Court - What to expect [Archive]

klingon

24th September 2009, 11:59

Hi guys,

I will be defending a charge under the Summary Proceedings Act in court on October 13th. The charge is exceeding 70 km/h as leaner motorcyclist. I know there is mixed opinion as to whether I should attempt to defend this charge - but I ask that we don't get into that fight again here (it's been had over and over and over).

I am hoping that someone might be able to elighten me as to the process. I will not have legal counsel so I will be defending myself. I have some questions:

Will it be a judge or a JP? How do I address them? What format will the proceeding take? I had intended on preparing a written statement that I hoped to just read. Is this likely to be a sensible approach?

Thanks,
Patrick

Which court will it be heard at? It might pay to call the court and ask some of those questions directly so you are clear on the procedure.

At the Waitakere District Court they call everyone to be there at 10am, then you arrive and look at the list on the wall to see which courtroom you're in. Unfortunately there is no way of knowing what order you will be called in, so you are likely to wait for several hours before your name is called. Set aside the whole day for this (apparently people accused of a misdemeanor have nothing better to do with their time than sit in a waiting room.) <_<

Eventually you will be called in and asked to plead. If this is your first appearance you will say "not guilty" and you will probably be sent away again and you will revceive another date in the mail when your case will be heard... and again you will have to wait all day!

I would suggest you take a friend to be your support person - someone who can pop out and get you a coffee or a paper, or wait while you dash to the loo, without worrying about missing your name being called.

Sheba

24th September 2009, 12:38

Best of luck with this, hope there's a favorable outcome.

Jonno.

25th September 2009, 17:21

I'm curious as to what you're defending? Are you disputing that it occured or the law. Interesting to see how it goes.

Toot Toot

26th September 2009, 01:15

Is this your first appearance?? I have a feeling it is so you will not be defending it that day (October 13).
You will only enter a plea, at which point you may plead guilty, not guilty, or enter 'no plea', which is essentially the same as not guilty.
As mentioned above you will go to the court on the day at 10am (this is normal time for court). There are several courtrooms. There are lists posted outside each one. Yours will be in the minor traffic court, so find a list with that heading on it and your name should be on it.
It will be heard by two JP's, not a Judge.
Now you can either wait outside in the lobby for your name to be called over the P.A. or you can opt to "sit in" the court room at the back in the public gallery and watch the proceedings go on before you. I suggest this to be a good idea as you will get a feel for what goes on and what to do/say etc.

Over the PA you will hear "John Smith, followed by George Citizen (you), courtroom 3. Which means it is John Smiths turn and you are next.
Then you will hear "George Citizen (you), followed by Sam Brown, courtroom 3". his means it is your turn to go inside.
You do not need to bow to the JP, this is only for counsel (lawyers) to do.
You may address the JP as "Your Worship" but "Sir" or "Maa'm" is perfectly acceptable.
You will enter the courtroom, pass the public gallery seating, beyond some railings that seperate them from the rest of the court and stand over to one side. You will be directed where to stand by one of the JP's, they are very accomodating to first timers.

The JP will ask the Police prosecuter (usually a crusty old sergent) what the charge is. He will tell the court that you are charged with operating a vehicle at a speed over 70kph whilst on a learners licence.

The JP then looks over to you and asks how you plead to that charge. This is where you say, not guilty Sir. The court then sets a date for a defended hearing (usually a month or so away depending on court time etc). If the date does not suit you (need a pretty good reason tho) you may request an alternate date at this point in time.
A date will be set and you will be excused from the court... day one over.

Defended hearing...

Same as above up untill the where you stand bit. As you are representing yourself, you go and sit at the tables normally assigned for your legal representation. The police prosecutor will read the charge to the court.
After this the police officer that gave you the ticket will stand in the witness box and state his full name and job title, then swear on the bible that he will tell the truth etc.
The prosecutor will ask him a series of questions relating to the day you were stopped. These will include things like were the radar equipment checked etc before shift, which of course they answer yes too. They will normally produce the certification papers for the speed device in question and the JP will offer to show you these.
Once the prosecutor has finished asking questions the JP will give you the opportunity to cross examine the police officer.
This is where you STAND UP and ask questions. You may have paper with the questions on if you want. It is a good idea to scribble some notes while the prosecutor was asking questions to the police officer. This is your chance to get any information from the police officer which may help your case.

When you are finished asking questions, the policeman will sit down and it is your turn to get up in the witness box, state your full name and swear on the bible. You may not read from notes in the witness box, some JP's allow them as a reference only.
You will then proceed to tell your "version" of events. You can support this with diagrams or photos of the roadway or whatever you want.
Once you are finished the prosecutor will cross examine YOU. This part is very tricky and you need to pause and think very carefully how you answer each question. They are designed to trap you into an admission of guilt basiclly. Answer slowly (the JP's are recording in long hand). Even seemingly benign questions have a reason for being asked. They may ask what colour the car was behind you... you wont know.. they move on and later ask if there was a truck not far in front of you... this you wont know either.... then they tell the JP that clearly you were not concentrating on riding because you will have known these things so you clearly were not concentrating on your speed and are a menace to society. From here you feel the colour drain from your face and you feel giddy as you realise this prosecutor has sucked you in and your fucked.
He will also ask you directly if you were speeding....think very carefully how you answer this. If you say no, he will say "I put it to you that you are not being truthful in this court today" think how you will answer this as well. He will then leave you alone and sit down with a smirk on his face.
At this point the JP may or may not ask you a breif question or two, or to clarify a point.
It is now that if you have a witness they will be brought in and it is as above.
It is at this point also that if you have researched any previous similar cases (on the internet or whatever) that have similar circumstances to yours and were let off you may bring this to the courts attention. You need to be very specific about exactly which case it was, where it was heard and what the outcome was (edit... obviously this needs to be a NZ case, not necassarily recent tho).

If not, you go sit down again and the JP's will bugger off and have a cup of tea, giving you the impression they are thinking about your case.
A little while later they return (you stand on entering).
They sit there and very breifly re-cap the case and tell you that in this instance they have found the police case to be proved.
You then still pay the fine and $30 court costs.

JP's nearly always side with the police, where as a Judge will make a cop work for his money and actually prove his case properly.

Good luck. any questions just ask.

I see you live in HBC, so will be North Shore District Court. If you were stopped in Rodney, then welcome to the Hazzard County police state where motorcylces are seen as child molestering murderous machines of death.

phill-k

26th September 2009, 08:44

Hi guys,

I will be defending a charge under the Summary Proceedings Act in court on October 13th. The charge is exceeding 70 km/h as leaner motorcyclist.
Thanks,
Patrick

how about giving us the background behind you deciding to defend this charge

thanks

Reckless

26th September 2009, 08:53

Is this your first appearance??

That was a good read! Thanks for taking the time.

scumdog

26th September 2009, 08:57

You then still pay the fine and $30 court costs.

Is that a special rate for JP Court?

Cos mostly it's $130 in costs.

crazyhorse

26th September 2009, 09:12

All the best - but do allow to be there for most of the day - you have to just wait until it is your turn - very boring and long winded. And then they stop for morning tea too!

Good Luck :)

James Deuce

26th September 2009, 09:12

scumdog

26th September 2009, 09:14

SixPackBack

26th September 2009, 09:33

Hi guys,

I will be defending a charge under the Summary Proceedings Act in court on October 13th. The charge is exceeding 70 km/h as leaner motorcyclist. I know there is mixed opinion as to whether I should attempt to defend this charge - but I ask that we don't get into that fight again here (it's been had over and over and over).

I am hoping that someone might be able to elighten me as to the process. I will not have legal counsel so I will be defending myself. I have some questions:

Will it be a judge or a JP? How do I address them? What format will the proceeding take? I had intended on preparing a written statement that I hoped to just read. Is this likely to be a sensible approach?

Thanks,
Patrick

Toot toot has wrapped it up nicely. A few other points:

The JP's could not give a flying fuck about you or your ticket.
The coppers have ticketing targets to meet-you're easy meat.
Hiring a lawyer [The only hope of getting of the ticket] will cost more than the fine.
Lawyers are motivated by money, it may be in their best interest to string you out. Your guilt or innocence is of no consequence to them.
Minor traffic offences are tax-plain and simple.
Coppers will lie to get a conviction.
The court system may change appearance date/s without informing you. This will result in a guilty finding.
The copper may not turn up. This can happen multiple times with no visible impact on said dodgy copper. It can waste days of your time.
Conversely if you cannot turn up a guilty result will be recorded.
Address the JP and copper as lying scum. By supporting a system that contains no effective real justice, both the coppers and JP's are lying to themselves and those they jokingly represent.

Madness

26th September 2009, 10:01

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=141685&d=1252565786

I'm with SPB on the lying thing.

Grahameeboy

26th September 2009, 10:10

Toot toot has wrapped it up nicely. A few other points:

The JP's could not give a flying fuck about you or your ticket.
The coppers have ticketing targets to meet-you're easy meat.
Hiring a lawyer [The only hope of getting of the ticket] will cost more than the fine.
Lawyers are motivated by money, it may be in their best interest to string you out. Your guilt or innocence is of no consequence to them.
Minor traffic offences are tax-plain and simple.
Coppers will lie to get a conviction.
The court system may change appearance date/s without informing you. This will result in a guilty finding.
The copper may not turn up. This can happen multiple times with no visible impact on said dodgy copper. It can waste days of your time.
Conversely if you cannot turn up a guilty result will be recorded.

Address the JP and copper as lying scum. By supporting a system that contains no effective real justice, both the coppers and JP's are lying to themselves and those they jokingly represent.

Or you could go in there prepared and not treat them like scum...and even if you lose you can still hold your head high.

At the end of the day you were breaching your licence conditions so the only way of getting off the charge is to show mitigating circumstances...

Personally I would accept the rap and move on...otherwise you may leave the Court being another SPB (much that I like him)....

SixPackBack

26th September 2009, 10:19

Or you could go in there prepared and not treat them like scum...and even if you lose you can still hold your head high.

At the end of the day you were breaching your licence conditions so the only way of getting off the charge is to show mitigating circumstances...

Personally I would accept the rap and move on...otherwise you may leave the Court being another SPB (much that I like him)....

A well educated realist. Minor traffic offences are tax.

Katman

26th September 2009, 10:26

I'll third the lying bit.

An IPCA investigation is currently underway of the cop who lied under oath at my hearing.

breakaway

26th September 2009, 10:27

An IPCA investigation is currently underway of the cop who lied under oath at my hearing.

What happened?

jaykay

26th September 2009, 11:56

paddy

26th September 2009, 12:10

Thanks to all of those who have responded (or who respond after this post). I have sent some of you PMs to clarify a few points. At this stage I don't want to get into any details for risk of inadvertently prejudicing the hearing. Once it is all over and done with I will detail the process and the outcome for the learning of others.

Cheers,
P.

CookMySock

26th September 2009, 12:20

I would strongly suggest you don't go into the witness stand, most people don't realize you don't have to. This is a similar reason for NEVER talking to the police - anything you say will be used against you.

Basically if you haven't committed an offence, why talk? And if you have...let them prove it..........and don't talk.

You cannot talk your way out of alleged offence, but it's very easy to talk your way into one.Ok so it is physically impossible for them to call you as a witness against yourself?

