1.32 Using out-of court, non-judicial alternatives to criminal prosecution have proved to be fraught with problems and not to serve the community in any way except that they are cheap.
The last labour government introduced a plethora of legislation that is currently overwhelming the courts. The RESA is seen as means to take some of the pressure off the courts system by allowing those with no legal experience being in a position to act a prosecutor, judge and also issue the financial sanction, this should be opposed at all levels.
1.38 The stigma of going to court, with the potential for reporting in the local newspapers, has some deterrent effect.
As the paragraph above states there is a deterrent effect of going to court the potential of having any judgement published in local newspapers and the affect it could have on any instructors business is in my mind deterrent enough. It has also been stated that should a repeat offender be taking to court then any findings through the civil sanction process wouldn’t be admissible as the same level of proof is not required.
1.54 A new regulatory approach should not be introduced simply because doing so will make it easier or less burdensome for the regulator to secure convictions or because the regulator can impose higher penalties than criminal courts are prepared to do.
This last quote is very unusual, that an enforcer could impose a high penalty that what the courts could impose. It doesn’t seem possible but it’s within the regulations.
1.57 “Re-hearing” used in the CP is a misnomer because there will not usually have been an initial hearing in the normal sense when a “civil” penalty is imposed by the regulator. Recourse of the person found liable for an offence by a regulator should not be confined to a review of a regulator’s decision or an appeal on a point of law. A regulator’s decision to deprave someone of his or her assets should never be regarded merely as an administrative or discretionary matter subject only to some form of JR. Should have the opportunity to refer the mater to an independent and impartial tribunal for a full hearing at which the regulator must prove all matters necessary to establish that an offence has been committed and the appropriateness of any penalty.