Beware of incompetent law enforcement

The abysmal level of competence among many traffic officials is amply illustrated by this final pre-summons reminder (36 KB). Issued by the Mossel Bay traffic authorities, the charge is described as “exceeding the speed limit of 100 km with a minibus for reward”, yet the vehicle concerned was not even a minibus, never mind one “for reward”. It was a heavy goods vehicle (restricted to 80 km/h).

As if that were not bad enough, it gets even worse – much worse!!

The original notice was issued by the Chief Traffic Officer, who seems to be totally unaware that the Road Traffic Act No 29 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by the National Road Traffic Act No 93 of 1996. While, admittedly, a small portion of the old Act remains in force, the references he gives have been obsolete since 1 August 2000 --  MORE THAN SIX YEARS PRIOR.

Even the reference given to the obsolete Act is incorrect. The Section 85 (4) (A) reference which, by the way, should read 85 (4) (a) refers to the general speed limit and not the speed limit prescribed for certain classes of vehicle which was Section 85 (4) (c). This may sound a little pedantic but Section 85 merely gives the Minister the power to impose speed limits. To correctly identify the charge reference should also have been made to what was then Reg No 427 which prescribed and imposed the speed limit for minibuses.

In order to prosecute a speeding offence, it is also imperative that the speed be measured and stipulated. On the attached notice no mention is made of the speed measured.

The Criminal Procedure Act [Sect 84] lays down what it calls the "essentials of a charge" and requires that an alleged offence be set forth so that the accused is sufficiently informed of the nature of the charge and the time and place it was committed. Without a reasonable description of the offence both defence and prosecution are compromised. It is normally sufficient to include a brief description of the offence along with the appropriate section/regulation numbers.

The charge, for which the admission of guilt is set at R1 000,00, falls well short of those requirements and says much for the prosecuting authorities and magistrates in the area to allow this appalling state of affairs to continue.

If the officer cannot correctly identify the vehicle, cannot measure the speed travelled, cannot properly describe the offence and quite clearly does not know the law, it is highly unlikely that an offence was committed at all.

Traffic law enforcement is a pathetic joke. And they tell us ignorance of the law is no excuse!!