I understand that you cannot be compelled to give evidence against yourself. If they ask you a direct question that incriminates you, can you decline to answer it on that basis?

Can the prosecutor call the complainant (if there was one) as a witness?

We will be defending ourselves in court before long it seems.

thanks
Steve

Madness

26th September 2009, 12:28

Ok so it is physically impossible for them to call you as a witness against yourself?
The prosecution can only cross-examine the defendant, if and after the defence have chosen put the defendant in the box.

Can the prosecutor call the complainant (if there was one) as a witness?
Yes.

Disclaimer: I am not a trained legal professional and my comments here should not be taken as legal advice.

CookMySock

26th September 2009, 12:37

The prosecution can only cross-examine the defendant, if and after the defence have chosen put the defendant in the box.If I am defending myself, may I do so outside of the box, and therefore not be subject to cross-examination?

Steve

mowgli

26th September 2009, 12:48

Ok so it is physically impossible for them to call you as a witness against yourself?
NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 s25 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225527.html)

25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure
Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:
(a) The right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:
(b) The right to be tried without undue delay:
(c) The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:
(d) The right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt:
(e) The right to be present at the trial and to present a defence:
etc...

Madness

26th September 2009, 13:02

If I am defending myself, may I do so outside of the box, and therefore not be subject to cross-examination?

Steve

Yes on both counts, IMO.

Disclaimer: I am not a trained legal professional and my comments here should not be taken as legal advice.

mowgli

26th September 2009, 13:09

If I am defending myself, may I do so outside of the box, and therefore not be subject to cross-examination?
Steve
Yes and No. In representing (defending) yourself you have the right to cross examine prosecution witnesses and to lead evidence from defence witnesses. If you elect to give evidence yourself then you should expect to be cross examined. If you do not give evidence yourself then you cannot be cross examined. So really it's up to you.

Ixion

26th September 2009, 13:18

After this the police officer that gave you the ticket will stand in the witness box and state his full name and job title, then swear on the bible that he will tell the truth etc.

:rofl: :killingme: :killingme:

Swoop

26th September 2009, 13:31

The couple of dealings that I've had with JPs have shown me just how pathetic our lower legal system can be.
Yeah. I bet they enjoy getting a lecture from you whilst in court.

:rofl: :killingme: :killingme:
Their hands must burn when they touch the "book of imaginary friends"...

Patrick

26th September 2009, 14:25

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Minor traffic offences are tax-plain and simple.

But so many enjoy paying this tax.... They must enjoy it, because so many do it again.... and again..... and again......

Coppers will lie to get a conviction.

Yeah, because..... ummm.... shit.... got me there... Why? Will one lose their accumulated fly buys points if someone was to be found not guilty? I hope not, I've nearly got enough for the single slice toaster.....

The court system may change appearance

Disguised as a WINZ building? Plastic moustache and glasses type of thing???

The copper may not turn up. This can happen multiple times with no visible impact on said dodgy copper. It can waste days of your time.

So "dodgy" that the copper doesn't front up, charge will be tossed all together on the spot. But if the defendant fails to appear, that is all right then, it will be out off to another date.... again..... and again......

Conversely if you cannot turn up a guilty result will be recorded.

Not quite - could go to a formal proof matter, depending what the charge is. For a speeding (minor) matter, that is likely.

For more serious matters, a warrant would be sought and once located, put off to new dates.... again... and to be repeated over and over in some instances.......................

[/LIST]Address the JP and copper as lying scum. By supporting a system that contains no effective real justice, both the coppers and JP's are lying to themselves and those they jokingly represent.

Yeah... do that..... You will get some laughs.... and a room all to yourself, hopefully without a urine soaked blanket and mattress if ya really lucky..... and if you're really really lucky, Bubba will have a playmate!

.....You cannot talk your way out of alleged offence, but it's very easy to talk your way into one.

Especially when you know you're as guilty as sin...

If I am defending myself, may I do so outside of the box, and therefore not be subject to cross-examination?

Steve

Nah. That is making "statements" and is not "evidence."

You can question and cross examine one giving evidence.

JP will tell ya there is sufficient evidence for the charge and ask if you wish to give defence evidence. If you don't want to, don't. They will then convict.

If you want to give defence evidence, then get in the box.... but expect to be questioned and cross examined, just as you have just done.....

YellowDog

26th September 2009, 14:32

"Mixed Opinions"?

A definitive opinion would be - "You're screwed".

Talk about picking the wrong battle.

Pay the fine and forget court. It's going to cost you the fine, court costs, and at least 4 random days off work.

There is no principle to fight. You broke a long standing, well-understood law, now man up.

Sheesh.
Unfortunately this is indeed correct.

Reading a statement is a good idea, rather than trying to deal with what is actually going on. Also, if you send it in before hand the judge may ask you to clarify some points or issues; which could be good for you.

I'd give you a 15-20% chance of success.

Goood luck.

Patrick

26th September 2009, 14:41

Matt_TG

26th September 2009, 14:50

I have this vision of a person asking himself a question, then running to the other side of the courtroom, fighting with himself to not stand in the witness box, finally be overcome and pushed in there, by himself, then not answering his own question, only to run out and ask another question of himself that will be answered, by himself again, this time though the SPB way, calling himself lying scum!

A one man stand gig really. Will someone video tape the whole thing?

SixPackBack

26th September 2009, 14:52

Paddy if its not already apparent patrick is a cop....THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE.

Swoop

26th September 2009, 15:05

Paddy if its not already apparent patrick is a cop....THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE.
Patrick's post #32 is a good one.

ital916

26th September 2009, 15:06

Paddy if its not already apparent patrick is a cop....THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE.

What do you have against police?

Most of the time (note I said most not all) when ya get done by the police we (as in we -the gen pub) were probably doing something wrong.

Seems like you got an itch to scratch with everyone....that or you just got an attitude.

ital916

26th September 2009, 15:09

Could make submissions to be considered before sentencing? This can include the dangerous nature of having to do 70, holing up faster impatient moving traffic etc etc, and the claims by basic handling/license testing instructors and Police, that that particular law is a poor one......

Is that a valid argument though, that someone broke a law as they considered it would be annoying/hazardous to others around them? If so can other laws broken be argued using the same logic :laugh:

Ixion

26th September 2009, 15:13

It's not a valid argument as regards guilty or not guilty. But it *may* be valid as regards sentence. Breaking a law when there is a good and sensible reason you broke it, you still broke the law. But the judge can take *why* you broke it into account when sentencing.

Don't like your chances with JPs though. Their average IQ is about 50 and the only training they get is two days receiting "The police are are always right".

And the 70kph law is pretty straight forward. You either were or weren't over 70kph.

If someone REALLY wanted to make a point about this law they could organise a ride by a LOT of learners (or people with L plates anyway), all going down the motorway (at a suitable inconvenient time) at 70kph. Get news media to get pcitures showing the irate motorists behind etc.

SixPackBack

26th September 2009, 15:20

What do you have against police?

Most of the time (note I said most not all) when ya get done by the police we (as in we -the gen pub) were probably doing something wrong.

Seems like you got an itch to scratch with everyone....that or you just got an attitude.

When you have a few more miles under your belt young grasshopper, you will understand, given enough time that pubescent glossy optimism will be replaced by dour the dour realism that minor traffic infringements are tax and the police are NOT your friends.

Patrick

26th September 2009, 15:30

Paddy if its not already apparent patrick is a cop....THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE.

Ask around. You are wrong.

I only know of cops calling it as they see it.

Right or wrong.

Blind, deluded and corrupt? Shove ya red up yer arse. Wrong on all three counts there too.

Patrick

26th September 2009, 15:35

Patrick's post #32 is a good one.

Apparently not....

One eyed SPB can't find his marbles again. I think he is a Canterbury Rugby supporter.

It's not a valid argument as regards guilty or not guilty. But it *may* be valid as regards sentence. Breaking a law when there is a good and sensible reason you broke it, you still broke the law. But the judge can take *why* you broke it into account when sentencing.

Well said..... my point exactly.

Don't like your chances with JPs though. Their average IQ is about 50 and the only training they get is two days receiting "The police are are always right".

Not so well said. If that was the case, JP's wouldn't toss out ANY cases......

And the 70kph law is pretty straight forward. You either were or weren't over 70kph.

If someone REALLY wanted to make a point about this law they could organise a ride by a LOT of learners (or people with L plates anyway), all going down the motorway (at a suitable inconvenient time) at 70kph. Get news media to get pcitures showing the irate motorists behind etc.

Now THAT is worth doing.

SixPackBack

26th September 2009, 15:39

Ask around. You are wrong.

I only know of cops calling it as they see it.

Right or wrong.

Blind, deluded and corrupt? Shove ya red up yer arse. Wrong on all three counts there too.

I rest my case. Dare to disagree and they become angry and abusive.

Patrick

26th September 2009, 15:43

I rest my case. Dare to disagree and they become angry and abusive.

Nah. Abusive? You are the one labelling......

Disagree all you like. Getting red for speaking the truth is confusing to me, that's all.

Madness

26th September 2009, 16:38

A few points missed about the actual court hearing.

For the actual hearing itself (not the first one for a plea) the prosecution MUST disclose all the evidence they intend to use at the hearing well before the due date so you have time to prepare your defence. This must include all the evidence that the policeman will be stating in the witness box. If this evidence isn't in your hands at least a week before the hearing you can ask for an adjournment, (insufficient time to prepare your defence).

This is true, although the prosecution don't send out the disclosure automatically without a request from the defence in writing. Also, as the case in question here is (as I understand it) an infringement offence being taken to a court hearing under the Summary Proceedings act, there may not be a callover. The court date in front of J.P's is possibly the date the case will be heard, also subject to the actual Court and the size of the day's list. Why would a hearing be granted for such an (infringement) offence if the plea wasn't already not guilty?

Paddy; if you haven't already requested disclosure, request it now. Be very specific of the information you require. For example, a Statement of Facts (probably full of lies), Officer's notes made at the time and even recordings from the Police Comms radio, if it's relevant.

ital916

26th September 2009, 16:48

When you have a few more miles under your belt young grasshopper, you will understand, given enough time that pubescent glossy optimism will be replaced by dour the dour realism that minor traffic infringements are tax and the police are NOT your friends.

You know, there is a green rep button.....:eek:

You know, this is good because now I have an example of what I shouldn't be like when im older....I shouldnt be like you. You're a hater dude, I would say be happy but you seem like a person well past their used by date when it comes to cracking a smile or happiness.

ital916

26th September 2009, 16:50

I rest my case. Dare to disagree and they become angry and abusive.

Did you have a specifically bad run in with the police at some point in time? Do tell. Ill get the popcorn :corn:

Fatt Max

26th September 2009, 16:57

lets face it, all police are constables.....

Grahameeboy

26th September 2009, 17:17

Paddy if its not already apparent patrick is a cop....THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE.

Funny cause he seemed to be helping....

Indoo

26th September 2009, 17:46

Paddy if its not already apparent patrick is a cop....THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE.

And yet strangely enough he's helped far more people on here who have had problems with the 'law' than you have.

scumdog

26th September 2009, 17:51

Paddy if its not already apparent patrick is a cop....THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE.

