Aussie driver’s shock as speeding fines from 2007 arrive nearly 20 years later: ‘I’ve got no recollection’
A Canberra driver, Robert Scott, has been left baffled after receiving two speeding fines in the post for offences allegedly committed nearly 19 years ago, in 2007. Mr Scott, now 42, says he has no memory of the incidents and was never previously notified, despite registering multiple vehicles and being stopped by police since without any flag on his record. The case raises broader questions about the fairness of enforcing decades-old penalties and whether administrative failures within government systems should be borne by citizens.
Mr Scott was allegedly caught speeding on Hindmarsh Drive on 22 April and 25 May 2007, with each infringement carrying a $167 fine. Access Canberra told him the notices would originally have been sent in 2007, and explained that old fines can resurface when duplicate customer accounts are merged, such as after a licence renewal or address change. Lawyer Hayder Shkara said Mr Scott should challenge the fines rather than pay them outright, arguing it is unreasonable to expect anyone to reconstruct events from nearly two decades ago, though he noted a long delay does not automatically void a valid, unpaid fine.
- Canberra man sent two speeding fines dated from 2007, arriving in 2026.
- He has no memory of the alleged offences or prior notices.
- Lawyer advises appealing; delay linked to merged duplicate government records.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those defending enforcement argue that a validly issued infringement does not simply expire because the state's administrative systems were slow to reconcile records; the offence occurred, the fine was lawfully issued, and personal inconvenience or forgetfulness is not, in itself, a legal basis for extinguishing a debt owed to the public purse. They would add that allowing fines to lapse merely because paperwork was delayed creates a perverse incentive: motorists could exploit bureaucratic backlogs, and consistent enforcement upholds both road safety deterrence and equal treatment of all drivers who did pay promptly. From this perspective, the proper remedy is procedural challenge through the courts, not blanket forgiveness, since the system already allows fairness to be tested case by case.
The case against
Those sympathetic to Mr Scott argue that natural justice requires timely notice, and that expecting a citizen to recall or contest events from nearly two decades ago is fundamentally unreasonable, especially when he was never flagged during multiple vehicle registrations or police interactions in the intervening years. They would emphasise that the failure here lies squarely with government administration, not the individual, and that citizens should not bear the cost or stress of institutional inefficiency, particularly when evidence needed to mount a defence may no longer exist. On this view, fairness and proportionality demand that stale, unexplained delays of this length should render enforcement unjust, regardless of the fine's original validity.