement notice, just follow the methods outlined on the CARR website and use the template letter in the Downloads section. What will invariably happen is that you will receive a reply that completely ignores every issue raised in that template letter, even when every issue is valid. You will be threatened with an Enforcement Order.


If you have stared them down with that template letter, the state will refer the infringement notice to the Infringements Court. Please understand that the Victorian Infringements Court is not a court at all – it is a computer. There are no bonded magistrates at this so-called court, but registrars who are just flunkies in charge of that computer. At this point in the proceedings, it still must be understood that until a person is brought before a court of competent jurisdiction and convicted, no penalty can be imposed.

This enforcement order is another pile of hollow threats that claims to enforce the penalty in some way and impose additional costs. This order states that if the penalty is not paid within 28 days, an Infringement Warrant will be issued. One has to ask – what the hell can an Infringement Warrant do, when there has still not been any conviction for any offence? Well this is how the scam is perpetuated.


The Infringements Court may issue an infringement warrant, giving the sheriff power to enforce that warrant. They claim that a sheriff's officer may exercise any of his enforcement powers. For example, he may wheel clamp a vehicle or prevent the renewal of a vehicle registration. Of course this is completely beyond his powers, because until a person has been convicted of a criminal offence in a court of competent jurisdiction (all traffic offences are criminal offences), no penalty can be imposed.

Therefore if a sheriff's officer tries to clamp your car wheel or prevent the renewal of your registration, he is acting completely outside the law, as you have not yet been brought before a court and the Infringements Court is not a real court anyway because it does not give you an opportunity to appear in person before this court and present your defence.

Regarding any forfeiture of property, such as wheel clamping, garnisheeing of wages or any other similar penalty, there is a very important precedent - Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson (2014) HCA 13 (10 April 2014), where it is confirmed that only a court of competent jurisdiction can forfeit property. Therefore you can wave this precedent under the nose of the Sheriff and tell him in no uncertain terms that if he so much as tries to do anything to you that constitutes forfeiture of property before a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a forfeiture order after conviction, then he will find himself in a lot of legal trouble.


So if you receive a penalty notice from Civic Compliance Victoria and you refuse to pay it and you receive an infringement notice from the Victorian Infringements Court and you still dispute it, you will receive an enforcement order and then an infringement warrant. Once the matter goes that far, you need to send a very strong letter to the Victorian Infringements Court and demand to know the following:

  1. Which court of competent jurisdiction issued this Enforcement Order?
  2. On which date was my hearing held?
  3. In which building and at which address was my hearing held?
  4. What was the name of the magistrate presiding over this court?
  5. Did this magistrate have a valid bonding certificate and writ of commission to enable him to convict me?
  6. Did I appear at that hearing in person and be given the legal right to face my accusers?
  7. Was I given the legal right to cross-examine any Crown witnesses, as required by due process of law?
  8. Was I given the opportunity to present my defence in person, as legally required?
  9. Did this magistrate convict me of any offence in my presence?
  10. Did this magistrate impose any penalty on me in my presence?

If the answers to any of those questions cannot be properly answered to show that due process of law was complied with, then any conviction imposed on you is null and void. Traffic offences are all criminal matters and due process of law must be followed in all instances, according to the Constitution of Australia, the highest law in the nation that entitles you to a fair trial. Being railroaded by a bullshit court without you even being present is not due legal process in any shape or form and cannot be sustained.

So if you get this pack of hollow threats that end with that Infringement Warrant, write back to the sender and tell them in no uncertain terms that until you have been duly convicted of that traffic offence by being personally brought before a court of competent jurisdiction and had been given the the legal right to defend yourself before a magistrate that had the authority to pass judgements and were given the opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses, you are innocent until proven guilty and no penalty of any sort can be imposed against you in any way.


It is very important to understand that there is no Star Chamber system of law in this nation where a person can be convicted of a criminal offence in absentia. However, the South Australian Supreme Court ruled that this does not apply to summary offences. In other words, this court has sanctified a person being accused of an offence and being convicted of that offence without him being present in a court to defend himself.