Mwahahaha..:stupid::laugh::lol::rofl::killingme:vi olin:

Grahameeboy

26th September 2009, 17:53

Mwahahaha..:stupid::laugh::lol::rofl::killingme:vi olin:

Now please be sensible SD.....you don't want to show that cops have a human side you know..tut tut..could give cops a good name don't you know

scumdog

26th September 2009, 17:53

I rest my case. Dare to disagree and they become angry and abusive.

Wow, now THERE'S something YOU would never do...:rolleyes:

James Deuce

26th September 2009, 17:56

Dammit this thread has degenerated to the point where I'll HAVE to go and have a bacon sarnie.

SixPackBack

26th September 2009, 18:07

And yet strangely enough he's helped far more people on here who have had problems with the 'law' than you have.

Based on what data?.........Perception is not reality Indoo, I have individuals contacting me on a frequent basis asking for advice. Minor traffic infringements are the extent of my comments because minor traffic infringements serve only to tax the population.

Conversely the coppers on KB would have us believe that as a group they are beyond reproach, never lie, have your best interest at heart and paint a Utopian picture where they 'look after you'.

If I can get nothing else through to the unwashed masses it would be: Do not trust the police, courts or government, they are not on your side.

Grahameeboy

26th September 2009, 18:11

Based on what data?.........Perception is not reality Indoo, I have individuals contacting me on a frequent basis asking for advice. Minor traffic infringements are the extent of my comments because minor traffic infringements serve only to tax the population.

Conversely the coppers on KB would have us believe that as a group they are beyond reproach, never lie, have your best interest at heart and paint a Utopian picture where they 'look after you'.

If I can get nothing else through to the unwashed masses it would be: Do not trust the police, courts or government, they are not on your side.

Firstly perception is reality....sorry to disagree...hence all the anti cop issues...

I don't think that SD and Patrick claim to be beyond reproach...

Finally..if you break the law the reality is that the "Law" are not on your side...knock knock...

I love you SPB but sometimes you need strapping to a couch and spoken to gently...

SixPackBack

26th September 2009, 18:18

Firstly perception is reality....sorry to disagree...hence all the anti cop issues...

I don't think that SD and Patrick claim to be beyond reproach...

Finally..if you break the law the reality is that the "Law" are not on your side...knock knock...

I love you SPB but sometimes you need strapping to a couch and spoken to gently...

I feel the same about you brother. You will agree with the police as a greater good no matter what the contrary evidence-sycophant is the word!.........
Check out the 'formal complaints' thread, the onsite coppers make the most far reaching excuses for the actions of fellow officers...........

Grahameeboy

26th September 2009, 18:22

I feel the same about you brother. You will agree with the police as a greater good no matter what the contrary evidence-sycophant is the word!.........
Check out the 'formal complaints' thread, the onsite coppers make the most far reaching excuses for the actions of fellow officers...........

Okay there are about 11,000 cops in NZ...you have only met a smingin of the Police force.....that's reality

Usarka

26th September 2009, 19:34

I love you SPB but sometimes you need strapping to a couch and spoken to gently...

A strap-on???? :eek:

Ixion

26th September 2009, 19:35

Not so well said. If that was the case, JP's wouldn't toss out ANY cases......

Well, I was assuming that the OP doesn't belong to the same golf club as the JP.

p.dath

26th September 2009, 20:31

Grahameeboy

26th September 2009, 20:51

A strap-on???? :eek:

You need one then.............

boostin

26th September 2009, 20:54

p.dath

26th September 2009, 20:56

The Land Transport Rule is the one that governs most of the road rules.

boostin

26th September 2009, 20:59

Forget me I am getting confused

Toot Toot

27th September 2009, 00:41

Is that a special rate for JP Court?

Cos mostly it's $130 in costs.Minor traffic court with Jp's are only $30 costs, regular court with a judge is $130

Kickaha

27th September 2009, 07:33

I love you SPB but sometimes you need strapping to a couch and spoken to gently...

Up his medication while you're at it

Grahameeboy

27th September 2009, 07:39

Up his medication while you're at it

He is already maxed out.............

SixPackBack

27th September 2009, 12:05

Up his medication while you're at it

Got your tongue down the back of scumdog's trousers again huh. :msn-wink:

He is already maxed out.............

Removing your rose coloured bible glasses would reveal the true world.

Kickaha

27th September 2009, 12:15

Got your tongue down the back of scumdog's trousers again huh. :msn-wink:

tastes like bacon

SixPackBack

27th September 2009, 12:32

Okay there are about 11,000 cops in NZ...you have only met a smingin of the Police force.....that's reality

Reality in your world is a tenuous existence, based on illusion and assumption.

Contrary to what you and the other on-site overtly optimistic copper lovers 'think' I try and provide a realistic angle based on my own experience and those around me [this includes a wife who is basically a desk bound enforcer]. Data extrapolation and research has led me to the conclusion that minor traffic infringements are tax, and that police culture in NZ is often very sick [This document strongly supports the 'sick culture theory' http://www.cipc.govt.nz/cipc.nsf/Files/CIPCVol1/$file/CIPCVol1.pdf ]

And for the purpose of this thread, informing the original thread starter what he is up against, namely the following [re-posted]:

The JP's could not give a flying fuck about you or your ticket.
The coppers have ticketing targets to meet-you're easy meat.
Hiring a lawyer [The only hope of getting of the ticket] will cost more than the fine.
Lawyers are motivated by money, it may be in their best interest to string you out. Your guilt or innocence is of no consequence to them.
Minor traffic offences are tax-plain and simple.
Coppers will lie to get a conviction.
The court system may change appearance date/s without informing you. This will result in a guilty finding.
The copper may not turn up. This can happen multiple times with no visible impact on said dodgy copper. It can waste days of your time.
Conversely if you cannot turn up a guilty result will be recorded.

Grahameeboy

27th September 2009, 12:47

Reality in your world is a tenuous existence, based on illusion and assumption.

Contrary to what you and the other on-site overtly optimistic copper lovers 'think' I try and provide a realistic angle based on my own experience and those around me [this includes a wife who is basically a desk bound enforcer]. Data extrapolation and research has led me to the conclusion that minor traffic infringements are tax, and that police culture in NZ is often very sick [This document strongly supports the 'sick culture theory' http://www.cipc.govt.nz/cipc.nsf/Files/CIPCVol1/$file/CIPCVol1.pdf ]

And for the purpose of this thread, informing the original thread starter what he is up against, namely the following [re-posted]:

The JP's could not give a flying fuck about you or your ticket.
The coppers have ticketing targets to meet-you're easy meat.
Hiring a lawyer [The only hope of getting of the ticket] will cost more than the fine.
Lawyers are motivated by money, it may be in their best interest to string you out. Your guilt or innocence is of no consequence to them.
Minor traffic offences are tax-plain and simple.
Coppers will lie to get a conviction.
The court system may change appearance date/s without informing you. This will result in a guilty finding.
The copper may not turn up. This can happen multiple times with no visible impact on said dodgy copper. It can waste days of your time.
Conversely if you cannot turn up a guilty result will be recorded.

Fancy making your Wife work for the Police as an informant...

scumdog

27th September 2009, 20:24

Got your tongue down the back of scumdog's trousers again huh. :msn-wink:

Peeping and peering again eh?

paddy

27th September 2009, 20:32

WOW! What happened to my thread? :-)

klingon

27th September 2009, 20:37

WOW! What happened to my thread? :-)

The same things that seem to happen to every thread where "police" or "courts" are mentioned. :yawn: It all gets pretty boring and repetitive actually.

You might like to start a new thread entitled "Why didn't you wave at me?" They tend to get interesting fairly quickly too. :innocent:

scumdog

27th September 2009, 20:39

The same things that seem to happen to every thread where "police" or "courts" are mentioned. :yawn: It all gets pretty boring and repetitive actually.

You might like to start a new thread entitled "Why didn't you wave at me?" They tend to get interesting fairly quickly too. :innocent:

Or even better - "How about we have a special KB wave?":doh:

Usarka

28th September 2009, 07:43

Fuck the non-wavers.

Mully

28th September 2009, 09:29

Or even better - "How about we have a special KB wave?"

Now, that's a good idea. Why hasn't anyone ever done a thread about that?

Back to the OP - I'd be keen to know (once the case is over) what your defense was?

To my mind, the law in question is an ass, but it is the law. Short of pleading guilty and claiming extenuating circumstances it seems that you're spending a lot of time on a minor issue.

MSTRS

28th September 2009, 09:57

I think this case is a long shot, but may I present the following information for your consideration:

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, Section 1.8

A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that—
(a) the act or omission complained of took place in response to a situation on a road; and
(b) the situation was not of the person's own making; and
(c) the act or omission was taken—
(i) to avoid the death or injury of a person; or
(ii) if the act or omission did not create a risk of death or injury or greater damage to any property, to avoid damage to any property.

And these are the precise reasons why the 70kph law is a bad one.
There is (almost) always a car driver about who will threaten your general safety and well-being, should you be significantly slower than s/he wants to travel at. And the only defence against this (apart from not being there) is to travel at a speed that is in keeping with the general flow of traffic.

p.dath

28th September 2009, 10:09

And these are the precise reasons why the 70kph law is a bad one.
There is (almost) always a car driver about who will threaten your general safety and well-being, should you be significantly slower than s/he wants to travel at. And the only defence against this (apart from not being there) is to travel at a speed that is in keeping with the general flow of traffic.

I didn't mention it because I thought it was obvious, but in the affidavit to the court I would find the quotes from the minster of transport (or was it the former minster) and the LTSA saying they thought the 70km/h limit posed a danger.

Then say that under section 1.8 that the 70km/h learners restriction does not apply. Hence, no law has been broken.

BUT this is a JP, not a Judge. And although there may be a point of law which is arguable, I'm betting the case will lost, and you would have to appeal.

So enjoy the day in court, but unless you prepared to dump $30k on it, and that's assuming you won the appeal, and the Police did not appeal it to the high court (which I bet they would if they lost to stop a precedent being established), I think the chances are pretty slim.

The Police have a lot of supporting cases in their favour.

EDIT: Remember, always aim for the best outcome - not the "just" outcome.

boostin

28th September 2009, 10:21

Actually the 'rule' specifically excludes any cover relating to driver licencing.

paddy

28th September 2009, 10:53

Actually the 'rule' specifically excludes any cover relating to driver licencing.

There are also some important "ands" in there as well...

Patrick

28th September 2009, 11:06

This is true, although the prosecution don't send out the disclosure automatically without a request from the defence in writing. Also, as the case in question here is (as I understand it) an infringement offence being taken to a court hearing under the Summary Proceedings act, there may not be a callover. The court date in front of J.P's is possibly the date the case will be heard, also subject to the actual Court and the size of the day's list. Why would a hearing be granted for such an (infringement) offence if the plea wasn't already not guilty?

Paddy; if you haven't already requested disclosure, request it now. Be very specific of the information you require. For example, a Statement of Facts (probably full of lies), Officer's notes made at the time and even recordings from the Police Comms radio, if it's relevant.

Blardy hell.....

It's a ticket. Unlikely to be any notebook entries, but ask all the same.... There is the ticket, and the officers notes on the rear of his copy. You're entitled to these. As for radio comms, statements etc, jesus... get a grip. It's a ticket!!!!! The radio will be, QVR on xxx12 at whatever road. You already know who owns the bike... Then they will check the riders details, and you know this too.... Then there will be the call that the rider has a 1L licence. Most cops know the tickets available for license breaches, as do ALL bike riders....... There may have been discussions with a supervisor, but this really is a simple ticket.

