Speeding ticket question

[Korumba]

I just did a 45000km trip from the Norf to the South on RIBs bike (Cheers Doug and shes a great ride)I had my radar detector in use and most everytime the Highway patrol saw me it was instant on, man they are really targeting bikes.

Anyway I was taking my time on SH1 just north of Bulls and got pinged hit the picks on instinct and thought no worries but shortly came the lights etc...

He says he saw my speed at 112kmph but locked me at 105kmph (it was the 4th January) so I figured if he was going to issue a ticket it would be for 105 but he gave me one for 112 because that is what he “observed me at” I took a photo of the radar in the car as attached.

My question is can he do that????

[Jantar]

...
My question is can he do that????
Obvious he can, because he did. However if you want to go to court to defend it. Plead guilty to 105, but not to 112, then there is a chance that will get a lower penalty and demerits, butyou will then have to pay court costs. Your choice.

[Mully]

I think he can - the plod don't even have to show the reading IIRC.

But yeah, write in and tell them you are going to defend it.

Or, do the crime, and do the time. Ya know, whatever.

[ajturbo]

fight it and let us know how you got on... but 112?.. your were flying!!! lucky for you , you didn't die

or should i just say quota

QUOTA...:devil2:

[Korumba]

Cheers guys and yes have already written in.... not so much the money but the demerits better to have none, or 10 would be ok not keen on 20.

Will keep you advised.

So I guess the radar detector is now just a tool to help you decide if your going to stop or not.....
Say your doing 145 slow down to say 130 when they get a lock at 130 you are still riding home but at the “observed speed” you are walking.....

[sil3nt]

Its been in various threads (quite a few over the last few months) that observed speed is good enough.

[Grumpy]

I was curious about this as well. Was watching that highway patrol program a while back and some young guy got ticketed for the speed that the officer observed, not what he had locked on at.

[nallac]

I just did a 45000km trip

Fuck me!, thats one hell trip......and on a borrowed bike.

[RiderInBlack]

Fuck me!, thats one hell trip......and on a borrowed bike.Wouldn't have Loaned it to him if he was only going on a Nanna Day ride:bleh: Korumba one of the very few that has earned the right being trusted with "Bagheera", and "Baggy" aren't no short distance day toy, LOL.
As for the ticket, where's the evidence if they can just say "I think you were going faster" and do you for that? If the cops don't have to prove you were going faster, then why do they need to bother with a radar? If they lock you in at 105km but do you for 112kpm cause they reckon they saw that, what is stopping them from say you were doing 122kpm or 142kpm or more?

[Maha]

I can get ''my people'' onto it if you like Brendan....:msn-wink:
Failing that, let Doug pay it, its his bike....:niceone:

[Jantar]

....., what is stopping them from say you were doing 122kpm or 142kpm or more?
There is one cop down this way who is known for doing just that. :Police:

[Coldrider]

There is one cop down this way who is known for doing just that. :Police:didn't they just get rid of two from Alex recently for fibbing?

[Jantar]

Yes, but one of them didn't really deserve it, while a couple of those who should have gone have got away with it.

[mnkyboy]

(Cheers Doug and shes a great ride)

There's a cream for that

[Cr1MiNaL]

You know what I'm going to say to that brendan. You and I both know how to work this equally well. You will get off the 112. The charge is 112, so plead not guilty and go to court. Don't voluntarily plead guilty to 105 like has been suggested here by those less experienced as that is not the charge. He cannot change the charge, one charge per court appearance ONLY. To change the charge he will need a new court date and the judge will likely think he is full of BS anyways. The judge will either give you a fine for 112 and throw you in jail (TUI) or give you a fine for 105 as per the radar. Perhaps even throw the whole thing out, fight it, it only takes a win in one case and this BS 'observed' speed crap will never fly again due to "stare decisis" or the legal precedent of one case being binding on another case as per NZ judge made law. Chances are he won't even show up if you play the system right, take your time, should not be going to court for another 9 mths at least! Let me know how you get on.:msn-wink:

[Crazy Steve]

I just did a 45000km trip from the Norf to the South on RIBs bike (Cheers Doug and shes a great ride)I had my radar detector in use and most everytime the Highway patrol saw me it was instant on, man they are really targeting bikes.

