AUTONEWS: March 2006

Due to the growing problem and resultant publicity relating to the “arresting” or “detaining” of people for outstanding traffic fines – with or without their knowledge of a warrant for their arrest – the Southern African Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (SAVRALA) has become increasingly concerned about the legality of certain traffic authorities’ practices.

In recent years, much of the authorities’ behaviour has become questionable and it is apparent that traffic fines are now widely regarded as a lucrative stream of revenue, and not as a means of encouraging road users to change their mindsets and driving habits behind the wheel.

While SAVRALA advises its members and road users in general to abide by the law, the association is contemplating certain legal options to counter the problems – specifically in relation to car rental and other fleet owner organizations, where the NaTIS-registered person (National Traffic Information System) is a company assigned representative or proxy who is generally responsible for fleet administration and vehicle licensing matters.

To provide its members and other interested parties with insight into the facts relating to traffic fines and warrants of arrest, a detailed transcript prepared by SAVRALA’s attorney is available on the association’s website.

However, in the event of being stopped at a roadblock or confronted with a warrant of arrest at work or home, here are some ‘in brief’ guidelines taken from this document.

When informed by the traffic authority that you have warrants of arrest relating to outstanding fines, do not become confrontational. Always carry the telephone number of your company’s or your personal legal representative as well as a senior company director and call them immediately for assistance and intervention.

Know the facts

• You have the right to see the warrant of arrest which should clearly contain your details.

• That “the authorities must prove that you received the summons” is incorrect. The serving of a summons may be carried out in several ways and this is provided for in Section 54 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 51 of 1977: (2) “Except where otherwise expressly provided by any law, the summons shall be served by a person referred to in sub-section (1)(b) by delivering it to the person named therein or, if he cannot be found, by delivering it at his residence or place of employment or business to a person apparently over the age of sixteen years and apparently residing or employed there.”

• That a person may only be arrested if the original warrant is available is not correct, a copy will do.

• The Traffic Authority does not necessarily have to have the warrant available with them at that time. In the context of sub-section 2, “immediately” means “as soon as practically possible”. It does not mean “instantaneously”. Trifling delays will not amount to non-compliance with the requirement of immediate notice. But any lapse of time which extends beyond this and which is caused by the inability of the arresting officer to comply with the arrested person’s request will not satisfy the requirements of the sub-section.

When detention or arrest is unlawful
The arrest of a person (who had demanded a copy of the warrant) for some hours and who was then taken to a police station to obtain a copy of the warrant, would be unlawful – as would be detention after such an arrest.

Under such circumstances, an arrested person is “entitled to leave” and the peace officer would not be lawfully permitted to prevent this. The practical consequences of “fleeing” are, however, not particularly appealing as experience has shown that over zealous officials can cause tremendous problems for arrested persons demanding to be freed and insisting on their rights. Trumped-up charges of drunken driving, assault on a police officer and escaping from custody for example, have been known to be brought against the arrested person.