The ticket quota

On January 15, 2025, my associate attorney walked into the office shortly after 7 am visibly annoyed. He walked directly into my office and told me about the ticket he had just been issued by a police officer in the Debe area about ten minutes after leaving home. The charge in question was issued due to his alleged failure to wear his seatbelt. In discussing the charge, he explained to me that he was, in fact, wearing his seat belt.

His recollection of the event in question was as follows:

He was driving along the SS Erin Road. While there were many vehicles on the road due to the usual early morning traffic, he wasn’t at a standstill but moving somewhat slowly. A police vehicle pulled up alongside his vehicle and motioned for him to pull aside, which he complied with. A police officer exited and approached his driver’s side door. He lowered his window and the officer simply indicated ‘licence and insurance please’ and proceeded to issue a ticket for his failure to wear the seat belt that he in fact had on.

Needless to say, my associate felt so passionately about this injustice that he immediately advised of his intention to challenge the charge. While I was not with him at the relevant time, I also questioned the legitimacy of the alleged offence. I am accustomed to being driven out by him. Not once in all of those years have I witnessed him drive or attempt to drive without pulling his seat belt on first. So, to think that this person would have been on the main road, such a distance away from home and still hadn’t pulled on his seat belt simply did not make sense to me.

At the beginning of this month, we saw an article awarding police officers for the number of tickets issued during the first half of the year. I immediately questioned the legitimacy of all those tickets issued, how many were actually being challenged and whether this rush to issue tickets was really motivated by a quota to be met. I didn’t have to wait much longer to confirm in my mind the many questions concerning the issuing of tickets and the subsequent awards.

Last week, my associate’s matter finally came up for hearing after almost seven months of the ticket being issued. The police prosecutor failed to comply with the court’s previous directions for disclosure. Disclosure falls within our laws pertaining to evidence. Simply put, any documents and/or information which the parties wish to use or rely on during a trial should be provided to both parties for their review. The charging officer in his evidence clearly stated that there were other officers present with him at the time of issuing the charge, he had a pocket diary and notations were made in the station diary. Yet, copies of these documents were not presented to the court and no other person appeared to give evidence to corroborate the officer’s version of events. It would appear that the prosecutor’s case hinged on the fact that if the police officer said so, then it must be so.

Nonetheless, the magistrate, in an attempt to ensure procedural fairness, made another order for disclosure. This time, there was partial disclosure. Despite the police officer taking a witness stand and contending under oath the existence of certain documentary evidence, these were not provided.

The conclusion of the trial was simple. After hearing the evidence of the police officer, which I must say was not consistent or reliable, and, noting the failure to comply with disclosure, the ticket charge was dismissed and my associate felt redeemed.

There were two issues I had to consider after this matter was heard. The fixed penalty in this matter was $1,000. A layperson who wishes to challenge such a charge, may, in the long run, end up paying much more than $1,000 to their attorney for representation, aside from the fees. These matters would result in several court appearances, which would entail time off from work. Most people would rather pay their $1,000 fine than have to go through the process necessary to have it dismissed. It made me wonder how many tickets each year are really challengeable but paid simply because complying is simply the easier or more cost-effective option.

I also question whether, if the police officers and prosecutors could not comply with court directions or even respect the laws of evidence in a simple matter such as this, then how prepared are they for matters which I would consider more serious offences? I have sat in magistrates’ courts on many occasions and seen matters dismissed due to police officers’ failure to attend court to give evidence. This turns into a waste of judicial time and costs and also results in charges against more serious offenders being dismissed. In summary, a miscarriage of justice.

We are now at a stage of rewarding officers for the number of tickets being issued. At any point, has the Ministry of National Security considered how many of these tickets are challenged, whether they were successfully dismissed or even the plausibility of one police officer being able to issue countless tickets within the one hour the officer has been on patrol outside of the station? Is this reward really motivating our officers to do their job, or encouraging them to be slightly reckless in their approach, all in the aim of being recognised or rewarded? Giving rewards as a motivational tool is not necessarily a wrong approach, but maybe the basis of the rewards needs to be reconsidered. I wonder if we started awarding police officers for diligently attending court in their matters and actually following through with evidence, whether the conviction rates would improve?