The traffic laws adopted by the police in regulating road users and motorists in this country are inconsistent and invalid, lawyer Karpal Singh told the Kuala Lumpur High Court today.

He said the police alleged that he committed a speeding offence under section 79(2) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (RTA) but the compound offered was under the Road Traffic (Compound of Offence) Rules 1959 in which section 79(2) does not exist.

"Although the 1959 Rules provide section 66 for the offence of speeding, it carries a fine not exceeding a mere $50.

"This is direct contradiction to the 1987's Act of a RM300 fine," said Karpal who added that the Rules still refer to 'dollar' instead of 'ringgit' as stated in the RTA.

The inconsistencies between the 1959 Rules and the RTA have rendered the notices and compound offer null and void.

Karpal also argued that the 1959 Rules was enacted based on the Road Transport Ordinance 1958 which was later repealed by the transport minister following the enactment of the RTA.

"Thus the 1959 Rules is already invalid since it was founded on a law which has been repealed by parliament.

"Further, the minister did not replace the rules although the RTA allows him to do so," said Karpal who is also DAP deputy chairperson.

As to the police's defence that the issuance of the two notices was an unintentional technical mistake, Karpal said it cannot be an excuse to act with such negligent.

Karpal is suing Federal Traffic Police chief Ahmad Bahrin Idrus and the government, claiming the police was negligent in issuing him two notifications for the same traffic offence.

He is seeking the court for declarations that the two notifications are null and void, that he is not compelled to accept the compound offer and that Ahmad had acted ultra vires the power conferred on him.

Test case

In the hearing before Justice Abdul Hamid Said, Karpal urged the court to seriously consider his application as it was a test case for other 4.6 million compound notices issued by the police under the nationwide Ops Warta II.

"Many of the alleged offenders paid the compound not because they are guilty of the offences but rather to save themselves and the government the inconvenience and the expense of a trial.

"This affects everybody, ordinary workers, professionals, academicians and I suspect, some judges too," he said.

He admitted that in the event the court agrees with his contention and allows his motion, it will open the floodgates to similar applications by other motorists.

"But this should not be the criteria. The court must make a correct decision and whatever the consequences are, justice must be done," he stressed.

Senior Federal Counsel Azahar Mohamed replied that he disagreed with Karpal's claim that many paid the fine to avoid trial.

"These motorists paid the compound because they are law abiding citizens who had admitted to committing the traffic offences stated in the notices," he said.

Pre-empting criminal trial

Azahar added the court should not grant the declarations sought by Karpal as it would intrude into the criminal jurisdiction of the magistrates court.

He said if the court grants the declarations, it will be pre-empting a criminal case, adding that the notification is a first step to a criminal case.

"If my learned friend refused the compound, a summons will be issued and the matter will be brought to the magistrates court where he would be charged.

"Then only, he (Karpal) can ask the magistrate to set aside the summons and present all these arguments before the magistrate," he said.

He also argued that the issue of "double jeopardy" does not arise as the two summonses issued against Karpal bore the same summons key number and were related to the same offence.

"The 'traffic cops' system would reject a second payment in respect of the same summons (based on the key summons number).

"On the facts of this case, it is premature for Karpal to complain that he had been subjected to double jeopardy as there has not been any conviction or acquittal made against him over the same offence," he stressed.

The hearing continues tomorrow.