Littering app comes under fire

A MAN who had his fine for littering on the M1 thrown out of court says the “dob in a tosser” smartphone app is being abused by people making malicious reports.

Stephen Walker outside Gosford Local Court.Picture: Mark Scott

• Nurses tackle NSW Premier over plans to privatise Wyong Hospital
• Local MPs caught out sending expensive printing work to Sydney

A MAN who had his fine for littering on the M1 thrown out of court after the only witness failed to show up says the environment watchdog’s “dob in a tosser” smartphone app is being abused by people making malicious or vexatious reports­.

Stephen Patrick Walker was driving his older model Toyota Landcruiser on the M1 at Somersby when he pulled into the adjacent lane to overtake a truck about 9.20am on January 16 last year.

He thinks he may have slowed down the car in the next lane “for about 30 seconds” as he went past the truck and pulled back into the left lane, but said his manoeuvre was safe and he “didn’t cut him off”.

A few weeks later he got a $230 fine from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for the offence of “deposit litter from vehicle” after someone dobbed him in using the Report to EPA smartphone app.

An EPA sign encouraging motorist’s to report a tosser.

He tried in vain for months to have the fine withdrawn through the State Debt Recovery Office, the EPA and even his local member, Terrigal state Liberal MP Adam Crouch.

“I did not commit this offence, but when I tried to find a way to resolve the matter I discovered there are two ways to sort it out – pay the fine or take the matter to court,” he said.

A little more than a year and three court appearances later, Mr Walker had the fine “withdrawn and dismissed” at Gosford Local Court on Wednesday after the key witness, who dobbed him in, “refused” to appear.

“He provided a written statement (to court) but he wouldn’t come to court to back it up,” Mr Walker said.

“I wanted him to show so I could put (the M1 incident) to him.”

The 55-year-old said he got a quote from a legal firm to represent him but it was $1500 a day plus GST, so he represented himself.

Stephen Walker represented himself in court. Picture: Mark Scott

The bricklayer also had to pay a fee of $50 for an annulment application, a further $23 to have the fine payment period extended – or risk losing his licence for failure to pay – and lost about $1000 in wages going to court three times. All for a $230 fine.

“I don’t understand why I had to take it to court and waste the court’s time,” he said. “I nearly paid it off but I just couldn’t because I didn’t do it.”

Mr Walker said he had since spoken to half a dozen people who had simply paid the fine rather than undertake the expensive and arduous task of fighting it in court, including “one bloke fined for tossing a cigarette out of the window who doesn’t even smoke”.

“I believe they are using this app to satisfy themselves by reporting people that have somehow offended them on the M1,” he said.

“It’s just so easy to abuse it.”

Now he has been cleared Mr Walker wants to make a formal complaint to police that the witness made “a false declaration on a government document” but said he couldn’t because he needed the witness’ details, including an address. He only has a name.

He said the app gave people the power to bring fines against complete strangers over minor grievances and the recipient had to “prove their innocence” as opposed to the central tenant of Australia’s legal system, which was the presumption of innocence “until proven guilty”.

In the AppStore description the EPA states: “Whether you’re on the road, cycling or walking, the app is at your fingertips. Simply record the vehicle details, tell us where and when you saw it and the [EPA] will take care of the rest”.

The alleged littering offence occurred on the M1. Picture by Mark Scott

WHAT THE EPA SAYS

However the app has been panned in reviews with users critical there is no function to upload a photograph, which could provide irrefutable evidence.

The Environment Protection Authority has defended its Report Littering from Vehicles app claiming appropriate safeguards are in place to stop it being abused.

“The predominant aim of the app is to deter would-be litterers by increasing the number of potential witnesses to their littering behaviour and subsequently increasing their chances of getting caught and receiving a fine,” an EPA spokesman said.

“Over 20 specific mandatory criteria must be completed by a reporter and these are reviewed by the Roads and Maritime Services and the EPA,” an agency spokesman said.

“As well, reporters must agree to the EPA terms and conditions and make a declaration that the information that they have provided is true and correct.”

In Stephen Walker’s case, the EPA considers the reporting system was used in good faith.

The spokesman said the witness in the case was willing to attend court but could not get time off work after the matter was set down for hearing with just three working days’ notice.