Anyway I was taking my time on SH1 just north of Bulls and got pinged hit the picks on instinct and thought no worries but shortly came the lights etc...

He says he saw my speed at 112kmph but locked me at 105kmph (it was the 4th January) so I figured if he was going to issue a ticket it would be for 105 but he gave me one for 112 because that is what he “observed me at” I took a photo of the radar in the car as attached.

My question is can he do that????

My guess is HELL NO ! !

He can write the ticket for 105kph and surely nothing else ! !

Or what the fcking point of him even locking your speed ! !

Crazy Steve.

[Mad-V2]

You know what I'm going to say to that brendan. You and I both know how to work this equally well. You will get off the 112. The charge is 112, so plead not guilty and go to court. Don't voluntarily plead guilty to 105 like has been suggested here by those less experienced as that is not the charge. He cannot change the charge, one charge per court appearance ONLY. To change the charge he will need a new court date and the judge will likely think he is full of BS anyways. The judge will either give you a fine for 112 and throw you in jail (TUI) or give you a fine for 105 as per the radar. Perhaps even throw the whole thing out, fight it, it only takes a win in one case and this BS 'observed' speed crap will never fly again due to "stare decisis" or the legal precedent of one case being binding on another case as per NZ judge made law. Chances are he won't even show up if you play the system right, take your time, should not be going to court for another 9 mths at least! Let me know how you get on.:msn-wink:

:stupid:
The judge may even drop the charge and tell the cop to pay court costs which is what happened to me.
In court, you usually need hard evidence which is what you have, all he has is his dick in his hand, and his finger up his arse. I'm sick of jumped up fuckwit cops thinking they are God enforcing their own laws instead of doing their job and making a difference. The rest of the force do a good job, and in a professional manner. But this guy needs to be knocked of his perch!
I would fight it out of pure principle, just to see the look on his face :crazy:

[racefactory]

You know what I'm going to say to that brendan. You and I both know how to work this equally well. You will get off the 112. The charge is 112, so plead not guilty and go to court. Don't voluntarily plead guilty to 105 like has been suggested here by those less experienced as that is not the charge. He cannot change the charge, one charge per court appearance ONLY. To change the charge he will need a new court date and the judge will likely think he is full of BS anyways. The judge will either give you a fine for 112 and throw you in jail (TUI) or give you a fine for 105 as per the radar. Perhaps even throw the whole thing out, fight it, it only takes a win in one case and this BS 'observed' speed crap will never fly again due to "stare decisis" or the legal precedent of one case being binding on another case as per NZ judge made law. Chances are he won't even show up if you play the system right, take your time, should not be going to court for another 9 mths at least! Let me know how you get on.:msn-wink:

I'll remember that in future- thanks.

[racefactory]

The judge may even drop the charge and tell the cop to pay court costs which is what happened to me.
In court, you usually need hard evidence which is what you have, all he has is his dick in his hand, and his finger up his arse. I'm sick of jumped up fuckwit cops thinking they are God enforcing their own laws instead of doing their job and making a difference. The rest of the force do a good job, and in a professional manner. But this guy needs to be knocked of his perch!
I would fight it out of pure principle, just to see the look on his face :weep:

what happened in your case?

[The Pastor]

You know what I'm going to say to that brendan. You and I both know how to work this equally well. You will get off the 112. The charge is 112, so plead not guilty and go to court. Don't voluntarily plead guilty to 105 like has been suggested here by those less experienced as that is not the charge. He cannot change the charge, one charge per court appearance ONLY. To change the charge he will need a new court date and the judge will likely think he is full of BS anyways. The judge will either give you a fine for 112 and throw you in jail (TUI) or give you a fine for 105 as per the radar. Perhaps even throw the whole thing out, fight it, it only takes a win in one case and this BS 'observed' speed crap will never fly again due to "stare decisis" or the legal precedent of one case being binding on another case as per NZ judge made law. Chances are he won't even show up if you play the system right, take your time, should not be going to court for another 9 mths at least! Let me know how you get on.:msn-wink:

Raj, is actually correct

[Mad-V2]

what happened in your case?