The NSW courts have also convicted defendants in absentia when they have not appeared on the dates of court appearances on summonses served on them. But hhat is beyond being wrong, because regardless of anything else, nobody should ever be convicted of anything in their absence. If defendants do not show up at their court hearings, then the proper procedure should be for the magistrates to issue arrest warrants and have those defendants forcibly brought before the courts.

The Quick and Garran Annotated Constitution is the definitive reference and analysis of the Australian Constitution, which is the highest law in the land and overrides all conflicting federal and state statutes. On page 1266 of In this renowned reference work covering the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1901) section 51, subsection 24, it states that "no man can be legally bound by a judgement given behind his back".


So is the Constitution, the highest law in the land wrong, or was the South Australian Supreme Court wrong with its ruling that conviction in absentia was acceptable in summary offences? To CARR, it is very clear that the Constitution overrides all lower laws and statutes, therefore any person who has been convicted of ANY offence in absentia should immediately move to have the conviction struck out. There is absolutely no ambiguity as to the clear meaning of this provision in the Australian Constitution and it must always be invoked where necessary.


There are a number of High Court precedents that prove that conviction in absentia cannot be sustained.


Australia is a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UNCPR) on 18 December 1972 and ratified the covenant as binding in Australia on 13th August 1980. Note should be taken of both binding Article 14 (3)(d), and Article 14 (3)(e).

The UNCPR Article 14 states the following:

All those High Court precedents and the fact that Australia is legally bound to observe the provisions of the UNCPR prove beyond doubt that all courts in Australia cannot convict a person in absentia. In ALL cases in the criminal jurisdiction, an accused person MUST be brought to the court - IN PERSON - and be afforded all due legal process of law. A PERIN Court violates all those principles of law and therefore any conviction it imposes in the absence of a defendant is illegal and unsustainable and therefore any penalty it imposes in these circumstances cannot be enforced.

If this happens to you, it has to be fought tooth and claw and you need to let these scammers know that you are onto them and that you are not going to allow them to get away with violating the entire legal system in order to extort money from you. Furthermore, you can state that unless they answer all your questions with precision, you will not respond to any further correspondence. Tell them that if they very foolishly decide to try to penalise you without due legal process and the requirements of the Australian Constitution being observed to the letter, you will certainly take the matter higher and prove to a REAL court of competent jurisdiction that your legal rights and due process of law have been violated and that you will seek full redress under the Laws of Tort.

What will happen is that the infringement bureau or the police will probably ignore your letter and your demand for answers to your questions and proceed to issue more threats. If you get any more of these, send them a final letter, stating that you are not going to bandy correspondence around and if they wish to take any form of action against you, it must do so by following due process of law and that you will ensure that will hold them to the very letter of the law at every step of the way.


As stated above, the Victorian Infringements Court is a computer that is tended to by flunkies called Registrars. This so-called court can only operate if people succumb to its hollow threats. There is only ONE legal way that a penalty can be imposed for a camera offence and that is for the state to prosecute a person IN PERSON and prove – BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – that this person was the actual driver at the exact time of the offence. If the state has no evidence against the accused person in the form of positive identification, admission or photo of that person behind the wheel, the state has no valid case.

The state has passed “deeming” laws that attempt to make a vehicle owner responsible for traffic offences committed in his vehicle, but of course this is completely unsustainable. The state could pass a law that makes the owner of an axe responsible for a murder committed with that axe, without having to prove that the owner actually committed the crime. No prosecution would be crazy enough to even go there, but with traffic offences, that is exactly what every Australian state has done.

That does not mean that just because they passed these stupid and essentially unsustainable laws, that they can be used to convict people unless people ALLOW themselves to be conned into being convicted by unsustainable pretend laws. It must be noted that plenty of laws have been struck down by the High Court, so just because a state passes a law, that does not make it valid if it does not conform to the Australian Constitution and other pillars of our legal system.