Disclosure: Write in and request the case the prosecution wishes to use against you. The address is on the ticket.

Hearing: If you want to defend the matter, write in and advise them of this. The address is on the ticket. They will let you know when the date will be for the hearing. There is no early hearing to enter a plea (coz it's just a blardy ticket....). You write in, saying you are pleading not guilty (as in you have entered a plea) and a date will be given. If the cop fails to front on the day (unlikely) it will get tossed. But hey, he might forget, he might be on night shift and can't be arsed for a poxy ticket, might go on holiday, whatever...... but don't hold your breath. Expect him/her to front. If you don't front, expect it to go ahead as a formal proof matter, that is, the case as it is, and the court will convict as expected, as there are no submissions from you.

lets face it, all police are constables.....

Yes they are. :whistle: It is the rank that they hold that makes a difference. Even the Commissioner is a Constable. Hope this answers your question......... :innocent:

..........To my mind, the law in question is an ass, but it is the law. Short of pleading guilty and claiming extenuating circumstances it seems that you're spending a lot of time on a minor issue.

But it could have a major positive result for all learners/restricteds....?

........There is (almost) always a car driver about who will threaten your general safety and well-being, should you be significantly slower than s/he wants to travel at. And the only defence against this (apart from not being there) is to travel at a speed that is in keeping with the general flow of traffic.

And this is the point......

Not guilty means you didn't break a law. He did.

Guilty but here is why I did what I did (submissions to be considered) is what is going on now........ If these submiisions are not accepted by the bureau, then try to see of the court will accept them as reasonable.

MSTRS

28th September 2009, 11:13

And this is the point......

Not guilty means you didn't break a law. He did.

Guilty but here is why I did what I did (submissions to be considered) is what is going on now........ If these submiisions are not accepted by the bureau, then try to see of the court will accept them as reasonable.

But did he really break the law? He has a legal defence of Not Guilty, due to the 'fact' that he was not breaking the law 'in the circumstances'

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, Section 1.8

A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that—
(a) the act or omission complained of took place in response to a situation on a road; and
(b) the situation was not of the person's own making; and
(c) the act or omission was taken—
(i) to avoid the death or injury of a person; or
(ii) if the act or omission did not create a risk of death or injury or greater damage to any property, to avoid damage to any property.
I read that to cover what I said earlier. Ergo...he avoided etc, so was not in breach etc...

Patrick

28th September 2009, 11:30

But did he really break the law? He has a legal defence of Not Guilty, due to the 'fact' that he was not breaking the law 'in the circumstances'

I read that to cover what I said earlier. Ergo...he avoided etc, so was not in breach etc...

I thought this below referred.......

...Then say that under section 1.8 that the 70km/h learners restriction does not apply.

Perhaps I misread what was being said. It looks useful for the argument, but is expressly excluded?

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Based on what data?.........Perception is not reality......

Ask around. You are wrong. It is not a perception. It is a fact. I won't name names, as they might not want it be known they were perhaps a little naughty, once upon a time.....

I have individuals contacting me on a frequent basis asking for advice.

Jesus. Heaven forbid. With your one eyed slant, I guess they have all been hung, drawn and quartered then.....

Mikkel

28th September 2009, 11:37

I haven't read all of the thread, but just tell them to grow a brain and you should be fine. If it goes otherwise, I am sure we can find a place for you within the ranks of "The Armed Rebellion Against the Robotic-minded Overlordshipness of the Establisment"...

MSTRS

28th September 2009, 11:46

Actually the 'rule' specifically excludes any cover relating to driver licencing.
Can you show us the precise wording?

Perhaps I misread what was being said. It looks useful for the argument, but is expressly excluded?

Unless the above post by Boostin turns out to be right, and licence conditions are exclusive of the Transport Act, then P.Dath's post is the legal 'Not Guilty'. IF Paddy can prove his case under those terms.

Madness

28th September 2009, 11:55

Blardy hell.....

It's a ticket. Unlikely to be any notebook entries, but ask all the same.... There is the ticket, and the officers notes on the rear of his copy. You're entitled to these. As for radio comms, statements etc, jesus... get a grip. It's a ticket!!!!! The radio will be, QVR on xxx12 at whatever road. You already know who owns the bike... Then they will check the riders details, and you know this too.... Then there will be the call that the rider has a 1L licence. Most cops know the tickets available for license breaches, as do ALL bike riders....... There may have been discussions with a supervisor, but this really is a simple ticket.

Isn't that a simple assumption on your part?

Paddy; if you haven't already requested disclosure, request it now. Be very specific of the information you require. For example, a Statement of Facts (probably full of lies), Officer's notes made at the time and even recordings from the Police Comms radio, if it's relevant.

I wasn't giving specific advice, you would have noticed that if you had been paying attention to detail. But, hey, who gives a fuck about the details, so long as the days quota has been filled?

Patrick

28th September 2009, 11:59

Isn't that a simple assumption on your part?

Ummm... no.... ??? It was direct from the source, as in "I got a ticket for exceeding the 70k restriction on me learners...." or words to that effect???

I wasn't giving specific advice, you would have noticed that if you had been paying attention to detail. But, hey, who gives a fuck about the details, so long as the days quota has been filled?

Pot/kettle????

paddy

28th September 2009, 12:00

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, Section 1.8

A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that—
(a) the act or omission complained of took place in response to a situation on a road; and
(b) the situation was not of the person's own making; and
(c) the act or omission was taken—
(i) to avoid the death or injury of a person; or
(ii) if the act or omission did not create a risk of death or injury or greater damage to any property, to avoid damage to any property.

Can you show us the precise wording?

Unless the above post by Boostin turns out to be right, and licence conditions are exclusive of the Transport Act, then P.Dath's post is the legal 'Not Guilty'. IF Paddy can prove his case under those terms.

I'm not so sure. It would be difficult to argue point (b).

Madness

28th September 2009, 12:00

Pot/kettle????

Pig/Lies??

paddy

28th September 2009, 12:04

Patrick

28th September 2009, 12:09

Pig/Lies??

Liar calling me a Pig? Or Pig calling you a liar. Confused now......

Madness

28th September 2009, 12:11

Confused now......

Quick!, cover up that confusion with a lie or three!

Patrick

28th September 2009, 12:11

I would like some clarification though:

If a learner motorcyclist exceeds 70 km/h but does not exceed the fixed speed limit for said area, can a speeding fine then be issued. My read of this would be no - but I would be interested in the opinion of the cops lurking here.

(You can take this question a step further and ask if the rider were travelling at 110 km/h would they be subject to immediate revocation of their license?)

P.

No.

It is a condition on your learners, a learners breach only exceeding the 70k restriction, so you are not exceeding the speed "limit."

If you were doing 110 in a 100, it is a learner breach only.

If you were doing 145 in a 100, license suspension, learner breach (possibly) and speeding ticket.

You follow?

Patrick

28th September 2009, 12:12

Quick!, cover up that confusion with a lie or three!

Go on then..... you know you want to....

Ixion

28th September 2009, 12:12

But did he really break the law? He has a legal defence of Not Guilty, due to the 'fact' that he was not breaking the law 'in the circumstances'

I read that to cover what I said earlier. Ergo...he avoided etc, so was not in breach etc...

I don't think you'd have a hope in hell. Apart from the fact that a JP will just ignore it as a frivolous argument, it can be destroyed quite simply.

The argument is that the breach of the rule is excused by

"(c) the act or omission was taken—
(i) to avoid the death or injury of a person; or"

So , your argument is, that it was necessary to ride at greater than 70kph because otherwise the general conditions were such that riding at 70kph would result in the death or injury of a person (ie the rider). Apart from the fact that the argument is not inherently valid (I have ridden at 70kph on a motorway and not been killed or injured), it will still fail because of

"
(b) the situation was not of the person's own making; "

Manifestly, it was. The rider elected to ride on the motorway. Any danger inherent in that was clearly of his own making. He didn't HAVE to ride on the motorway.

You would also need to prove that AT THE TIME of the ticket riding at 70kph would have resulted in injury to you. Which I think would be impossible , and the odds are that it would not have. I'm not defending the 70kph limit , which I think ill advised, but the reality is that a rider riding at 70kph on a motorway will NOT automatically be knocked off in the first kilometre.

This exception might cover you, if for instance you had exceeded the 70kph limit because you sped up to avoid a vehicle that pulled out in front of you and there was no other safe way to avoid hitting it.

I don't think you have a hope of convincing a court that it gives a carte blanch exception to a provision of the rule.

paddy

28th September 2009, 12:13

No.

It is a condition on your learners, a learners breach only exceeding the 70k restriction, so you are not exceeding the speed "limit."

If you were doing 110 in a 100, it is a learner breach only.

If you were doing 145 in a 100, license suspension, learner breach (possibly) and speeding ticket.

You follow?

Yes. Thanks. That was my understanding as well. Unfortunately not the understand of the office issuing the ticket. I think he was a we bit confused by it all.

boostin

28th September 2009, 12:14

Can you show us the precise wording?

Unless the above post by Boostin turns out to be right, and licence conditions are exclusive of the Transport Act, then P.Dath's post is the legal 'Not Guilty'. IF Paddy can prove his case under those terms.
Schedule 1
1 (2) The rule covers the requirements road users must adhere to
when using the road network that are broadly encompassed by
the term ‘‘traffic law’’. It does not cover driver and vehicle
licensing, roadworthiness, vehicle standards, licence carriage,
driver hours or logbooks, or major offences such as drink
driving. These matters are addressed in the Transport Act
1962, the Land Transport Act 1998, or in other Land Transport
Rules.

Patrick

28th September 2009, 12:15

Yes. Thanks. That was my understanding as well. Unfortunately not the understand of the office issuing the ticket. I think he was a we bit confused by it all.

Could be a newbie..... He has much to learn.....

Madness

28th September 2009, 12:16

I think he was a we bit confused by it all.

Common problem that, a confused Policeman. It's usually resolved with the issuing of an offence notice. This seems to remove all confusion for them.

paddy

28th September 2009, 12:17

(b) the situation was not of the person's own making;

Exactly the point I raised above. I doubt there are generally applicable loopholes in a law that has been around for this long. Indeed, my concern is not so much the ticket - but rather the clearly disparity between the law, the officers verbal claim to be increasing my safely, and the officers actions (which I have not yet detailed here - and will not pending the hearing outcome) at the time concerned.

P.

Ixion

28th September 2009, 12:28

Actually, all the talk about the Road User Rule 2004 is irrelevant.

The 70kph restriction is contained in the Driver Licensing Rule 1999 Sect 16 (1) (d). This rule has no such blanket exception.

If you have been charged under the Road User Rule 2004 you are home free.

paddy

28th September 2009, 12:56

Actually, all the talk about the Road User Rule 2004 is irrelevant.

That explains why I could find it in the legislation.

The 70kph restriction is contained in the Driver Licensing Rule 1999 Sect 16 (1) (d). This rule has no such blanket exception.

If you have been charged under the Road User Rule 2004 you are home free.

I will check that - but I somehow doubt that particular error has been made.

MSTRS

28th September 2009, 13:38

... a frivolous argument...

