milan24
3rd April 2011, 13:19
I read this article http://www.fastandsafe.co.nz/Pages/Media/RadarEvidence18Feb05.shtm and felt I was one of the unlucky one.
It is a long story, so I try to cut it short. By sharing my story, you can see for yourself how hard it is to defend a traffic charge by yourself in our country!!
On 10 May 2010 11pm, got pinged for 97kmh on 70kmh temporary speed limit over Victoria Park fly-over of SH1, northbound.
I am sure I wasn’t speeding so I took it to the district court myself. A week before the hearing, the police gave me the disclosure, which contain 3 pages temporary speed limit authorisation, 3 pages traffic management plans, 2 pages infringement notice and other documents.
There are two sections in ‘notes made at time by office’: ‘speed offence’ and ‘other offence’. Under the ‘speed offence’, she crossed out “CHECKED BY RADAR OR LASER AT km/h” and filled in “PURSUIT AT 97 km/h. Under the ‘other offence’, she wrote how she conducted the pace check.
At the hearing, the officer brought a witness (Traffic Manager) from Fletcher Construction, who said the 70kmh temporary speed limit is enforceable by law, although the ‘site specific traffic management plans’ (TMP) (#C033 Rev B) I obtained from Auckland Motorway Alliance contains ten pages of documentation and four pages of drawings suggest otherwise. Reason is:
Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2003
5.3(2) A temporary speed limit that is set in accordance with
5.1(2)(b) for a special event must be:
(a) one of the speed limits in 2.2; and
(b) at least 20 km/h less than the permanent speed limit or the prevailing holiday speed limit.
On page four of The Temporary Traffic Management Plan the permanent speed limit is written as 80kmh.
I asked the officer “what was the colour of my car?” She said: “I don’t know.” When I ask her to give me the definition of PURSUIT and she was having trouble answer it, this is where I saw the seated police prosecutor was telling her to say pace check and he stood up and explained to the court that pace check is interchangeable with pursuit.
I didn’t give evidence myself as this article suggested not to. http://www.southernrider.co.nz/wiki/index.php/Defending_a_minor_traffic_charge
The two JPs found I am guilty and I appealed to High Court on the following points:
1) The constable failed to comply with the New Zealand Police Speed Enforcement policy (http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/services/road-policing/Speed-enforcement.pdf)
As “pursuit” is not classified as an approved method for the purpose of speed limit enforcement measures
2) The prosecution failed to comply with s 13(3)(f) of the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008.
• A list of all relevant exhibits in the possession of the prosecutor that the prosecutor does not propose to have introduced as evidence
The officer said in court: “On map B, the continuation, there is another 70 k temporary speed sign – a pair of signs – and they are placed at the end of the Wellington Street onramp. Again one on the shoulder and on the centre median area. And the next map – map A – shows a continuation of the 70 kilometre per hour area.”
My argument point is that map B drawing number is VPT-T-096-03/4, map A drawing number is VPT-T-096-01/4. Clearly, map A does not join map B and drawing number VPT-T-096-02/4 is missing, which shows the 80 km/h and works end sign. Refer to the following pictures
VPT-T-096-04/4, http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5650/picture003r.jpg
VPT-T-096-03/4, http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2397/picture002lxd.jpg
VPT-T-096-02/4, http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9734/picture001yq.jpg
VPT-T-096-01/4, http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7206/picture000r.jpg
3) The prosecutor, a police sergeant, failed to comply with obligations imposed under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 as he was telling the officer in the witness box what to say
• A prosecuting lawyer must act fairly and impartially at all times and in doing this must—
o (a) comply with all obligations concerning disclosure to the defence of evidence material to the prosecution and the defence; and
o (b) present the prosecution case fully and fairly and with professional detachment; and
o (c) avoid unduly emotive language and inflaming bias or prejudice against an accused person; and
o (d) act in accordance with any ethical obligations that apply specifically to prosecutors acting for the Crown.
This is judgement delivered on the 28th March 2011 on my points
1) A failure to comply with an internal policy document would not provide the Appellant with a defence to the offence.
2) The judge did not hear submissions from the Police on this point. Even if such map or maps were not disclosed and/or produced, I am not satisfied they could have had any effect on the outcome, given the clear evidence to which I have referred.
The evidence the judge was referring to is the 3 pages temporary speed limit authorisation, as you can see for yourself(I have removed his name), p3 is been modified and I think p1 is reproduced with the direction replaced with BOTH. If you read p2 ‘special conditions’ No 3. The site specific traffic management plans show southbound and it is been signed and approved, but the judge just ignores it.
P1, http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9313/imagename8.jpg
P2, http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4724/imagename10.jpg
P3, http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/6808/imagename9.jpg
3) There is no evidence before me that the prosecutor was subject to those rules or that he breached any rule to which he might otherwise have been subject. Again, any such failure, even if it occurred, could not provide the Appellant with a defence.
I wrote to district court for a copy of the audio hearing, but declined. Also verbally request it to the judge at the hearing, but, no reply. Because in the ‘notes of evidence’ when I asked the officer “what was the colour of my car?” She said: “I don’t know.”, and I recorded it onto my question sheet, but the transcriptionist forged the evidence to “I don’t recall”. also, I cannot produce the evidence to against the prosecutor.
I have one last chance, is apply leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, If that leave is refused I can then make an application for special leave to appeal in this Court of Appeal. I get a feeling that my voice is weak to be heard in JPs and Judge’s ear if you consider this story, you can see the difference
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/print.cfm?objectid=10687208
So if you know any traffic lawyer who might give me a good price consider my story, please let me know.