On the Taupo/Napier highway long straights, I came to a line of traffic following a marked car at 80kph. I followed for about 5 mins and thought I'd pass and see what would happen. So I put my indicator on sped up to 100 and passed safely with plenty of clear road ahead. Sure enough the lights came on and he stopped me.
I got off the bike and looked through his passenger window to see a blank radar screen. when I asked why he pulled me over, he said I was speeding! I told him what I thought in a loud voice and used angry hand gestures, so he wrote me a ticket for 130kph :weird:
I took it to court with a duty solicitor who told my story, and the rest is history :bleh:

[Max Preload]

The most important question is... were you the only vehicle on the road and if not what type were the others and what were their distances from you?

The reason being that if the operator locks the Stalker Dual DSR to the FASTEST target (which the older Stalker DSR can't do at all), both the FAST and LOCK icons appear for the middle window which from your picture hasn't happened. So he's locked the TARGET speed (from the left window) which is the strongest signal. That's not appropriate for a bike among other vehicles. A bike will not give a strongest reading if there are other vehicles such as cars at a similar distance.

In that case it throws into doubt his reliability over the entire incident. Also if he's running instant on, he likely has no tracking history and thus no confirmation that it was you giving the reading either - he doesn't know what caused it. When you exit the beam as you pass by a new signal from the fastest and strongest would confirm that it was you causing the signal he believes you were.

[RiderInBlack]

I can get ''my people'' onto it if you like Brendan....:msn-wink:
Failing that, let Doug pay it, its his bike....:niceone:Too bad the Cop has Brenden's Drivers Licence No. on the ticket:weird:

[davereid]

There is precedent to this - someone else posted it so all credit to them. I kept a copy of the article but cant remember who posted it.
http://www.fastandsafe.co.nz/Pages/Media/RadarEvidence18Feb05.shtm

Rangiora District Court have upheld the principle that without a readout there is no case.

So a readout for a figure lower that the ticket is for should be much the same.

Police need evidence for speed tickets
18 February 2005

By ANNA CLARIDGE

Motorists who are pinged for speeding by police radar might have a complete defence if the officer taking the reading cannot produce it in court.

The issue has been highlighted after Christchurch man Peter Fiddler was given a ticket for allegedly driving at 113kmh while heading south of Christchurch on December 22 last year.

He disputed his speed at the scene and when he asked the officer to produce evidence from his radar-gun, the "clocked speed" had been wiped.

Fiddler complained to the Police Infringement Bureau, saying there was no evidence he was travelling beyond the speed limit, but the police refused to waive his ticket saying: "There is no legal requirement for you to be shown a readout or even for the readout to be locked".

Fiddler said this week: "I didn't think it was fair and I tried to discuss it with the officer but he didn't want to know. I tried to challenge it ... (but) I weighed up the costs and I just couldn't afford a day off work to go to court and defend it."

Exasperated, Fiddler paid the fine but contacted The Press, concerned at what he claims are unfair police rules.

"They could just make up a speed and write the ticket. It's ridiculous," he said.

Recent decisions show the courts are backing motorists such as Fiddler, waiving fines for those who challenge police unable to provide evidence of speeding.

Christchurch man Bryan McHerron took the matter to court in September last year after police were unable to produce radar evidence at the scene of his ticket.

An officer allegedly clocked McHerron travelling 121kmh in a passing lane near Amberley, but lost the radar record seconds after the incident and was unable to show McHerron any evidence as he wrote out the ticket.

McHerron went to court, admitting he was probably travelling at more than 100kmh, but denied it was 121kmh.

The Rangiora District Court ruled in McHerron's favour, with two Justices of the Peace saying: "This issue for us is whether there has been a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the excessive speed ... to cast light or doubt on the actual speed under consideration and in the interests of justice we think it is not unreasonable for the driver to see the actual locked-in radar speed.

"In this instance it was not available and does create an element of doubt to the actual speed for the defendant."

The decision was based on a similar High Court ruling in 1996 when a motorcyclist on the West Coast successfully defended an alleged radar reading of 126kmh after the officer could not produce evidence of the speed quoted on the ticket.

McHerron now claims his ticket was the result of a Government-pushed, revenue-grab which is forcing police to become "quite unethical".

"It borders on harassment what they do. It's a recipe for fraud because at the end of the day, the average person just accepts what the police have said. Motorists have got some rights and I believe the police are taking those rights away."