Frivolous it may be. He was exceeding his 70kph limit, and he doesn't dispute that. But defendants are entitled to use any means to get off a charge, and he has no other recourse but to enter a 'not guilty' plea. Just pleading not guilty isn't going to cut it though, so he must provide some evidence that the cop was lying (which doesn't seem to be that case), or there is some legal reason he was allowed to breach the speed condition.
Seems to me, it's his money and he wants to try to keep it (at the risk of it costing him more...). Few of us (including the KBstone Kops) think the 70kph is good law, but that in itself is not a defense. How else does one defend such a charge?
Since the only place to challenge a law is in court, then any means possible should be employed, and hope that it works, thereby setting a precedent under which breaches of that law can either continue to be defended that way, or the law be rewritten to close the loophole, or replaced with a better law. Ideally, this particular law/section of licence conditions would be altered to better safeguard learners (say, removed altogether or motorway riding is expressly forbidden).

Pixie

28th September 2009, 14:02

(b) The right to be tried without undue delay:

If the case is delayed because the cop does not show up,ask that it be dismissed as you have already taken time off work to appear.

I got off a dangerous driving charge this way

Patrick

28th September 2009, 15:26

Quick!, cover up that confusion with a lie or three!

Common problem that, a confused Policeman. It's usually resolved with the issuing of an offence notice. This seems to remove all confusion for them.

Theres one... just two to go.....

If the case is delayed because the cop does not show up,ask that it be dismissed as you have already taken time off work to appear.

I got off a dangerous driving charge this way

Shouldn't need to ask. You're ready to go, cop isn't there so Prosecution isn't, case dismissed.

Ixion

28th September 2009, 15:38

Frivolous it may be. He was exceeding his 70kph limit, and he doesn't dispute that. But defendants are entitled to use any means to get off a charge, and he has no other recourse but to enter a 'not guilty' plea. Just pleading not guilty isn't going to cut it though, so he must provide some evidence that the cop was lying (which doesn't seem to be that case), or there is some legal reason he was allowed to breach the speed condition.
Seems to me, it's his money and he wants to try to keep it (at the risk of it costing him more...). Few of us (including the KBstone Kops) think the 70kph is good law, but that in itself is not a defense. How else does one defend such a charge?
Since the only place to challenge a law is in court, then any means possible should be employed, and hope that it works, thereby setting a precedent under which breaches of that law can either continue to be defended that way, or the law be rewritten to close the loophole, or replaced with a better law. Ideally, this particular law/section of licence conditions would be altered to better safeguard learners (say, removed altogether or motorway riding is expressly forbidden).

Alas the argument is not merely frivolous but irrelevant. Wrong Law. See below (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129428377&postcount=102)

Str8 Jacket

28th September 2009, 15:42

So why *were* you exceeding the maximum learner speed limit?

paddy

28th September 2009, 15:47

Because it is widely accepted as dangerous not to do so.

Str8 Jacket

28th September 2009, 15:55

Because it is widely accepted as dangerous not to do so.

If that is what you are basing your whole defence on then quite frankly, I am afraid that you may be fucked.

Patrick

28th September 2009, 16:00

Because it is widely accepted as dangerous not to do so.

If that is what you are basing your whole defence on then quite frankly, I am afraid that you may be fucked.

Sometimes things need to be "tested" in a court of law. Perhaps this is one of them. :2thumbsup

SixPackBack

28th September 2009, 16:14

Theres one... just two to go.....

Shouldn't need to ask. You're ready to go, cop isn't there so Prosecution isn't, case dismissed.

.........Or in my experience case postponed for another hearing...again and again and agian....28 months fucken long for a minor speeding ticket.....I lost count of the amount of times the officer did not show!?.......Care to shed some light on that patrick?

jafar

28th September 2009, 16:42

Sometimes things need to be "tested" in a court of law. Perhaps this is one of them. :2thumbsup

An expensive way of finding out the precedents were set years ago.

So why *were* you exceeding the maximum learner speed limit?

Because the law doesn't apply to him !:whistle:

Because it is widely accepted as dangerous not to do so.

See :Oops:

Madness

28th September 2009, 16:44

At least he's not asking for donations towards his legal costs!

paddy

28th September 2009, 16:48

Because the law doesn't apply to him !:whistle:

Come down from up there - I can hardly see you.

Sheba

28th September 2009, 17:09

Sometimes things need to be "tested" in a court of law. Perhaps this is one of them. :2thumbsup

I think someone had a great idea earlier in this thread about getting a bunch of learner riders on the motorway going 70 km/h at a very inconvenient time of day and see the public response.

jafar

28th September 2009, 17:36

At least he's not asking for donations towards his legal costs!

True, mind you he would get just as much as carver from me
$00.00 including GST:whistle:

Come down from up there - I can hardly see you.

Tis ok . I'm fine up here thanks :2thumbsup

paddy

28th September 2009, 17:38

Tis ok . I'm fine up here thanks :2thumbsup

LoL. That deserves some bling. :-)

jafar

28th September 2009, 17:46

I think someone had a great idea earlier in this thread about getting a bunch of learner riders on the motorway going 70 km/h at a very inconvenient time of day and see the public response.

Now there's an idea we could get a load of learners together & get them to pack the motorway before work so it slows the motorway down. Or mabey after after work so the cagers can't get home as fast ??:2thumbsup

p.dath

28th September 2009, 18:16

SixPackBack

28th September 2009, 18:22

Did you ask the judge to dismiss the case? I've seen people get off a charge before a JP because the prosecution was "not ready".

Of course I did, so did my lawyer:mad:

carver

28th September 2009, 21:03

At least he's not asking for donations towards his legal costs!

my opposition squeeze it out of you if thats any consolidation

paddy

28th September 2009, 21:06

my opposition squeeze it out of you if thats any consolidation

Are you sober? Might like to try that sentence again there Carver. I'm pretty sure you meant consolation not consolidation but I still can't figure out what you were trying to say. :-)

Edit: You're referring to my taxes funding the prosecution. I'm pretty sure that means I paid for your video. Which frame is mine? Hand it over.

Patrick

29th September 2009, 08:39

.........Or in my experience case postponed for another hearing...again and again and agian....28 months fucken long for a minor speeding ticket.....I lost count of the amount of times the officer did not show!?.......Care to shed some light on that patrick?

Step 1. Usually, its 28 day reminder notice, then another 28 day reminder notice, then a final 28 day reminder notice... there is almost three months....

Step 2. Then, they plead not guilty, so it is put off to a suitable date, say another 2-3 months down the track.... (6 months)

Step 3. Then, the defence usually drags it out, say for example, "my client has a snuffly nose and can't come in today..." So there goes another 2 months or so. (8 months...)

Step 4. Then that date doesn't suit the prosecution, because the officer in charge is away on holiday in Raro... or summit...

Step 5. Step three gets used a few more times....

Step 6. Step 4 might crop up once.....

Step 7. Back to step 3 again...................................:whistle: and hey presto, 28 months later.

(Not an actual scenario I know of... just a kind of P/T.)

But as for 28 months, with ONLY the Police putting it off all the time, that I do not believe for a moment.

"Undue delay in proceedings" should have been the call by your lawyer..... and it would have been good bye ticket, WAY before the 28 months claimed.

Unless he was legal aid, because the more appearances he makes, even for those brief one minute remands off to another day ones, he gets paid..... :whistle:

An expensive way of finding out the precedents were set years ago.

Not if you defend yourself.....

Did you ask the judge to dismiss the case? I've seen people get off a charge before a JP because the prosecution was "not ready".

True. On the defended hearing day, as in the day of reckoning.... The first day where both the defendant and the cop need to appear. Happens often.

SixPackBack

30th September 2009, 04:46

Step 1. Usually, its 28 day reminder notice, then another 28 day reminder notice, then a final 28 day reminder notice... there is almost three months....

Step 2. Then, they plead not guilty, so it is put off to a suitable date, say another 2-3 months down the track.... (6 months)

Step 3. Then, the defence usually drags it out, say for example, "my client has a snuffly nose and can't come in today..." So there goes another 2 months or so. (8 months...)

Step 4. Then that date doesn't suit the prosecution, because the officer in charge is away on holiday in Raro... or summit...

Step 5. Step three gets used a few more times....

Step 6. Step 4 might crop up once.....

Step 7. Back to step 3 again...................................:whistle: and hey presto, 28 months later.

(Not an actual scenario I know of... just a kind of P/T.)

But as for 28 months, with ONLY the Police putting it off all the time, that I do not believe for a moment.

"Undue delay in proceedings" should have been the call by your lawyer..... and it would have been good bye ticket, WAY before the 28 months claimed.

Unless he was legal aid, because the more appearances he makes, even for those brief one minute remands off to another day ones, he gets paid..... :whistle:

Not if you defend yourself.....

True. On the defended hearing day, as in the day of reckoning.... The first day where both the defendant and the cop need to appear. Happens often.

Beleive it. Add in tried illegally in absence-twice!.......And the case being dropped with no reason given. The picture you paint seems to be based on neither the coppers or courts making mistakes, both of which happen with monotonous regularity. The 'system' is rancid with corruption, lies and deceit.

Anyone swallowing the official 'you can trust us line' from the coppers and courts is delusional.

Patrick

30th September 2009, 12:07

Beleive it. Add in tried illegally in absence-twice!.......And the case being dropped with no reason given. The picture you paint seems to be based on neither the coppers or courts making mistakes, both of which happen with monotonous regularity. The 'system' is rancid with corruption, lies and deceit.

Anyone swallowing the official 'you can trust us line' from the coppers and courts is delusional.

I still call... BULLSHIT....

Can even locate the file to confirm, if ya keen........

Bass

30th September 2009, 14:25

I still call... BULLSHIT....

.....

Oh believe him.

The court administrators make some unreal fuck-ups (personal experience) and then try and make it your responsibility to set it right. The time that can be wasted, running round in the circles where they send you is just unreal. The left hand is totally unaware of what the right is supposed to do.
The worst part is that they have the whip hand completely. There appears to be no recourse except to more of the same.

Patrick

30th September 2009, 14:31

Oh believe him.

The court administrators make some unreal fuck-ups (personal experience) and then try and make it your responsibility to set it right. The time that can be wasted, running round in the circles where they send you is just unreal. The left hand is totally unaware of what the right is supposed to do.

Yeah, but more than two years for a speeding ticket?

If they are tossing out "P" lab cases for undue delays in proceedings over a similar time frame, they sure as hell would toss a poxy speeding ticket......

SixPackBack

30th September 2009, 18:21

I still call... BULLSHIT....

Can even locate the file to confirm, if ya keen........

Thanks for the offer patrick, but understandably giving personal details to someone who thinks I am lying and who I do not trust is not going to happen.

The fact remains it took 28 months for a speeding ticket to reach a conclusion

Ticket received Jan. 2007 and withdrawn June 2009.

Patrick

30th September 2009, 20:10

Thanks for the offer patrick, but understandably giving personal details to someone who thinks I am lying and who I do not trust is not going to happen.

The fact remains it took 28 months for a speeding ticket to reach a conclusion

Ticket received Jan. 2007 and withdrawn June 2009.

Your loss....

BULLSHIT..................

Patrick

30th September 2009, 20:18

Your loss....

BULLSHIT..................

And red bling too....

DOUBLE BULLSHIT.

Patrick

30th September 2009, 20:22

Thanks for the offer patrick, but understandably giving personal details to someone who thinks I am lying and who I do not trust is not going to happen.

