Viral parking trick could land Aussies in jail
A law expert is warning motorists of the significant penalties that come with a growing trend that sees people wiping away chalk-marked tyres from parked vehicles.
Council parking rangers often use chalk to determine if a driver has overstayed in a timed parking space. However, this deceptive tactic is becoming increasingly common for avoiding parking fines.
Criminal lawyer Avinash Singh from Astor Legal is warning of potential fines and even imprisonment after a TikTok video with over a million views showed footage of someone dousing water on chalk-marked car tyres.
While some online users praised the act, Avinash Singh says anyone caught in the act opens themselves up to fines worth over $750 or a penalty of up to 25 years imprisonment.
'Removing chalk off a tyre could be seen as attempting to pervert the course of justice. This is because the removal of chalk would hinder a parking ranger from carrying out their duties and prevent them from issuing a fine,' Avinash said.
Although there isn't a national law against removing chalk, each state and territory has specific regulations concerning the interference with official enforcement tools.
In South Australia, the practice of removing chalk has become so widespread that the state has applied a specific law addressing the removal of chalk.
'In South Australia, a specific law had to be introduced due to how common removing chalk became,' Avinash said.
Under Section 174AB of the Road Traffic Act 1961, it states it's an offence to remove a parking inspector's chalk from a vehicle. The maximum fine for this is $750.
In New South Wales, the act could fall under Section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900, which addresses attempts to pervert the course of justice, carrying a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment.
Similarly, in Queensland and Western Australia, attempting to obstruct justice under their respective Criminal Codes can result in up to 7 years imprisonment.
While in Victoria, the common law offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice can lead to a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.
While law experts and council officers aren't amused, there are legal defences motorists can use if they are caught removing chalk marks.
Avinash explains further that the most common legal defence if an offender is caught is proving that they were not the person who removed the chalk.
'A parking ranger would need to witness you removing the chalk or have some sort of video or CCTV footage showing you removing the chalk.
'Without this, they could not prove that another person had removed the chalk, and the charge would be dismissed.'
Avinash also explains that if a driver has been issued a parking fine, they can contest it and request evidence that they were timed correctly.
'This is usually in the form of timestamped photos that a parking ranger has taken,' Avinash said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
44 minutes ago
- 7NEWS
Kmart dragged into landmark legal case over alleged links to Uyghur forced labor in China
In an Australian legal first, Uyghur community leaders have launched Federal Court action demanding transparency from retail giant Kmart over its potential links to forced labour in China. The Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association (AUTWA) has filed a motion demanding Kmart hand over internal documents related to two of its clothing suppliers allegedly involved in forced Uyghur labour in the Xinjiang region. Both suppliers are listed in Kmart's 2024 and 2025 factory disclosures, AUTWA said. The legal action, led by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and supported by the Human Rights Law Centre, aims to test whether Kmart's ethical sourcing claims hold up under scrutiny. Speaking outside the court in Melbourne on Tuesday, AUTWA President Ramila Chanisheff said the case marks a historic milestone. 'We just filed a document into the Federal Court asking for records from Kmart about two supply chains that could be linked to Uyghur forced labor,' she told 'It is the first of its kind in Australia to bring a case against an Australian retailer, and it's not just a small retailer, it's actually a major. 'We want to make sure that the products that are made in China and sold in Kmart are not linked to forced labour.' Kmart publicly markets itself as an ethical business. 'We aim to provide great products at the lowest prices for our customers while respecting human rights,' the retailer states on its website. Kmart said it is continually working to improve its ethical sourcing standards and processes, and is collaborating with suppliers, NGOs, trade unions, and government representatives to help improve working conditions in the regions where it sources its products. The court action now centres around whether the company may have breached Australian Consumer Law by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct about the sourcing of its products. AUTWA is seeking access to documents that could demonstrate what Kmart knew — or should have known — about the origins of products made in factories with ties to Xinjiang, where widespread human rights abuses, including state-sponsored forced labour, have been well-documented. 'If it's found that Kmart's products are linked to forced labour, they must divest from those supply chains, not just in Xinjiang, but across China, where Uyghur people are often trafficked into mainland labour camps,' Chanisheff said. The goal is not only to hold Kmart accountable, but to put other industries on notice, she added. 'Australians deserve to make informed choices.' Retailers on notice Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis, who is leading the case, said the legal action aims to hold Kmart accountable for its ethical sourcing claims. She said the company must be transparent about its supply chain practices, especially given the known risks of forced labour in Xinjiang. 'Kmart tells customers that it supports ethical sourcing and the protection of human rights — but we know there are credible links between two of its factories and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang,' Kanis said. 'Documents will be sought from Kmart to determine whether it engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct about this issue.' She added the Federal Court will be asked to compel Kmart to provide evidence of what due diligence it has conducted on suppliers with links to the region. Associate legal director at the Human Rights Law Centre Freya Dinshaw said the case underscores significant weaknesses in Australia's approach to modern slavery. 'The alarm bells have been ringing for a long time in relation to the risk of forced labour in the Chinese garment sector, and Australian retailers have been on notice,' she said. 'This court case is about Kmart coming clean on whether it is really doing everything it claims to be doing to ensure that its products are slavery free.' Dinshaw argued it should not be up to the public to force companies into transparency through legal action and called for stronger laws that require businesses to investigate and prevent forced labour. She also noted that, unlike countries such as the US and Canada, Australia has not banned the importation of goods made with forced labour, allowing them to reach store shelves unchecked. What happens next? The Federal Court will consider AUTWA's request in the coming weeks. If successful, the outcome could pave the way for further legal action against Kmart or other major retailers. 'Kmart, and all companies, must ensure they are not profiting from forced labour in China.,' Chanisheff said. The case is expected to fuel growing public pressure on retailers to lift the veil on their offshore operations.