Canterbury Road Policing manager Derek Erasmus reiterated the police stance, saying an officer did not have to lock a speed in.

"Best practice indicates that we do it because it removes those arguments further down the track but sometimes ... it's not physically possible to lock it in."

An officer may have to act quickly if a driver was coming around a corner and would not have time to lock the speed in, Erasmus said.

"If a person doesn't like it, you can dispute it through the court process. It's no different from the vast majority of police cases disputed in court.

"It comes through to an issue of credibility. At the end of the day (motorists) have the recourse of taking it to court and the evidence is weighed in an independent forum."

A senior police official said complaints over lack of evidence "presupposed police were liars".

"These are sworn officers who gain no benefit from making things up."

A police spokeswoman said police stood by their legal stance and any appeal against a ticket was a decision for the court, not police.

[red mermaid]

This is a decision from a JP's court and sets no precedent at all.

The required case would be the one from the High Court, as they can set precedent, or case law is the correct term.


There is precedent to this - someone else posted it so all credit to them. I kept a copy of the article but cant remember who posted it.
http://www.fastandsafe.co.nz/Pages/Media/RadarEvidence18Feb05.shtm

Rangiora District Court have upheld the principle that without a readout there is no case.

So a readout for a figure lower that the ticket is for should be much the same.

Police need evidence for speed tickets
18 February 2005

By ANNA CLARIDGE

Motorists who are pinged for speeding by police radar might have a complete defence if the officer taking the reading cannot produce it in court.

The issue has been highlighted after Christchurch man Peter Fiddler was given a ticket for allegedly driving at 113kmh while heading south of Christchurch on December 22 last year.

He disputed his speed at the scene and when he asked the officer to produce evidence from his radar-gun, the "clocked speed" had been wiped.

Fiddler complained to the Police Infringement Bureau, saying there was no evidence he was travelling beyond the speed limit, but the police refused to waive his ticket saying: "There is no legal requirement for you to be shown a readout or even for the readout to be locked".

Fiddler said this week: "I didn't think it was fair and I tried to discuss it with the officer but he didn't want to know. I tried to challenge it ... (but) I weighed up the costs and I just couldn't afford a day off work to go to court and defend it."

Exasperated, Fiddler paid the fine but contacted The Press, concerned at what he claims are unfair police rules.

"They could just make up a speed and write the ticket. It's ridiculous," he said.

Recent decisions show the courts are backing motorists such as Fiddler, waiving fines for those who challenge police unable to provide evidence of speeding.

Christchurch man Bryan McHerron took the matter to court in September last year after police were unable to produce radar evidence at the scene of his ticket.

An officer allegedly clocked McHerron travelling 121kmh in a passing lane near Amberley, but lost the radar record seconds after the incident and was unable to show McHerron any evidence as he wrote out the ticket.

McHerron went to court, admitting he was probably travelling at more than 100kmh, but denied it was 121kmh.

The Rangiora District Court ruled in McHerron's favour, with two Justices of the Peace saying: "This issue for us is whether there has been a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the excessive speed ... to cast light or doubt on the actual speed under consideration and in the interests of justice we think it is not unreasonable for the driver to see the actual locked-in radar speed.

"In this instance it was not available and does create an element of doubt to the actual speed for the defendant."

The decision was based on a similar High Court ruling in 1996 when a motorcyclist on the West Coast successfully defended an alleged radar reading of 126kmh after the officer could not produce evidence of the speed quoted on the ticket.

McHerron now claims his ticket was the result of a Government-pushed, revenue-grab which is forcing police to become "quite unethical".

"It borders on harassment what they do. It's a recipe for fraud because at the end of the day, the average person just accepts what the police have said. Motorists have got some rights and I believe the police are taking those rights away."

Canterbury Road Policing manager Derek Erasmus reiterated the police stance, saying an officer did not have to lock a speed in.

"Best practice indicates that we do it because it removes those arguments further down the track but sometimes ... it's not physically possible to lock it in."

An officer may have to act quickly if a driver was coming around a corner and would not have time to lock the speed in, Erasmus said.

"If a person doesn't like it, you can dispute it through the court process. It's no different from the vast majority of police cases disputed in court.