Paranoid, much?????????????

What do ya think I am gonna do...?

Hunt ya down?

Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahha

Lay off the "P"

Plently have given personal detail here. Always more than happy to help.

More than happy to prove you were right, too. And if so, the public apology would be worth it, dontcha think?

That, or a bourbon or 5......

Bass

1st October 2009, 07:24

Yeah, but more than two years for a speeding ticket?

In my case, it wasn't a speeding ticket but it was of similar significance and monetary value. It took two and a half years to be resolved.

Incidentally, if the cops had simply come and talked to me in the first place, as was suggested to them, it would never have gone to court.

It all stemmed from someone laying a false complaint against one of my family out of spite and the cops proceeding on her word alone. In the finish, we even had statements from her own family because they refused to perjure themselves on her behalf. The cops were given all the relevant names at the outset but never checked with any of them.

At the first appearance, having summarised the details of the case, the judge asked the prosecuting Sergeant (and I quote), "Then why are we here?"

When it finally came to trial, at a pre-trial conference in chambers, the judge basically told the prosecutor "you're fucked", but oh, the waste of everyone's time and money along the way.

There must have been 5 or 6 court appearances along the way with all the associated costs. The bill to Joe Public would approach 300 grand and a couple of phone calls could have prevented it all.

The thing is that it's not over yet and the circus continues.

The court has garnisheed my son's wages for a debt arising out of this that was paid months ago. They have also made a clerical error and doubled the amount. They then refuse to accept a letter from a noted barrister confirming that he has paid the debt on my son's behalf.

It has become really difficult not to think that the system is just trying to cover its arse after having made a monumental and completely unnecessary fuck-up!

Bass

1st October 2009, 10:55

Patrick

1st October 2009, 16:55

scumdog

1st October 2009, 17:14

Bummer Bass, that is not good at all, my sympathy to you and family..

Any chance of claiming costs/compensation?

SixPackBack

1st October 2009, 18:06

Paranoid, much?????????????

What do ya think I am gonna do...?

Hunt ya down?

Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahha

Lay off the "P"

Plently have given personal detail here. Always more than happy to help.

More than happy to prove you were right, too. And if so, the public apology would be worth it, dontcha think?

That, or a bourbon or 5......

Attempting to bring diresion on my character or being abusive hurts your image a shit load more than mine.

scumdog

1st October 2009, 18:43

Attempting to bring diresion on my character or being abusive hurts your image a shit load more than mine.

You have an image???

OMG, who woulda thunk it!!!:eek5:

scumdog

1st October 2009, 18:54

OMG - he HAS!!

And I'm a twat -apparently!:2thumbsup

SixPackBack

1st October 2009, 19:37

OMG - he HAS!!

And I'm a twat -apparently!:2thumbsup

Nothing apparent about it, much like my 28 month wait for for a minor speeding offence-both are fact.

scumdog

1st October 2009, 19:41

Nothing apparent about it, much like my 28 month wait for for a minor speeding offence-both are fact.

Ah, but are they?:blip:

And more importantly, who gives a fat-rats-arse about either??:yawn:

Patrick

1st October 2009, 20:51

Attempting to bring diresion on my character or being abusive hurts your image a shit load more than mine.

Pfft. You think way too highly of yerself. If saying I am blind, deluded or corrupt is the best you can come up with, I think I will survive, safe in the knowledge that you don't know shit from clay.

I called you on a point, something easily proved..... and in response, you red bling. Being abusive? Meh... Boo Hooo.

You had a chance to prove me wrong. Guess I wasn't...........:2thumbsup

SixPackBack

1st October 2009, 21:03

Patrick,
I didn't expect it, but since I put up the previous post, I have received a few messages indicating that I am far from alone in my experiences with the Police and court system.

Despite what I posted, I have no axe to grind and so have tried to be as dispassionate and non-partisan as I can.

What makes it hard though is that the financial cost to my family so far is just a little under $10,000 and for something that could have been proved not to have occurred if the Police had just spoken to the witnesses whose names they were given on day one.

I used to support the Police wholeheartedly. The son concerned used to flat with a bunch of cops. We are all of us pretty disillusioned now and I regret that my attitude has changed.

There are no winners here.

Ditto, long term poor treatment has left many clean skins twisted.......hopefully this thread highlights the potential issues individuals can suffer. Judging by the response from the KB coppers such instances are relativley rare, but if you are unlucky [as this thread again shows] don't expect any help.
The system is a long way from perfect-manned with individuals and systems that refuse to take responsibility for shortcomings and mistakes.

Patrick

1st October 2009, 21:10

Judging by the response from the KB coppers such instances are relativley rare, but if you are unlucky [as this thread again shows] don't expect any help.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]

There you go again... talking shit, then coming up with a pearler..... Hard to follow...

As for not expecting any help?

You're wrong.........

peasea

1st October 2009, 21:20

Pfft. You think way too highly of yerself. If saying I am blind, deluded or corrupt is the best you can come up with, I think I will survive

Coz you have shitloads to hide behind and bottomless pits of cash to cover any legal challenge.

You might survive some things.:whistle:

Patrick

1st October 2009, 21:27

Coz you have shitloads to hide behind and bottomless pits of cash to cover any legal challenge.

You might survive some things.:whistle:

Shit no. The bank owns the house. Shitloads of cash? Maybe after Saturday night, 8pm.... or 8.05pm perhaps....

Bass

2nd October 2009, 07:31

Damn shame that, Bass...

$300k certainly is not for a speeding ticket, so the spiteful one obviously had some story to tell. I assume the Police interviewed the alleged wrongdoer... and if so, surely the names given would have sorted it out before charges were laid? Thats how it works in my world........
All correct up to the names given part and if your procedure had happened, all would have been sweet. For whatever reason, it didn't.
The 300k I mentioned is my estimate (and a pretty loose one) of the cost to the country for all the court sessions and Police time and takes no account of time off work etc for the others involved. I am probably wrong. I suspect it was more. The cost to me personally was just under 10k.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the witnesses were not contacted, especially after some hints from judges that were so broad, they bordered on directions.

We had no problem with the person concerned laying a complaint either, but if she had only told the truth, the whole thing would have been sorted out reasonably.

We are down in the Naki often enough.
If you have any interest I could tell you the whole story over a beer one evening.

Bummer Bass, that is not good at all, my sympathy to you and family..

Any chance of claiming costs/compensation?

In honesty, I don't know.
I suspect that we would have to take the police to court for wrongful prosecution or something of that kind. We don't have the resources to take on the crown and I'm sure that you know how little justice derives from our justice system, in either direction.

We all just want to see an end to it now and it's nearly over.

Bass

2nd October 2009, 08:01

There you go again... talking shit, then coming up with a pearler..... Hard to follow...

No, not really.
In debates like this, we tend to argue our own point of view. It's human nature. You're a cop - you must have seen it.

I've been in middle management most of my working life and so dispute resolution has been a large part of that.
I learned early that until you have both sides of the story, you have nothing. Even then, those two sides can be so biased that it's difficult to believe they are both discussing the same incident - and that's when there is no dishonesty involved.

I have always admired someone who can restrict themselves to the facts, even when it's to their own disadvantage.

Bass

2nd October 2009, 08:12

Judging by the response from the KB coppers such instances are relativley rare,
The system is a long way from perfect-manned with individuals and systems that refuse to take responsibility for shortcomings and mistakes.

I think you balance the argument quite well here.

Patrick

2nd October 2009, 09:54

We are down in the Naki often enough.
If you have any interest I could tell you the whole story over a beer one evening.

Any time...!!! PM when you're in town.

In honesty, I don't know.
I suspect that we would have to take the police to court for wrongful prosecution or something of that kind. We don't have the resources to take on the crown and I'm sure that you know how little justice derives from our justice system, in either direction.

We all just want to see an end to it now and it's nearly over.

Question costs at the time it is tossed by the judge... You might be surprised how symathetic he/she may be, if the "directions" given were ignored...

No, not really.
In debates like this, we tend to argue our own point of view. It's human nature. You're a cop - you must have seen it.

This was directed to SPB.... not you... ???

Bass

2nd October 2009, 10:23

Question costs at the time it is tossed by the judge... You might be surprised how symathetic he/she may be, if the "directions" given were ignored...

Thanks for that.

This was directed to SPB.... not you... ???

Yeah, I know.
I was just trying trying to point out where I thought he was coming from.
(Putting words in his mouth sort of -really shouldn't do that, eh?)

In your line of work, I am certain you will have seen how quickly the heat goes out of discussions like this when we stop taking an utterly partisan point of view.

But then so does the entertainment value I guess.

Patrick

2nd October 2009, 10:33

Yeah, I know.
I was just trying trying to point out where I thought he was coming from.
(Putting words in his mouth sort of -really shouldn't do that, eh?)

In your line of work, I am certain you will have seen how quickly the heat goes out of discussions like this when we stop taking an utterly partisan point of view.

But then so does the entertainment value I guess.

Don't put anything in his mouth... he bites...!!!

I still dunno where he is coming from at times. Silly comments one moment, with red bling too you if you point out the error, then some actual top posts... :crazy:

But yeah, the heat can come and go and the differing views make for good reading at times.

The Stranger

2nd October 2009, 17:47

I still call... BULLSHIT....

Can even locate the file to confirm, if ya keen........

Your loss....

BULLSHIT..................

And red bling too....

DOUBLE BULLSHIT.

You had a chance to prove me wrong. Guess I wasn't...........:2thumbsup

Hmm, I guess it's a symptom of the job eh. Assume everyone's a liar.

Sixpack's reputation. Only known him for about 4yrs, but there are few (if any) I would trust more. You can call him many things, paranoid perhaps but a liar? Sorry, you're wrong.
You have absolutely NO basis of fact for your assertion. Hmm, is this a common approach of yours?

Madness

2nd October 2009, 17:53

You have absolutely NO basis of fact for your assertion. Hmm, is this a common approach of yours?

Lol, I actually assumed that was policy.

Patrick

3rd October 2009, 18:34

Hmm, I guess it's a symptom of the job eh. Assume everyone's a liar.

Sixpack's reputation. Only known him for about 4yrs, but there are few (if any) I would trust more. You can call him many things, paranoid perhaps but a liar? Sorry, you're wrong.
You have absolutely NO basis of fact for your assertion. Hmm, is this a common approach of yours?

Can prove he is right OR wrong. Can prove I was right or wrong. And it would quite literally only take a minute. Instead he issues red and gives names/labels....

Gave him an opportunity..... He chose not to, for lame reasons along the lines of like I am going to hunt him down and steal his first born or summit... go figure. He wishes to remain anonymous, which is fine. Not much of a "basis," but hey....

Never met the fella, sometimes he is good and speaks sense. Some times he doesn't. As I said earler, they toss out far more serious cases than a poxy speeding ticket if it hasn't been sorted through the courts within two years, yet he is trying to say this didn't happen for his poxy ticket...

I called him on it.......

The Stranger

3rd October 2009, 18:59

Can prove he is right OR wrong. Can prove I was right or wrong. And it would quite literally only take a minute. Instead he issues red and gives names/labels....

Gave him an opportunity..... He chose not to, for lame reasons along the lines of like I am going to hunt him down and steal his first born or summit... go figure. He wishes to remain anonymous, which is fine. Not much of a "basis," but hey....

Never met the fella, sometimes he is good and speaks sense. Some times he doesn't. As I said earler, they toss out far more serious cases than a poxy speeding ticket if it hasn't been sorted through the courts within two years, yet he is trying to say this didn't happen for his poxy ticket...

I called him on it.......

None of which means he was telling bullshit right Patrick?

Seriously, if you think it does, then he is right to be very wary. Simply because you are unable to prove him innocent (right) doesn't make him guilty (wrong) you realise? Or do you?

I'm sure you'll get over the red - eventually.

SixPackBack

4th October 2009, 07:35

Can prove he is right OR wrong. Can prove I was right or wrong. And it would quite literally only take a minute. Instead he issues red and gives names/labels....

In this particular instance the red was my message to you-I am not a liar.

Gave him an opportunity..... He chose not to, for lame reasons along the lines of like I am going to hunt him down and steal his first born or summit... go figure. He wishes to remain anonymous, which is fine. Not much of a "basis," but hey....

Would you be happy to give me your name, address, officer number and access to any supplementary information that may be held by the authorities?....... Remember I am a faceless individual in cyberspace-you have never met me in the real world!?

Never met the fella, sometimes he is good and speaks sense. Some times he doesn't. As I said earler, they toss out far more serious cases than a poxy speeding ticket if it hasn't been sorted through the courts within two years, yet he is trying to say this didn't happen for his poxy ticket...

You are incredulous. I get that. We can take some comfort that your reaction points to my 28 month wait for justice as highly unusual.

I called him on it.......

I could have passed the relative information onto The Stranger and have him confirm the details, a compromise that would probably kept you happy.
However seeing your arrogance shine through for all to see ["its only real if a cop says so"], and watching you self implode with frustration has put a hold on ending the saga; however the details of the ticket will be shown to The Stranger next time I see him, not to prove a point, but to strengthen a friendship.

scumdog

4th October 2009, 08:10

Yeah Patrick, quit windin' him up!:shutup::laugh:

jrandom

4th October 2009, 08:13

Just in case anyone hasn't seen this yet.

Y8qjdUXBexA

scumdog

4th October 2009, 08:22

Just in case anyone hasn't seen this yet.

Classic!

I wonder what happens to 'hard-core bad-ass' rappers when they gets ta be old???

Will they still be knocking out hits about the 'pohleece' and the 'hood etc when they're 40+??

Or is it just proper SINGERS that keep on going...........

rAPP=cRaP

SixPackBack

4th October 2009, 08:41

From my user notes:

Observations on police and court conduct.
<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d1d1e1; COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1>What a fucken shamble our court/police system is, I have never actually answered in court for my alleged minor traffic misdemeanours, however while waiting for the rude coppers to show; and over the course of the last two tickets I observed the following:

Chaos reigns inside the court. Paperwork is invariably missing, as are both the copper and defendant. A worried dance is conducted between the JP's, prosecution, defendant and court officials as everyone tries to bring a case together. A surprising amount of time they do not succeed.
Information management is 18th century. Stacks of paper precede each case. As far as I could see electronic management of information is non existent, and I cannot remember seeing a computer.
The coppers do not always get their way in court. JP's express a fair deal of frustration at their collective stalling, absence and tardy preparation.
Ironically coppers are believed in the most tenuous of circumstances. If a cop points the finger you are pretty much fucked.
Coppers get away with not turning up. The case is re-scheduled endlessly so they can show.
Again ironically if you don't show its all over. Even when half blinded with a migraine I rang prosecutions explained my illness and requested re-scheduling. The case still went ahead that day and I had to beg for a re-hearing.
A high level of confusion and incompetence is apparent within NZ police, and/or corruption. It took me a while to accept both as a certainty.
The court [or crown], coppers, lawyer and defendant all have vested interest within the law system. For the crown its gathering money while presenting the illusion of 'justice'. I suspect for the coppers its mainly ego, boasting 'I have never lost a case' together with an often twisted belief they are 'doing the right thing'. For the Lawyer its most definitely money, they will be more than happy to see you sink if it means more cash for them. And for the defendant money is also a motivating factor, i.e. the removal there of.
Case and law is constructed around vested interest, hence the crown always believing the police. The preceding paragraph touches on this erroneous belief. When immersed in the system an individual has some appreciation of law as a 'game'. Justice is a by product and often not present on minor cases.
Defending a case costs so much money [to be completed satisfactorily] that questions of true justice are blatantly obvious in absence. Doubt me?......if it costs $500 to defend a case and the fine is only $250 guess what the outcome will be [duty solicitors are fucken useless and do not count].
The police used confusion around hearing dates to nail me and waste endless hours and lawyer dollars. It seems that official notification via a letter is an after thought-you may or may not recieve a letter. If you do not recieve a letter and the court date is changed, you are left with no effective document to refer to when seeking a re-hearing.
Without question for me personally the removal of trust for the police has been the worse aspect. I am constantly amazed at the high level of incompetence, dishonesty and corruption I have personally experienced, so much so that from now on all association with police in my leisure time will now desist, its purely a matter of trust. Some superlative individuals exist within the force, but I fear they are islands of honesty mired within a filthy sea of mediocrity.

p.dath

4th October 2009, 09:05

From my user notes:

Observations on police and court conduct.
...

Are other users able to view your users notes? I took a quick look in your profile, but couldn't spot where to see them.

Sounds like you certainly have had a real bad experience.
I have to say that I find it difficult to trust the Police as well, but more so because I don't believe I can rely on them to help. My gut feeling is if I really needed them they wouldn't be there. That's come from being a victim a few times, and the poor results.

I've also had some bad experiences in court, and it has led me to understand court is not about justice. And now I advise people never aim for the "just" outcome, aim for the best in the circumstances and walk away. Trying to achieve the "just" outcome in court is soul destroying.

So often I have wondered if vigilante justice would be better. It's swift, and not constrained. But alas vigilante justice does not produce a metered result, has no checks and balances, and is fueld by pack mentality rather than the facts.

But all in all, I'm thoroughly dissatisfied with the legal system. You know what I would change?

I would make judges elected, like politicians. I would remove their automatic right that once they are appointed they have the job for life (even if they screw up badly).
I want judges to be culpable by the general public that they are trying to protect. If a judge fails to appease the populace that they represent then they'll be removed by some judge who is more popular.

So what would you change to improve things?

scumdog

4th October 2009, 10:23

So what would you change to improve things?

Well for a start:

Make it so if somebody pleads not guilty then that sticks, no going back - none of this dragging out the process knowing they're guilty .

This is to stop the normal process of when they realise they are screwed and having stalled for months they at the last minute, change plea to guilty to get 'credit for an early guilty plea' and a lesser sentence.:tugger:

p.dath

4th October 2009, 10:30

Make it so if somebody pleads not guilty then that sticks, no going back - none of this dragging out the process knowing they're guilty .

What about if it is on a technical point of law, and it is not clear at the beginning weather the person is guilty or not?
Sometimes it doesn't become obvious to later in the trial which way it is going.

scumdog

4th October 2009, 10:46

What about if it is on a technical point of law, and it is not clear at the beginning weather the person is guilty or not?
Sometimes it doesn't become obvious to later in the trial which way it is going.

I'm talking about the drongos using the system (that NZ put together) to drag on a case when they KNOW THEY ARE GUILTY but enter no plea - no plea - not guilty etc just to drag the case on so they can have a summer outside the jail, so they can get a softer judge, the witness might forget/be unsure etc - then change plea when it suits.

I guess there are certain KBers who think it's great to clutter the courts as per above - but that's how the system gets cluttered and fiascos occur (as in SPBs posts).

If prosecution appear to drag things out there's bleats from the lawyers 'justice delayed is justice denied' etc but goign the other way it's OK apparently.

The Stranger

4th October 2009, 10:50

Well for a start:

Make it so if somebody pleads not guilty then that sticks, no going back - none of this dragging out the process knowing they're guilty .

This is to stop the normal process of when they realise they are screwed and having stalled for months they at the last minute, change plea to guilty to get 'credit for an early guilty plea' and a lesser sentence.:tugger:

Ditto for the cops. None of this changing the charge at a later point.
For example, charging someone for dangerous, going to court, pleading not guilty, going to court and having the judge tell the cops to go back and consider careless without loss of license, going to court to find out that the cops are sticking to dangerous and set a hearing date then going to court only to find lo and behold the Police have changed the charge to careless with no loss of license on the day of the case.

18 months delay without me stalling one minute - and hey, I'm only too happy for Patrick to verify that one.

They trump up the charge so as people think they get a bargain and take the guilty plea when they get the real charge. This practice is so wide spread that it was noted as a big time waster by lawyers in a review of court proceedings.

You wouldn't expect petty cat and mouse antics like this from a professional law enforcement agency serious about reducing the burden on the court system. The Police aren't serious about this, so don't even bother with trying to blame others until your house is in order.

scumdog

4th October 2009, 10:55

Ditto for the cops. None of this changing the charge at a later point.
For example, charging someone for dangerous, going to court, pleading not guilty, going to court and having the judge tell the cops to go back and consider careless without loss of license, going to court to find out that the cops are sticking to dangerous and set a hearing date then going to court only to find lo and behold the Police have changed the charge to careless with no loss of license on the day of the case.

18 months delay without me stalling one minute - and hey, I'm only too happy for Patrick to verify that one.

They trump up the charge so as people think they get a bargain and take the guilty plea when they get the real charge. This practice is so wide spread that it was noted as a big time waster by lawyers in a review of court proceedings.

You wouldn't expect petty cat and mouse antics like this from a professional law enforcement agency serious about reducing the burden on the court system. The Police aren't serious about this, so don't even bother with trying to blame others until your house is in order.

You tell it from your side - I'll tell it from mine.

That way it's a fair balance of info.

And often-times the charge is suitable - but plea-bargaining goes on from both sides for various reasons.

Patrick

4th October 2009, 11:39

None of which means he was telling bullshit right Patrick?

Seriously, if you think it does, then he is right to be very wary. Simply because you are unable to prove him innocent (right) doesn't make him guilty (wrong) you realise? Or do you?

I'm sure you'll get over the red - eventually.

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.... When in doubt, leave it. But it was an easy confirmation. And to be wary of what? That I will transfer back to the Shore and join the Ginga just to hunt him out? LOL......

Did I get red? When??? :gob:

I could have passed the relative information onto The Stranger and have him confirm the details, a compromise that would probably kept you happy.
However seeing your arrogance shine through for all to see ["its only real if a cop says so"], and watching you self implode with frustration has put a hold on ending the saga; however the details of the ticket will be shown to The Stranger next time I see him, not to prove a point, but to strengthen a friendship.

Twas a simple fix... anonymity assured.

Now you are quoting things I have never said.....

Frustrated? Self implode? Pfft. Get real.

From my user notes:

Observations on police and court conduct.
<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d1d1e1; COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1>What a fucken shamble our court/police system is, I have never actually answered in court for my alleged minor traffic misdemeanours, however while waiting for the rude coppers to show; and over the course of the last two tickets I observed the following:

Chaos reigns inside the court. Paperwork is invariably missing, as are both the copper and defendant. A worried dance is conducted between the JP's, prosecution, defendant and court officials as everyone tries to bring a case together. A surprising amount of time they do not succeed.

This is true. Two way street and all....

