Gavin Foster
When the new Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (AARTO) system kicks in early next year, traffic law enforcement agencies will supposedly be in a much better position to do their job.
Authorities will have their own national debt-collecting service, the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA), to ensure that fines and recovery costs are paid by traffic offenders, and traffic cops will be able to focus their attention on what’s happening on our roads, rather than in the court room.
But there’s also cause for concern that AARTO may end up simply legalising what many authorities have been practising unofficially – making it so inconvenient for motorists to defend themselves that even if they believe they’re innocent, they pay up rather than waste time in court.
Currently, traffic offenders must be summonsed if they do not pay admission-of- guilt fines, and summonses may not be mailed. They must be handed to the accused at the time of the offence, or delivered to and signed for personally at a later date.
Most local authorities have taken to setting up camera speed traps followed up by postal payment demands, thinly disguised as summonses, and relying upon the fact that most people will pay an admission-of- guilt fine rather than spend time in court.
Many of these “pseudo-summonses” have been ignored as the public has wised up to the fact that the system is falling apart, but instead of issuing proper documentation to get the accused into court, traffic officials have resorted to making statements quantifying the value of outstanding fines “owed” to them. In August, Durban police representative Vincent Ngubane stated that his city was “owed” R50-million, and Johannesburg claims to be “owed” R30-million in outstanding fines. What seems to have been forgotten, is the legal principle that not one cent is owed until a conviction has been secured and sentence passed.
Under AARTO, driving offences will be divided into three categories: minor infringements, major infringements and offences. Those alleged to have committed offences, the most serious of the three classifications, will be summonsed as usual, but motorists accused of infringements will receive, either at the time of the incident or later by registered mail from the RTIA, a transgression notification and a demand for payment within 28 days.
When paying on time, the driver qualifies for a 10% discount. If not, the discount falls away and the RTIA will set into motion a series of letters, enforcement orders and summonses, until the fine and all the expenses incurred are paid, or the accused is acquitted.
A new and much-needed weapon in the law- enforcers’ arsenal is the provision that summonses may, under AARTO, be sent by registered post, and if the accused fails to attend his hearing, judgment can be made in his absence. An arrest warrant can then be issued, and his vehicle’s licence disc or his driver’s licence can be held back when due for renewal, or his possessions can be attached by court order.
According to Hennie van Tonder, general manager (traffic) of the Department of Transport, the whole process is based upon systems in Europe and the United States, and in no way detracts from the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
“The accused can make representation to AARTO if he feels he has a valid case, or he can opt to have his say in court, but once he requests a trial he cannot pay an admission-of-guilt fine,” he says. Neither can the prosecutor withdraw the charges or reduce the fine without advising AARTO of his reasons for doing so, and the Department of Transport makes it clear that the right to be tried in court is not a soft option. “Infringers who are convicted should ideally receive heavier sentences than those imposed under AARTO,” says a document introducing AARTO to authorities.
“The impact of the proposed administrative adjudication process is welcomed, but some significant questions need to be considered,” says lawyer Don Smart, a traffic law expert.
“Is the AARTO process not merely the same as the previous unwritten system whereby motorists are discouraged from stating their case because of the amount of time they’d have to spend in court? Is it not now just spelled out in legislation?
“It’s desirable to streamline the process, but at the same time justice or the sense of justice must not be suppressed. Just as the legislation places great emphasis on a guilty party being liable for increased costs should he opt not to pay the initial fine, so too should the authority be made to carry the costs of an innocent person burdened with legal and related costs.”
Magistrates could award costs to the innocent motorist, but there is no such specific provision under AARTO.
Besides acting as debt collector for the country’s traffic departments, the RTIA will also maintain records of offenders and control the new demerit points system that will lead to the suspension of frequent offenders’ licences. But the real test will be whether the AARTO process can be effectively implemented and enforced, and whether it will ultimately save lives.