Palmerston north bus drivers facing fines for alleged fare evaders could be slapped with up to $1,000 each in fines after a South Australian court ruled the drivers are liable for any fare evasion charges.
The High Court ordered the bus drivers’ employer, Palmerston Transport Services (PTS), to pay fines of $3,000 to the operator and $1.5 million to the company’s owners, including its operators, if the drivers were found guilty.PTS was found liable by the South Australian Supreme Court for alleged offences of contravening the Ticketing Act.
The court ruled it was not responsible for the drivers’ behaviour because it had not been informed about any possible offence.
Pets and alcoholPets can be carried onto buses for up to 30 minutes and alcohol is not allowed, but the court ruled a ban on pets would apply only if the owner is a passenger.
There are two options for pet owners to bring their pets on board the bus: A passenger can bring their pet on the bus as a pet and a dog may be carried on a leash or kennel, but they must be restrained in a seat.
If a pet is carried onto the bus, it must be securely locked to the seat.
The court found that the decision to bring a pet onto the transport bus was not an arbitrary choice but a matter of “reasonable consideration” as the animal could cause “great suffering” to passengers, as well as their pet.
The owner of the pet could not be charged if it was kept in the transport car, but it could be subject to a fine of up to 50 per cent of the driver’s salary.
Parks and natureThe court also said a decision to ban the parks and nature areas could have a detrimental effect on people’s enjoyment of the city.
“Parks may be of concern to people’s physical health, including breathing difficulties, but this is not a ground for an absolute ban on all outdoor activities,” the court found.
“The Commonwealth is not required to take any action to restrict or prohibit all outdoor activity in any area of the City.”
A decision to restrict the parks could lead to changes to the City’s parks management plan, the court said.
The decision to suspend the public spaces policy could also affect the number of people who can use the public parks.
The Court of Appeal earlier this year said the public space policy was the only way to ensure people’s recreation in the city was a “public good” and a “way of life”.