Sky News AU
9 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Kmart sued by Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association over alleged links to forced labour from China's Xinjiang region
Kmart is being sued in Federal Court to determine whether the retailer misled customers about its ethics claims and sourced some of its clothes from suppliers that allegedly used slave labour. Class-action law-firm Maurice Blackburn has filed a suit on behalf of the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association (AUTWA) against Kmart. The association wants the retailer to release documents that show what it knows about two suppliers with alleged links to factories in China's Xinjiang region. Kmart has rejected these claims. Human rights abuses in the area were the subject of a landmark report in 2022 where the United Nations recommended Beijing investigated allegations of human rights violations, 'including allegations of torture, sexual violence, ill-treatment, forced medical treatment, as well as forced labour and reports of deaths in custody'. It also called for the Chinese government to take 'prompt steps' to release all individuals arbitrarily imprisoned. The AUTWA is seeking the documents to determine whether Kmart has abided by its ethical sourcing procedures and if it misled consumers. Ramila Chanisheff, president of the AUTWA, said the association was 'demanding answers from Kmart' to determine whether the retailer's actions 'live up to its words'. 'Kmart, and all companies, must ensure they are not profiting from forced labour in China,' Ms Chanisheff said in a statement. 'China's mass imprisonment, repression and forced labour of Uyghur people is well-documented. 'Our community has lost family members, friends and loved ones because of China's brutal treatment of Uyghurs. 'Kmart is a go-to store for so many people in Australia. If the company has profited in any way from this sort of systematic repression, I am sure Australians would be horrified.' A Kmart spokesperson said the retailer was 'disappointed' by the court action and had invited AUTWA to meet and discuss the concerns on several occasions. 'Kmart has been in correspondence with the applicant's lawyers for over 12 months and has provided extensive details of our Ethical Sourcing Program,' the spokesperson said. The spokesperson noted Kmart has had its 'ethical sourcing program' in place for 15 years which helps the company identify and mitigate modern slavery risks across its supply chains. They noted the program takes from Kmart's 'ethical sourcing code' which adopts the standards under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Labour Organisation. 'Compliance with our Ethical Sourcing Code is required under our contracts with our Suppliers,' the spokesperson said. 'Suppliers in the Kmart Ethical Sourcing Program are regularly monitored through activities including our site visits, audit programs and investigations if we receive any reports or complaints of concern.' AUTWA is also represented by the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) alongside Maurice Blackburn. HRLC's associate legal director Freya Dinshaw said 'alarm bells' had been 'ringing for a long time' about the risk of forced labour being used in the Chinese garment sector. 'This court case is about Kmart coming clean on whether it is really doing everything it claims to be doing to ensure that its products are slavery-free,' Ms Dinshaw said in a statement. She stressed the case was also an opportunity to highlight 'weaknesses' in Australia's modern slavery laws. 'It shouldn't be left to members of the public to take companies to court and force them to open their books where there are suspicions of links to modern slavery,' Ms Dinshaw said. 'Australian companies should be legally required to investigate and prevent forced labour in their supply chains and face hard consequences if they don't. 'Australia should also follow the example of other countries like Canada and the US and ban imported goods made with forced labour, so they don't end up on our shop shelves.' China rejected the claims in the UN's 2022 report. In August 2024, the UN said it has faced 'difficulties posed by limited access to information' with its investigations into the human rights abuses. It also noted many who spoke about the abuses with the UN had 'fear of reprisals'.
Sydney Morning Herald
17 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
First woman appointed to lead Australian Federal Police as Reece Kershaw retires a year early
Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw is retiring a year early to spend more time with his grandchildren, and will be replaced by the first woman to head the nation's police force. Deputy commissioner Krissy Barrett, who most recently oversaw the AFP's national security portfolio, will replace Kershaw in October. Kershaw's early retirement comes after the police chief faced scrutiny over his handling of the Dural caravan plot in Sydney, which was first described as a terrorist act but was later revealed to be a fake plot by powerful crime figures to distract police and influence prosecutions. The commissioner refused to answer questions at a hearing in February about whether he had briefed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese about the plot. But in announcing Kershaw's departure at a press conference in Canberra on Monday, Albanese and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said he would leave his role on good terms with the government after his six-year tenure. 'Commissioner Kershaw has made an extraordinary contribution to public life, and we are deeply grateful for his service,' Albanese said. '[He] has been absolutely on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week with his commitment to his fellow Australians.' Burke said Kershaw was retiring with his head held high to spend more time with family. 'Commissioner Kershaw asked to meet with me with no staff present and in the meeting, to my surprise … said that he had set October 3 as the date that he was intending to retire,' Burke said. Kershaw said his time as commissioner has taken its toll on his family but that he was grateful for his time with the AFP.
