Section 362 — Immigration Act 2009: Infringement notices
Text of the provision Official document
362 Infringement notices (1) If an immigration officer believes on reasonable grounds that a carrier, or a person in charge, of a craft has committed an infringement offence, the immigration officer may issue an infringement notice to the carrier, or the person in charge, of the craft. (2) Every infringement notice must be in the prescribed form and must include the following particulars: (a) sufficient detail to fairly inform the person of the time, place, and nature of the alleged infringement offence: (b) the infringement fee for the infringement offence: (c) an address at which the infringement fee may be paid: (d) the time within which the infringement fee must be paid: (e) a summary of the provisions of section 21(10) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957: (f) a statement that the person has a right to request a hearing: (g) a statement of the consequences if the person does not pay the infringement fee and does not request a hearing: (h) any other prescribed matters. (3) An infringement notice may be served— (a) by personal delivery to the carrier, or person in charge, of the craft who appears to have committed the infringement offence; or (b) by sending it by post to the last known place of residence or business of the carrier, or person in charge, of the craft. (4) For the purposes of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 , an infringement notice sent by post is deemed to have been served on the carrier, or the person in charge, of the craft on the date it was posted. (5) If an infringement notice has been issued, proceedings in respect of the infringement offence to which the notice relates may be commenced in accordance with section 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and, in that case, the provisions of that section apply with all necessary modifications.
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →