A growing number of Perth motorists are taking their fight against artificial intelligence traffic camera fines to court, challenging the accuracy of a technology that authorities have deployed with confidence but that legal experts say remains unreliable in practice.
The issue centres on two main offence categories: mobile phone detection and seatbelt compliance. As artificial intelligence traffic cameras become standard across Australia, concerns are mounting over their accuracy, particularly when it comes to detecting mobile phone and seatbelt offences. Traffic lawyer Avinash Singh from Astor Legal has become increasingly vocal about the technology's limitations. Singh warned that the systems frequently misinterpret common items as mobile phones, noting that AI cameras are notoriously unreliable at detecting mobile phone use in particular.
The scale of the enforcement is substantial. In the 19 weeks up to February 18, the cameras recorded 36,262 seatbelt violations in a crackdown that has cost Western Australian motorists almost $20 million. The financial impact extends beyond fines; drivers have accrued more than 145,000 demerit points.
Real cases illustrate the technology's shortcomings. One disabled support worker, Elli Figomnari, has been issued four infringement notices after her neurodivergent client repeatedly breached seatbelt rules while she was driving. Another motorist, Xavier Ellis, received a fine after his son momentarily moved his shoulder strap to grab something. Such cases raise a fundamental question about fairness when drivers face penalties for actions they cannot necessarily control.
To challenge an AI-based fine, the driver must elect to take the matter to court instead of paying it. A criminal defence lawyer can argue that the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the image shows a mobile phone. However, the appeal process itself has been criticised as slow and discouraging.
Authorities defend the technology. Police Commissioner Col Blanch acknowledged that there may be rare cases where fines are wrongly applied and noted the AI systems are continually evolving. Governments point to road safety benefits; since using Acusensus fixed and trailer based cameras the rate of phone use has dropped six-fold and New South Wales has dramatically outperformed every other state in road fatality reduction over the past three years.
Yet this defence sits uneasily with the mounting court challenges. More than 180,000 seatbelt fines were also issued across Australia in 2024 alone, and as the technology continues to expand, that number is only expected to climb. For fiscal responsibility and individual liberty, the tension is clear: automated enforcement offers scalable road safety benefits, but blanket approaches can penalise compliant drivers for misreadings by imperfect technology. The courts will ultimately decide whether the burden of proof required in each jurisdiction protects citizens adequately against erroneous fines.