"It comes through to an issue of credibility. At the end of the day (motorists) have the recourse of taking it to court and the evidence is weighed in an independent forum."

A senior police official said complaints over lack of evidence "presupposed police were liars".

"These are sworn officers who gain no benefit from making things up."

A police spokeswoman said police stood by their legal stance and any appeal against a ticket was a decision for the court, not police.

[Jantar]

This is a decision from a JP's court and sets no precedent at all.

The required case would be the one from the High Court, as they can set precedent, or case law is the correct term.

I believe that the case law has been set in the high court.


The decision was based on a similar High Court ruling in 1996 when a motorcyclist on the West Coast successfully defended an alleged radar reading of 126kmh after the officer could not produce evidence of the speed quoted on the ticket.

[Korumba]

Fuck me!, thats one hell trip......and on a borrowed bike.

Yep took 401 hours at 112kmph or was that that the LSD Trip...

May have been closer to 4,500

[Korumba]

I can get ''my people'' onto it if you like Brendan....:msn-wink:
Failing that, let Doug pay it, its his bike....:niceone:

Cheers Bro, my people have been standing round twiddling their thumbs lately,thought I would have to hire more people to fire their arses, but if your people are on to it I will get my people back on to expanding the universe.

[Cr1MiNaL]

This is a decision from a JP's court and sets no precedent at all.

The required case would be the one from the High Court, as they can set precedent, or case law is the correct term.

Who said precedents of cases heard in the district court are not binding on other courts or set no precedent? They are absolutely binding. That is the whole concept of a 'common law' judiciary as opposed to a codified 'civil law' country like the USA for example. The only difference is this - that the 'stare decisis' or legal precedent of a case is only binding on lower courts and only ' persuasive' in nature to courts of similar or superior hierarchy. Eg. Supreme court's precedent is binding on High Courts and District Courts. However, district courts precedent is not necessarily "binding" on a High Court. However, a High Court judge would have to explain his deviation from the District Court decision absolutely as every case make law and hence governs the future in this country. I will quote you a page and book name from my post grad law book if you need. Furthermore, even a decision in another English speaking commonwealth (especially a House of Lords or Court of Appeal decision) is very persuasive to courts in NZ. A lot of NZ law actually comes from the UK, Australia and Canada and judges have followed a myriad of decisions from around the English speaking world, especially if the case is a first for NZ.

Boom thank you Mr Officer, Brendon on the merits of the previous cases mentioned in Davereid's post (just track down the case numbers and which court and judge presided over them) and you'll walk in and out of court (not dissimilar to the time we got pinged for 139 or whatever it was). You were not speeding were you? No, didn't think so. Anyone reading this thread can also use these cases. Therefore, whenever a cop pings you for a speed over indicated you will walk, forever more, unless a higher court overrules that decision.

The "bad" cops like Rodney's ol Ginga count on a common man's ignorance of the law and really dislike people who know half the law. Hence I studied 2 years of it after university. Sure there were other motivating factors but 'black letter law' is something that everyone in business should know, saves you a lot of money in legal fees when you know what you are talking about.

The End.

[Korumba]

I have sent the standard “deny liability and am not guilty of this offence and request a court hearing” letter .
So once I get a court date I will submit an affidavit but wont be appearing in the Marton court... at least I will keep this guy of the road a while and any court cost are not so much a worry its as I said in the other posts its the demerits that suck arse.
I think his Mum may be the Marton Judge.....

[Crazy Steve]

I have sent the standard “deny liability and am not guilty of this offence and request a court hearing” letter .
So once I get a court date I will submit an affidavit but wont be appearing in the Marton court... at least I will keep this guy of the road a while and any court cost are not so much a worry its as I said in the other posts its the demerits that suck arse.
I think his Mum may be the Marton Judge.....

Video conferance me thinks ! From your closes Court to the Marton Court ! !

Crazy Steve.

