Hobart Magistrate rules Huon Valley man Russell Hawkins does not have to pay thousands in court costs in unpaid fine case

Hobart City Council ratepayers will likely bear the more than $3000 cost of pursuing an unpaid $39 parking fine in the Magistrates Court.

In a David-and-Goliath style battle, Russell Hawkins took on the Hobart City Council over a parking fine — and won. Picture: EDDIE SAFARIK

HOBART City Council ratepayers will likely bear the more than $3000 cost of pursuing an unpaid parking fine in the Hobart Magistrates Court.

In a David-versus-Goliath style battle, Huon Valley man Russell Hawkins took on the council and its private lawyer and won — with Magistrate Reg Marron ruling the council must pay its own court costs.

HOW A $39 PARKING FINE COULD COST OVER $2600

Mr Hawkins had pleaded not guilty to one count of having a “vehicle remaining parked in a metered parking space without the meter running”.

On May 1, 2018, he parked in Bathurst St while he went to Goulds pharmacy to get medicine for his then five-year-old daughter.

The court heard he mistook a marking on the footpath to mean he was parked in bay one when he was, in fact, in bay three.

Russell Hawkins’ original parking fine on the dashboard of his Volkswagen van.

He paid the required amount for bay one, but had been issued a $39.75 parking ticket when he returned to his Volkswagen van.

The casual horticulture labourer submitted a request for withdrawal of an infringement notice to the council, but this was refused.

The matter was then subject to an internal review process within the council and Mr Hawkins was told his case was “without merit”.

Mr Hawkins said he decided to pursue the matter to the Magistrates Court because he believed the internal review process was neither “independent nor transparent”.

In January, the court dismissed Mr Hawkins’ application and the council’s solicitor indicated they would pursue him for their costs.

This would have been 80 per cent of the $3176 in costs charged by the council’s solicitor, which equated to about $2627.

Mr Hawkins said this would have effectively bankrupted him.

Today, Mr Marron said Mr Hawkins was entitled to bring his case forward for the court to act as an adjudicator and despite his defence not being accepted, he would not enforce payment of costs, except for the original $39.75.

Outside the court, Mr Hawkins said he was pleased and the case set a good precedent.

“I’m actually very surprised, but I think the magistrate saw I had a right to have my case heard at the court and that shouldn’t come at a cost of a large percentage of my annual income,” he said.

“I think it was unnecessary for the council to hire a private lawyer.

“The reason it came to court in the first place was because I wasn’t satisfied the council committed to doing an honest and balanced review and then when they do commit to a review via the court, they make that inbalanced as well by lawyering up at my potential expense.”

The council’s solicitor Martin Butler asked Magistrate Marron to provide a written outline of the reasons for his decision within the 21-day appeal period.