Parking inspector trespassed on car when sticking on a fine, man claims in Supreme Court
A man has taken a regulation parking fine all the way to the Supreme Court, claiming the inspector trespassed when sticking the fine on his car and that he’s a “free spirit” who refuses to be governed.
City
Don't miss out on the headlines from City. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Half of those who challenge council fines get them overturned
- Are you getting the most from your Advertiser subscription?
A man who claimed a parking inspector trespassed when issuing a fine – and denied his “consent” to being governed – has lost a Supreme Court appeal.
Adelaide City Council fined Timothy Noel Rossiter – who has described himself as “Timothy-Noel: Rossiter, Free-spirit man” – in April 2019, when he breached a 30-minute parking limit.
But Rossiter believed the fine was illegitimate because he placed a sign on the windscreen stating his Toyota was “private property” and warning “no trespassing”.
He elected to be prosecuted and attended a hearing on October 4, where, when addressing the magistrate, only said words to the effect of “I am a man”.
The magistrate interpreted his lack of response as a not guilty plea.
He then attended his trial on February 24, but remained silent in the public gallery.
His muteness was again treated as a not guilty plea and he was found guilty of the parking offence.
In his handwritten Supreme Court appeal, Rossiter listed 11 reasons he opposed the verdict – including the sign on his windscreen, that the fine was put on his car without permission, that it included foreign text he did not understand and that he did not enter a plea.
He also argued councils had no constitutional recognition and he that he did not have a “contract” with Adelaide City Council.
According to Justice Mark Livesey’s judgment, published this month, Rossiter claimed to have written to Adelaide City Council in 2014, describing himself as “Timothy-Noel: Rossiter, Free-spirit man” who was “man and man has certain inalienable rights”.
In the letter, he said his “truth and law exists inside me” and that he did not “consent to being governed/represented”.
“If anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints,” the letter read.
He did, however, note that he claimed the right to free education and police protection.
He also wrote to Justice Livesey’s chambers last month noting that “i (sic), a man, accept your oath of office”.
It was signed with a fingerprint.
In his judgment, Justice Livesey said Rossiter’s appeal involved “both legal nonsense and an unnecessary waste of scarce public and judicial resources”.
“It is regrettable that the appellant has advocated the various pseudolegal arguments underpinning this appeal,” Justice Livesey said.
“If he has acted on the advice of others, he is well advised to stop doing so.
“His decision to defend has resulted in a trivial parking fine escalating to a financial burden exceeding $2000.”
Justice Livesey found all 11 grounds were without merit and dismissed the appeal.