{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0289490245437382, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019509125235997484, 'mean_word_length': 5.115384615384615, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Exposing the Injustice of Imprisonment for Fine Default

This article considers the ramifications of the case of Vic Police Toll Enforcement and Ors v Taha and Ors; State of Victoria v Brookes and Anor [2013] VSCA 37 (an appeal from the decision of Emerton J in Taha v Broadmeadows Magistrates Court and Ors; Brookes v Magistrates' Court of Victoria and Anor [2011] VSC 642 ('Taha')) on the operation of the infringement notice system in Victoria. It builds on a previous Alternative Law Journal article, and the authors' qualitative research related to the increasing use of the infringement notice system or 'on-the-spot' fines to penalise minor criminal behaviour. The focus is on the imprisonment in lieu orders permissible under section 160 of the Infringements Act 2006 (Vic) ('the Act'). The authors hope that the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Taha will restore the human rights balance to the infringements legislation so that it conforms with the spirit of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 Act (Vic) ('the Charter'), hasten the commencement of the amendments to s 160 (envisaged by the Sentencing Amendment (Abolition of Suspended Sentences and Other Matters) Act 2013 (Vic)), and ensure that our community's most vulnerable members are not unnecessarily imprisoned for fine default. The authors suggest that this case and its aftermath demonstrate how both academic research and the persistence of community-based lawyers and legal aid agencies can drive changes to the law and promote just outcomes for the more disadvantaged in our society.