Information management is 18th century. Stacks of paper precede each case. As far as I could see electronic management of information is non existent, and I cannot remember seeing a computer.

Pretty sure the North Shore District Court has computers. We even have em here in the Naki!!! But yeah, the paper work is huge. One charge generates 5 copies of nearly everything....

The coppers do not always get their way in court. JP's express a fair deal of frustration at their collective stalling, absence and tardy preparation.

Ay????????? A concession?????????????

Ironically coppers are believed in the most tenuous of circumstances. If a cop points the finger you are pretty much fucked.

Oops.... my bad.... as you were..... a slight contradiction to the point just above...???

Coppers get away with not turning up. The case is re-scheduled endlessly so they can show.

You're wrong. Cops or a witness doesn't turn up, without a GOOD excuse, bye bye case, there and then. Not so for the "Defendant..."

Again ironically if you don't show its all over. Even when half blinded with a migraine I rang prosecutions explained my illness and requested re-scheduling. The case still went ahead that day and I had to beg for a re-hearing.

Partly right... depends what the charge is. If monor, can be dealt with once a no show. If more serious, a warrant gets issued and the whole thing starts all over.... again... when the defendant is found. To be repeated as many times as necessary.... sometimes......

A high level of confusion and incompetence is apparent within NZ police, and/or corruption. It took me a while to accept both as a certainty.

You're entitled to your "opinion" and to the "way you feel..." Whether it is right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder....

The court [or crown], coppers, lawyer and defendant all have vested interest within the law system. For the crown its gathering money while presenting the illusion of 'justice'. I suspect for the coppers its mainly ego, boasting 'I have never lost a case' together with an often twisted belief they are 'doing the right thing'. For the Lawyer its most definitely money, they will be more than happy to see you sink if it means more cash for them. And for the defendant money is also a motivating factor, i.e. the removal there of.

I know anyone I deal with IS guilty, but hey, I'm not the judge. If in doubt, let it go, they will come again. I have lost a few cases. There would not be a single copper out there who has NEVER lost a case, but I can say I have NEVER locked up an innocent.... Ego? Nah.

Case and law is constructed around vested interest, hence the crown always believing the police. The preceding paragraph touches on this erroneous belief. When immersed in the system an individual has some appreciation of law as a 'game'. Justice is a by product and often not present on minor cases.

Ahhh... but as you said earlier, cases are lost.... Remember BAIN?

Defending a case costs so much money [to be completed satisfactorily] that questions of true justice are blatantly obvious in absence. Doubt me?......if it costs $500 to defend a case and the fine is only $250 guess what the outcome will be [duty solicitors are fucken useless and do not count].

Now this is right.

The police used confusion around hearing dates to nail me and waste endless hours and lawyer dollars. It seems that official notification via a letter is an after thought-you may or may not recieve a letter. If you do not recieve a letter and the court date is changed, you are left with no effective document to refer to when seeking a re-hearing.

You will find the courts change the date. Police can request a change, as can the defence, but both usually need to agree to the date for many a reason, for a start.....

Without question for me personally the removal of trust for the police has been the worse aspect. I am constantly amazed at the high level of incompetence, dishonesty and corruption I have personally experienced, so much so that from now on all association with police in my leisure time will now desist, its purely a matter of trust. Some superlative individuals exist within the force, but I fear they are islands of honesty mired within a filthy sea of mediocrity.

Your choice. Sad that your few matters out of many millions country wide seem to be your issue. It helps sometimes to seek out the bigger picture.

SixPackBack

4th October 2009, 16:08

Are other users able to view your users notes? I took a quick look in your profile, but couldn't spot where to see them................?

Click on the 'police issues' tag at the bottom of my posts.

The Stranger

5th October 2009, 06:44

You tell it from your side - I'll tell it from mine.

That way it's a fair balance of info.

And often-times the charge is suitable - but plea-bargaining goes on from both sides for various reasons.

So for the other times (read most of the time), trumping up a charge is acceptable so there is something to bargain with?

And this is apparently acceptable - for various reasons, yet there can be no valid reason to change a plea?

So lets take a hypothetical case, say some numpty is pulling wheelies and the wrong guy gets blamed for it. He's indignant and pleads not guilty. After being jerked around for 12 - 18 months by the system, he's still pissed off but cost have mounted, the stress has increased as for 18 months he's not known whether he'll have a job or not and he's been saving for the lawyer and still has a lot more to pay. Now, he decides fuck it, it's not worth the stress and the cost so decides to accept guilty, take the reaming and get on with life. That's somehow unreasonable of him to change his plea?

I changed plea based on cost benefit. Ok the cops at the last minute reduced the charge (I guess because little old lady didn't show) but based on time off of work and lawyers fees meant it was prudent to get the fuck out of there, also incidentally saving court time which the Police were hell bent on wasting. So a plea change, which you oppose can in fact save court time and costs.

Why do you argue with sixpack?
You argue like fuck, then come out with arguments which makes his case for him. I don't get it, why do that?

Patrick

5th October 2009, 13:45

[QUOTE=The Stranger;1129440467]So for the other times (read most of the time), trumping up a charge is acceptable so there is something to bargain with?

Yer what? "Trump up charges?" LOL...

And this is apparently acceptable - for various reasons, yet there can be no valid reason to change a plea?

So lets take a hypothetical case, say some numpty is pulling wheelies and the wrong guy gets blamed for it. He's indignant and pleads not guilty. After being jerked around for 12 - 18 months by the system, he's still pissed off but cost have mounted, the stress has increased as for 18 months he's not known whether he'll have a job or not and he's been saving for the lawyer and still has a lot more to pay. Now, he decides fuck it, it's not worth the stress and the cost so decides to accept guilty, take the reaming and get on with life. That's somehow unreasonable of him to change his plea?

No, not unreasonable. Stupid... but not unreasonable. If he is innocent, he would have fought to the death, or named the offender, perhaps. That is, [B][I]if they had the wrong person in the first place.... Perhaps that was the "defence"... as in "there were so many of us, how could they know I actually did do that...????

I changed plea based on cost benefit. Ok the cops at the last minute reduced the charge (I guess because little old lady didn't show) but based on time off of work and lawyers fees meant it was prudent to get the fuck out of there, also incidentally saving court time which the Police were hell bent on wasting. So a plea change, which you oppose can in fact save court time and costs.

The little old lady not showing possibly meant the case was probably going to be tossed, so they reduced the charge, so it could be resolved there and then, and you accepted.

What you didn't say was, whether you were guilty of "something" in the first place?

scumdog

5th October 2009, 16:28

So for the other times (read most of the time), trumping up a charge is acceptable so there is something to bargain with?

Why do you argue with sixpack?
You argue like fuck, then come out with arguments which makes his case for him. I don't get it, why do that?

Bad sentence (ooh, pun!) the often times should have been just after 'but' and just prior to 'plea bargaining'.

And in answer to the last comment?
Why ruin a good thread with sensible unrebuttable statements and facts?? :shifty::shutup:

Toot Toot

5th October 2009, 18:13

Jesus is this still going. Off to your rooms the lot of you untill you can come out and play nicely.

paddy

5th October 2009, 18:49

Jesus is this still going. Off to your rooms the lot of you untill you can come out and play nicely.

Yup. It's like the energizer bunny. I thought that might happen - I just didn't quite anticipate how vitriolic it would become. Never mind, I got my question answered though - what can I expect the format of the hearing to be like. I'll probably update you all after the date, although at this stage I have written to the Registrar and requested an adjournment/continuance as I have yet to receive disclosure of the informants evidence.

P.

SixPackBack

5th October 2009, 19:56

Jesus is this still going. Off to your rooms the lot of you untill you can come out and play nicely.

As long as individuals are being butt shagged by the authorities [they used the 'black monster cock' on your arse if memory serves me right] this will never stop.

Toot Toot

5th October 2009, 22:51

[they used the 'black monster cock' on your arse if memory serves me right]
Yep, they did... and it had a wee umbrella on the end that opened up once inside me and they proceeded to tear it out.
Have had a run in with Hazard country sheriffs again a few months back. Will fill you in on a few lies he told to the JP next time I see you. I gotta be a good boy on here.

SixPackBack

6th October 2009, 04:42

Yep, they did... and it had a wee umbrella on the end that opened up once inside me and they proceeded to tear it out.
Have had a run in with Hazard country sheriffs again a few months back. Will fill you in on a few lies he told to the JP next time I see you. I gotta be a good boy on here.

I don't. :sunny:..........I can speak the truth and there is fuck all they can do about it.

SixPackBack

6th October 2009, 06:16

.........I've also had some bad experiences in court, and it has led me to understand court is not about justice. And now I advise people never aim for the "just" outcome, aim for the best in the circumstances and walk away. Trying to achieve the "just" outcome in court is soul destroying...............So what would you change to improve things?

Great piece of advice. Particularly in any case where the cost of defence out weighs the possible fine and/or consequence, and if there is one part of our justice system that needs change it is this part. Under this system justice is of secondary concern, and the defendant thinks of nothing else but the possible monetary consequence, should they take the services of a lawyer and win the case they still lose-out of pocket for 'doing the right thing'. The system is a complete farce.
An easy fix would be the crown reimbursing individuals who are found not guilty, this is likely to have a devastating effect on the cash grab we currently suffer under minor traffic offences, it would choke the courts, and ensure coppers actually grabbed the bad guys instead of acting like the gestapo [at least in Hazzard].

peasea

6th October 2009, 06:29

Why do you argue with sixpack?
You argue like fuck, then come out with arguments which makes his case for him. I don't get it, why do that?

Because he's a knob?

jono035

6th October 2009, 06:29

Couldn't a large amount of this be explained away as 'it depends on which JP you're up against'?

If the previous statements about JPs being given no real training is true, then surely you will get some sheltered do-gooders who think that someone should be thrown in jail for even contemplating taking a corner at more than the posted speed in the same way that you will get some that are as jaded towards the system as anyone here?

If that is the case then toss in a little own-perspective bias and we've got an argument over what again?

peasea

6th October 2009, 06:39

Great piece of advice. Particularly in any case where the cost of defence out weighs the possible fine and/or consequence, and if there is one part of our justice system that needs change it is this part. Under this system justice is of secondary concern, and the defendant thinks of nothing else but the possible monetary consequence, should they take the services of a lawyer and win the case they still lose-out of pocket for 'doing the right thing'. The system is a complete farce.
An easy fix would be the crown reimbursing individuals who are found not guilty, this is likely to have a devastating effect on the cash grab we currently suffer under minor traffic offences, it would choke the courts, and ensure coppers actually grabbed the bad guys instead of acting like the gestapo [at least in Hazzard].

The justice system is set up BY lawyers FOR lawyers and they may as well be speaking Martian for the most part, as far as the average punter is concerned anyway.

You're right about the money thing; how many people simply 'roll over' in court and take whatever fine is handed down simply to move on, get back to work and get on with their lives? Plenty. Many more don't even take it to court, they simply pay up and shut up, regardless of the circumstances.

Bully-boy cops know that Joe Average can't afford to fight trumped up charges and even if he can he can't be arsed or might lose his job for taking too much time off. They play on that aspect big time and oh how the money rolls in.

Lastly, even if you are 100% sure you're right and have a (reasonable) lawyer you're up against it when a cop lies in the dock. Try and prove that!!!!