[Gubb]

Who said precedents of cases heard in the district court are not binding on other courts or set no precedent? They are absolutely binding. That is the whole concept of a 'common law' judiciary as opposed to a codified 'civil law' country like the USA for example. The only difference is this - that the 'stare decisis' or legal precedent of a case is only binding on lower courts and only ' persuasive' in nature to courts of similar or superior hierarchy. Eg. Supreme court's precedent is binding on High Courts and District Courts. However, district courts precedent is not necessarily "binding" on a High Court. However, a High Court judge would have to explain his deviation from the District Court decision absolutely as every case make law and hence governs the future in this country. I will quote you a page and book name from my post grad law book if you need. Furthermore, even a decision in another English speaking commonwealth (especially a House of Lords or Court of Appeal decision) is very persuasive to courts in NZ. A lot of NZ law actually comes from the UK, Australia and Canada and judges have followed a myriad of decisions from around the English speaking world, especially if the case is a first for NZ.

Boom thank you Mr Officer, Brendon on the merits of the previous cases mentioned in Davereid's post (just track down the case numbers and which court and judge presided over them) and you'll walk in and out of court (not dissimilar to the time we got pinged for 139 or whatever it was). You were not speeding were you? No, didn't think so. Anyone reading this thread can also use these cases. Therefore, whenever a cop pings you for a speed over indicated you will walk, forever more, unless a higher court overrules that decision.

The "bad" cops like Rodney's ol Ginga count on a common man's ignorance of the law and really dislike people who know half the law. Hence I studied 2 years of it after university. Sure there were other motivating factors but 'black letter law' is something that everyone in business should know, saves you a lot of money in legal fees when you know what you are talking about.

The End.

Alright. Own up. Who's hacking Raj's account?

[Mad-V2]

I'm pretty sure that if you want to plead not guilty to an offense, you have to travel to the original town the offense took place to do so. I was accused of insecure loading whilst in oamaru, and when I rung them to change the proceedings to Taupo court I was told I can't plead not guilty as the police officer would have to travel to Taupo and if I wanted to, I would have to go down there. I just paid the fine.

[Coldrider]

Ratio decidendi
District Court decisions are not binding on other District Court decisions.
High Court decisions are not binding on other High Court decisions.
High Court decisions are binding on District Court decisions.
Court of Appeal decisions are binding on themselves and all lower courts, unless that conflicts with the House of Lords, or is Per incuriam.

Threw the weetbix cards out.

[pete376403]

(Article snipped)
...A senior police official said complaints over lack of evidence "presupposed police were liars".

"These are sworn officers who gain no benefit from making things up."

If they have a quota, and making (or not making) quota has a bearing on their career, then, yes, they do have a benefit from making things up.

[davereid]

SNIP...High Court decisions are binding on District Court decisions...

So the 1996 High Court Decision would be binding on the District Court ?

The OP needs find the details of that decision - I guess there is a mechanisim for looking them up .

Anyone know how to do it?

[Cr1MiNaL]

So the 1996 High Court Decision would be binding on the District Court ?

The OP needs find the details of that decision - I guess there is a mechanisim for looking them up .

Anyone know how to do it?

Anyone who wants it should look up the NZLR database. It is free of charge. Yes the ratio descendi (or precedent that arises from that case) of superior courts is binding on subordinate courts, but to courts of the same hierarchy is not binding but very persuasive (this is called stare decisis).

[davereid]

Anyone who wants it should look up the NZLR database. It is free of charge.


Can you point me at it ? Googles' "I'm lucky" was not very lucky....

[Cr1MiNaL]

Can you point me at it ? Googles' "I'm lucky" was not very lucky....

Try this http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/databases/learn_database/public.asp?record=LexNZ LexisNexis is very good. Or the Auckland University one http://library.auckland.ac.nz/subjects/law/law.htm Otago have a very good one too. So do most of the top universities.:msn-wink:

[Jantar]

If anyone can find a reference to this high court case, or any other motorcycling case that may be used as a precedent, I'll put them into a seperate thread and make it a sticky.

Eg. If Mad-V2 could pm me the details of his case it would show in a legal sticky thread as:
Crown Vs Mad-V2. Taupo District Court. Date.
Brief details.

[racefactory]

Criminal-

I find it hard to understand the finer points of what you said.

So am I correct in saying the thing to take away is if you get busted by a cop for going over the speed limit, but don't get locked in (which is highly likely with our bikes) then as long as you deny the charge bluntly and don't mention anything else in connection to your speed... you will get off?

What if he locks you in over the speed limit but tickets you for doing a lot more? Is it game over in this case?