In the famous Uniform Taxation Case, Justice Latham of the High Court of Australia (the highest court in the land) stated:

What Justice Latham really meant by that statement is that any law that does not comply with the Constitution of Australia and due legal process under our system of jurisprudence is a pretend law and cannot be enforced or sustained. Therefore any law that tries to abrogate a person’s right to the presumption of innocence, the right to silence and the right to refuse to provide anything that may tend to incriminate that person, is a pretend law and cannot be enforced. Also, any law that allegedly gives power to a government authority to penalise a person in any way before conviction is also a pretend law.

In any criminal matter, the entire onus is on the state to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, by issuing a summons and putting the accused person before a court to face his accusers and present his arguments for his defence. The Victorian Infringements Court does none of that, therefore it is not a real court and has no real power. Here is a statement from the NSW Judicial Commission in regard to the onus of proof and the same principle of law applies in every state and territory in Australia.

Every single traffic offence is a criminal offence and is always dealt with in the criminal court jurisdiction. Therefore, the burden of proof is places squarely on the Crown, which has to prove - BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - that the defendant actually committed the offence - not just because he owned a vehicle that was photographed allegedly speeding. It is as simple as that, but if a traffic matter goes all the way to court, it is up to the defendant to stand up for himself and let the court know in no uncertain terms that the Crown had better have hard evidence of his guilt or the matter must be dismissed.


In most magistrates courts, defendants must either hire barristers to represent them or represent themselves. In most circumstances, only defendants and their legal counsel are permitted to sit at the bar table. In most cases, defendants are not permitted to engage the expertise of their friends to advise them at the bar table unless those friends are qualified legal practitioners.

But this situation does not seem to apply to the Crown - the government. In fact, it appears that in Victoria, as in most other states, the Crown prosecutor does not have to possess formal legal qualifications, as this extract from the Victoria Police website will show.

So all that a cop needs to do to become a prosecutor and run cases on behalf of the government is to spend nine weeks in a classroom and another nine weeks hanging around the prosecutor's office. Yet a defendant who brings along a helper to court, who may be more knowledgeable in law than the magistrate, is not permitted to consult or use the helper to represent him in his defence of the charges.

This is an utter disgrace, but this is where a defendant who has been dragged to court should immediately demand that the Crown prosecutor state his legal qualifications under oath and if the prosecutor does not have a law degree and is not a member of his state's Bar Association, then the defendant should immediately demand that the hearing be abandoned until the Crown produces a legally qualified barrister to act as prosecutor.

The Constitution of Australia requires that every person is entitled to due legal process and a fair trial. Therefore if the Crown uses a legally unqualified person to prosecute a matter, then the defendant must have the right to use a legally unqualified person to assist or represent him. This is only equitable.


Please understand all of the above and most of all, realise that the entire Victorian camera infringements system (as in all other states) is a monstrous scam that is propped up by a bunch of unsustainable pretend laws that violate the Australian Constitution and try to bully and threaten people with penalties that cannot be imposed prior to conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction.

I have repeated this phrase “court of competent jurisdiction” often, because you have to understand that there is a massive difference between such a properly convened court and the Victorian Infringements Court that is not a court at all, but pretends to be one for the purpose of perpetrating the scam. Also I have constantly used the phrase "due legal process" because very simply, there is only one procedure that a government can follow to prosecute a person under criminal law and there is a clearly defined process that must be followed. None of the pretend laws such as the "owner onus" or "deeming" laws have anything to do with due process of law and this should always be hammered home to any infringement bureau and police.

If you are not willing to be ripped off by any state government’s camera scam, you will read and understand everything here. However, if you find it tiresome and cannot be bothered learning how to defend yourself and beat these disgusting revenue-raising swindle, then you will be doomed to be another victim and contributor to government coffers for no good reason.