Breaches Of Park Gardens Week Act 2017: Penalties And Offences

Offences made by Luisa and Jeremy under Park Gardens Week Act 2017

Discuss about the Parks and Gardens Week Act.

Firstly Luisa and Jeremy were intoxicated while driving, that is civil wrong because accident may take place because of such act. Jeremy and Luisa have also breached the section 16 of Park Gardens week Act 2017. As per section 16 of this act illegal parking is prohibited. It is the role that a car must be parked within 5 kilometre of Parks and Gardens Week venue or facility. As per Park Gardens week Act 2017 Luisa and Jeremy has breached the section 16. It is necessary that parking control period is needed to be maintained but he have not maintained it. Luisa and Jeremy have parked the car in wrong place. For that maximum penalty which may have to be given by them is $5,000 and if it is the individual then its price is $25,000.

As per section 19 Luisa and Jeremy has done nuisance. There is no liability of nuisance and provision or instrumental functions are needed to be followed on this act, so that no liability is progressed[1]. As per section 15 controls of sale of articles in public place is not allowed. From the premises to 500 metres selling any materials or articles is not allowed[2]. The maximum penalty is 21 days forfeiture and there are 10 penalty units through which penalty have to be given.

Secondly it cannot be directly blamed on them that they have breached the section 15 because. In this case it is mentioned that Luisa and Jeremy has not sold the articles. They were doing trader on the articles, so it can be said that they have not breached section 15 and that can be proved by them[3].

Under section 21 Wardens is appointed who confers the state and it is issued by government that wardens have several rights. As Michael is the Warden so he has right to throw out any member. Under section 21 the warden has power to use unreasonable force to detain or restrain a person for the process of breaching. Fir the identification can be produced and restricting or leading the transport area can be done.

Jeremy and Luisa have breached section 22 by ignoring the penalty notice. They had done several wrongs which are the reason that the warden has given them penalty notices but they ignored the penalty notices and did not pay heed to the government law. Under the penalty notice, if a person has given penalty notice then it is described about the charges which he has to pay for offences. It is necessary that after getting the penalty notices the penalties is needed to be given to the warden who has caught them because of their offences.

Penalties for the offences under the Act

In this case Luisa and Jeremy have breached operation of the parks. It is necessary that several impacts have fallen on them on a negative approach. It is necessary that rules of Park Gardens week Act 2017 is needed to be followed. There are structural impacts through which change in the act can be brought. It is necessary that identification is needed to be produced by the person when legally change is brought. In Park Gardens week Act 2017 there are structures which are needed to be mitigated and that helps in producing the plan and targets through which changes has been brought. There is demand in notification which is objected with the threats. As per section 22 it is necessary that positive approaches are needed to be followed. There are structural plan of the act through which the dimensions and compliance can be fulfilled properly.

Defences which have to follow by Luisa and Jeremy are breach of Park Gardens Week Act. In case of this act several structural changes has been formulated. Both of them can use only one charge that they were forcefully behaved in an offensive manner which is the reason that several consequences are needed to be formulated which may help in carrying forward the functions of the act which may help in functioning the balance with the person who is guilty. There are structural changes which can be brought if Luisa and Jeremy can tackle so that they are not asked penalty.

It is believed by Jeremy that there are no right of the warden to behave with Jeremy and Luisa in such rough and forceful manner but under section 21 the wardens has right to use reasonable force to restrain or detain a person who has breached the law and has done offense. He also has right to restrict the person from entering the transport area. He can also demand the person to give identification. Under section 15 selling articles is prohibited. As Jeremy and Luisa were selling articles and after the warning of the warden they find not pay heed to the notice, so it is necessary that they should had maintain the law. Luisa should not be confiscated because he had not breached the section 15. He was not selling the articles but was only doing advertisement and trade for the article. It is necessary that before selling the article permission is needed to be taken but as he was not selling it so the warden world have asked him for the reason that whether there are selling articles or not[4].

Defences to be made against the offences

The warden can raise several allegations on them because the firstly they have breached section 16 which is the breach of parking act. This section is breached by Jeremy and Luisa because in intoxicated condition they have done the car parking in the 500 metres away from the racecourse but it is the rule that they have to park the car 50 kilometres away from the racecourse. It is necessary that the rules should be maintained but it has been breached by them. Second offense which has been done by Jeremy and Luisa is breach of section 19. As per this section nuisance should not be created Burt as Jeremy has shouted on the warden, so it is a kind of nuisance which is not has authority. Thirdly the offence which he did is breach of section 15. Selling the articles is not allowed, as Jeremy and Luisa was giving trade advertisement for the articles. Offence has done by them by breaching section 21 by violating the rules of the warden. It is necessary that the authorities of the warden is needed to be accepted by normal people which the medallions were not accepting. They were asking question on the identity and right of the warden.

They have also violated the rules of section 22. As per section 22 the penalty notice for the offence is needed to be accepted but both of them has breached the section by not accepting the act. It is necessary that when penalty notice is given that should be accepted. There are several legal rules which are needed to be applied to get away from difficult problems.

Sharona has breached section 6. As per section 6 it is the government order that transport area should be integrated with Garden and parks event which is needed to be restricted. As per section 9 removals of unattended motors has been done. It is not allowed that unattended motor vehicle sis used in premises of racecourse but Sharona has brought drone in the event of Caulfield racecourse. Under section 11 it is the offence to use vehicles in the closed road. Sharona has breached this act by pushing the vehicles to the road which is hundred miles apart from the racecourse. There are 50 penalty units under which he can be punished[5]. The section 11 and section 12 is also breached by Sharona. Under these sections he has persecuted different structures. She has used drone but if permission is given then only drone can be used by them.

As per section 13 if the government do not allow for the entry of racecourse with vehicles. If permission is taken from earlier then it can be confined that several problems can be solved[6]. It is unlawful to create obstruction so obstruction is needed to be stopped by using certain things which are suitable for this act. There are several consequences which are needed to be followed through the structure of this act. It is necessary that with concern if the rules and regulations are authentically fulfilled then the problem can be monitored. 

2006 Alabama Code - Section 15-22-26 — Standards For Release Of Prisoners On Parole. (2017) Justia Law

Aspen, A., WORKS, S., Metal II, N. S. H., OAKLAND, A. C. T., & Nunn, J. Selected Exhibitions, Screenings and Performances:(* indicates solo) 2017 Marking Space. Richmond Art Center, Richmond, CA Material Matters. Seager Gray Gallery, Mill Valley, CA Personals: Small Objects. Skowhegan Storefront, New York, NY (upcoming May) Squared Alumni. Arc Gallery, San Francisco, CA (upcoming Sept).

Hofmann, N., "Interpretation Rules And Good Faith As Obstacles To The UK's Ratification Of The CISG And To The Harmonization Of Contract Law In Europe" (2010) 22 Pace Int'l L. Rev

Parks And Gardens Week Act 2017 (2017) <https://file:///C:/Users/pc/Downloads/Parksand%20Gardens%20Week%20Act.pdf>

Szewczyk, B. M. (2014). Customary International Law and Statutory Interpretation: An Empirical Analysis of Federal Court Decisions.

Tom, J. M. (2010). A Simple Compromise: The Need for a Federal Data Breach Notification Law. . John's L. Rev., 84, 1569.