What I am also interested to know is what happens if the same thing happens but you are riding a bike with incorrect license or no rego? Is this treated as a separate charge and therefore will have no relevance to the speeding and your chances of getting off?

Much appreciated.

[Cr1MiNaL]

Criminal-

I find it hard to understand the finer points of what you said.

So am I correct in saying the thing to take away is if you get busted by a cop for going over the speed limit, but don't get locked in (which is highly likely with our bikes) then as long as you deny the charge bluntly and don't mention anything else in connection to your speed... you will get off?

What if he locks you in over the speed limit but tickets you for doing a lot more? Is it game over in this case?

What I am also interested to know is what happens if the same thing happens but you are riding a bike with incorrect license or no rego? Is this treated as a separate charge and therefore will have no relevance to the speeding and your chances of getting off?

Much appreciated.

Firstly my disclaimer: Just so we are clear I am not a lawyer, only a law graduate (actually still have to pass my last post grad law paper yet) neither do I advocate speeding or riding like a lunatic in built up zones etc. I am not saying you should lie to the police! Never. The purpose of my post was only to clarify the legal terms of the law, as I was taught and understood it for the benefit of all bikers. How you choose to use that information - like anything else in life is your responsibility. I cannot be held liable for the actions that might arise from following the points raised in any of my posts on here. The points raised in my posts are my opinion only and do not reflect anyone else whether I be employed by, or be associated with thereof.

Having fully understood that, if there is a case that a biker won in the past, no he cannot lock you in for one speed and ticket you for a higher one saying he "observed" it. Well he can, you will go to court and will likely be let off if you present the case and research before hand. You need the case reference number and need to be a confident speaker. Stick to the facts and don't speak when not spoken to is my experience. Also I've always paid fines where I was actually speeding, it's just the ones that were clearly 'disdainful' in nature that I have fought and won. If you ride with a wrong lisence then that is just asking for it I cannot support that. Just because we are bikers does not make us outlaws. Obey the law, just use your brain- many fair cops will tell you 'time place circumstance' just remember that. They are only doing their jobs at the end of the day. Don't try and work the system when you are wrong, you'll only get on the bad side of the law.

[Mad-V2]

My case was around 5 - 6 years ago and I was also pinged for wrong class of license, no reg and no warrant which I had to pay for. Those were separate charges which were not brought up in court, as I was there for my so called speeding charge. I have paid alot of fines and been to court more often than I would like to remember but I have also gotten off a $700 fine when I was 10, a drunk driving charge at 16 and a dangerous driving charge at 18. All Wanganui cops thinking they are God, finding out that they are not. Lawyers are useful no matter what anyone says.
The best thing you can do is talk to a lawyer or solicitor and go from there, Its well worth the effort.

[racefactory]

That's interesting to know. I would have thought if you didn't have wof, rego and a license the court wouldn't have taken a word from you!!! Amazing.

[Mad-V2]

It was never mentioned as they are instant fines, and I was there for speeding only. However, If I had been involved in an accident....I would've been screwed.
I was there purely to defend myself in the speeding charge, nothing else.

[Max Preload]

It was never mentioned as they are instant fines, and I was there for speeding only. However, If I had been involved in an accident....I would've been screwed.
I was there purely to defend myself in the speeding charge, nothing else.There's no such thing as an 'instant fine'. What you're referring to is an infringement offence notice which when the fee for the infringement is paid becomes an admission of guilt of the infringement.

You can challenge any ION in court.

[Mad-V2]

You are right, I just called them instant as they were way out at the time.
Guilty as charged.
There are alot of procedures police have to follow to the letter, and if they don't follow each step exactly, A lawyer will eat them alive in court.

[Coldrider]

stare decisis means judges don't just look at previous cases, but are actually bound by them. that is a given.

Ratio decidendi is 'the reason for deciding'.
One presents their similar case in a light closely resembling the precident, working towards a known outcome of course.

Justice of the Peace's are appointed by the Governor-General, their appointment is for life, and have not had any legal office. They receive a rudimentary correspondence course in the NZ legal system and a manual.
They are not paid.

Their decisions go no where if you are lucky to get off.

However, everyone with a similar case would expect to be treated equally under the law and, technically, there is only one court, but various locations.