WA’s controversial AI cameras have caught more than 81,000 motorists for suspected seatbelt offences — but hundreds of cases have since been dumped by police prosecutors.

The cameras have issued 81,412 seatbelt-related infringements since being introduced in WA, with about 5700 — 7 per cent — overturned through the Department of Transport review process.

WA Police have separately dismissed hundreds of cases after prosecutors decided there was “no reasonable prospect” of conviction.

The figures reveal the growing gap between what the AI technology detects and what can ultimately be proved in court.

The technology uses cameras to identify drivers and passengers who appear not to be properly restrained, with images then reviewed before infringements are issued.

But some motorists have successfully challenged fines where the camera footage did not establish that they knowingly committed an offence.

One Perth driver was fined after his 10-year-old daughter’s seatbelt slipped underneath her arm while they were travelling on the Kwinana Freeway.

The fine was eventually overturned, more than eight months after it was issued.

Another motorist was caught on Toodyay Road after a passenger’s seatbelt slipped as she reached into the back seat to give her four-year-old child a bottle.

The cases highlight one of the difficulties facing police — proving not simply that a seatbelt was incorrectly worn but that the circumstances amounted to an offence that could be successfully prosecuted.

The figures come as authorities point to a sharp fall in the number of offences being detected by the cameras.

The Road Safety Commission says the rate of seatbelt and mobile-phone offences detected by the AI cameras fell 76 per cent between September 2025 and August 2026.

It has argued the decline shows motorists are changing their behaviour as they become aware of the cameras.

But the technology has continued to generate thousands of infringements, creating an increasingly significant review and enforcement workload.

About $1.1 million worth of AI-camera fines had been withdrawn by April after motorists successfully challenged infringements.

Consumer advocate Adrian Taylor, of Compare the Market, urged motorists who believed they had been wrongly fined to not simply ignore the infringement.

“If a motorist receives an infringement they believe has been issued incorrectly by an AI system, they shouldn’t simply ignore it,” he said.

“Drivers should check the details of the offence, review any available evidence and follow the relevant process in their State or Territory to challenge the fine if they believe it has been issued incorrectly.

“This is particularly important as automated systems become more sophisticated and are used to detect offences that may previously have required a police officer to identify them.”

Mr Taylor also warned motorists that the consequences of driving offences could extend beyond the initial penalty.

“Drivers should also remember that the cost of a driving offence can extend beyond the initial fine,” he said.

“If an offence results in a licence suspension, cancellation, disqualification or restriction, it may be taken into account when determining your car insurance premium or eligibility for cover, depending on the insurer and policy.

“Motorists should take care to understand how their insurer treats these offences.”