It is a long story, so I try to cut it short. By sharing my story, you can see for yourself how hard it is to defend a traffic charge by yourself in our country!!
On 10 May 2010 11pm, got pinged for 97kmh on 70kmh temporary speed limit over Victoria Park fly-over of SH1, northbound.
I am sure I wasn’t speeding so I took it to the district court myself. A week before the hearing, the police gave me the disclosure, which contain 3 pages temporary speed limit authorisation, 3 pages traffic management plans, 2 pages infringement notice and other documents.
There are two sections in ‘notes made at time by office’: ‘speed offence’ and ‘other offence’. Under the ‘speed offence’, she crossed out “CHECKED BY RADAR OR LASER AT km/h” and filled in “PURSUIT AT 97 km/h. Under the ‘other offence’, she wrote how she conducted the pace check.
At the hearing, the officer brought a witness (Traffic Manager) from Fletcher Construction, who said the 70kmh temporary speed limit is enforceable by law, although the ‘site specific traffic management plans’ (TMP) (#C033 Rev B) I obtained from Auckland Motorway Alliance contains ten pages of documentation and four pages of drawings suggest otherwise. Reason is:
Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2003
5.3(2) A temporary speed limit that is set in accordance with
5.1(2)(b) for a special event must be:
(a) one of the speed limits in 2.2; and
(b) at least 20 km/h less than the permanent speed limit or the prevailing holiday speed limit.
On page four of The Temporary Traffic Management Plan the permanent speed limit is written as 80kmh.
I asked the officer “what was the colour of my car?” She said: “I don’t know.” When I ask her to give me the definition of PURSUIT and she was having trouble answer it, this is where I saw the seated police prosecutor was telling her to say pace check and he stood up and explained to the court that pace check is interchangeable with pursuit.
I didn’t give evidence myself as this article suggested not to. http://www.southernrider.co.nz/wiki/index.php/Defending_a_minor_traffic_charge
The two JPs found I am guilty and I appealed to High Court on the following points:
1) The constable failed to comply with the New Zealand Police Speed Enforcement policy (http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/services/road-policing/Speed-enforcement.pdf)
As “pursuit” is not classified as an approved method for the purpose of speed limit enforcement measures
2) The prosecution failed to comply with s 13(3)(f) of the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008.
• A list of all relevant exhibits in the possession of the prosecutor that the prosecutor does not propose to have introduced as evidence
The officer said in court: “On map B, the continuation, there is another 70 k temporary speed sign – a pair of signs – and they are placed at the end of the Wellington Street onramp. Again one on the shoulder and on the centre median area. And the next map – map A – shows a continuation of the 70 kilometre per hour area.”
My argument point is that map B drawing number is VPT-T-096-03/4, map A drawing number is VPT-T-096-01/4. Clearly, map A does not join map B and drawing number VPT-T-096-02/4 is missing, which shows the 80 km/h and works end sign. Refer to the following pictures
VPT-T-096-04/4, http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5650/picture003r.jpg
VPT-T-096-03/4, http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2397/picture002lxd.jpg
VPT-T-096-02/4, http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9734/picture001yq.jpg
VPT-T-096-01/4, http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7206/picture000r.jpg
3) The prosecutor, a police sergeant, failed to comply with obligations imposed under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 as he was telling the officer in the witness box what to say
• A prosecuting lawyer must act fairly and impartially at all times and in doing this must—
o (a) comply with all obligations concerning disclosure to the defence of evidence material to the prosecution and the defence; and
o (b) present the prosecution case fully and fairly and with professional detachment; and
o (c) avoid unduly emotive language and inflaming bias or prejudice against an accused person; and
o (d) act in accordance with any ethical obligations that apply specifically to prosecutors acting for the Crown.
This is judgement delivered on the 28th March 2011 on my points
1) A failure to comply with an internal policy document would not provide the Appellant with a defence to the offence.
2) The judge did not hear submissions from the Police on this point. Even if such map or maps were not disclosed and/or produced, I am not satisfied they could have had any effect on the outcome, given the clear evidence to which I have referred.
The evidence the judge was referring to is the 3 pages temporary speed limit authorisation, as you can see for yourself(I have removed his name), p3 is been modified and I think p1 is reproduced with the direction replaced with BOTH. If you read p2 ‘special conditions’ No 3. The site specific traffic management plans show southbound and it is been signed and approved, but the judge just ignores it.
P1, http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9313/imagename8.jpg
P2, http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4724/imagename10.jpg
P3, http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/6808/imagename9.jpg
3) There is no evidence before me that the prosecutor was subject to those rules or that he breached any rule to which he might otherwise have been subject. Again, any such failure, even if it occurred, could not provide the Appellant with a defence.
I wrote to district court for a copy of the audio hearing, but declined. Also verbally request it to the judge at the hearing, but, no reply. Because in the ‘notes of evidence’ when I asked the officer “what was the colour of my car?” She said: “I don’t know.”, and I recorded it onto my question sheet, but the transcriptionist forged the evidence to “I don’t recall”. also, I cannot produce the evidence to against the prosecutor.
I have one last chance, is apply leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, If that leave is refused I can then make an application for special leave to appeal in this Court of Appeal. I get a feeling that my voice is weak to be heard in JPs and Judge’s ear if you consider this story, you can see the difference
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/print.cfm?objectid=10687208
So if you know any traffic lawyer who might give me a good price consider my story, please let me know.