All charges dropped

[scumdog]

One thing about the old days; a genuinely bad cop didn't last long in a small community. In the cities then, as now they've got the advantage of herd protection and the lack of community you find in high population densities.

It's must be a bastard failing to get a conviction when you know it's kosher, but telling porkies to make up for bad luck or poor police work in the age of smart-phones and GPS is plain dumb. Telling porkies when you know it ain't kosher isn't just dumb, it's criminal.

I've no need to tell porkies even if the 'innocent' person does - I know he'll screw up again in the future....with a bit of luck he will screw-up with his porkies anyway.

[scumdog]

Anyways i did little spin up on gravel when i left just say yeah right officer i cant drive ;-(



so it was YOU i had a cop tell me about giving somebody a ticket and this dude that got the ticket then spun it up on the gravel and the cop telling me the story said like that bozo sure couldn't drive and he was right!

[actungbaby]

yes i agree they behaviour is bad.. i always talked to everone as you liked to be spoken too easy to follow

and police officers are people , in fact i got caught driving mate home to his house on my restricted i was 40 at the time
always had bikes and had no rego just lasped and was going about 7 kph over in town

he let me of as was just polite as normal and owned up i just done wrong thing was understanding i mean dumb enough to do the same thing again i got fines...but fair engough we all know the laws


If it can teach the tweens that think that having their pants round their ankles is somewhat cool, and think that its funny to call people hoes and bitches, a lesson, then I think that a "little" 50's police brutality would do a bit of good.

That and he couldn't catch up to my bike :sweatdrop

[actungbaby]

if was blue mx5 1990 model between pammy and auckland hehe maybe

and u be bozo in the falcon hehe

i can drive just fine i had muftie police dog handler ute following me around twisting roads coming back from
shannon when had some reall corners then and kept just on 100kph all the way right behind me , only lifted once and car
got tiny bit unstelted so just sqwezed peddle back fine , must admit was commodore and they chould drive
i was in car like only 1000kg

am not racing driver never whould be but i can drive safely just fine never had accident in 8 years driving my little mx 5
and done numerous trips to auckland and back in some heavy rain, i even driven to auckland back
in the same day , gone to concert Blondie and driven right back gone to work few hours later

call mr bozo so stick that in your pipe smoke it stranger doesint even know me
merry xmas to you too


so it was YOU i had a cop tell me about giving somebody a ticket and this dude that got the ticket then spun it up on the gravel and the cop telling me the story said like that bozo sure couldn't drive and he was right!

[red mermaid]

Must have been a real dodgy ticket this one...I wonder who wrote it?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/6187487/Police-ordered-to-pay-officer

[Scuba_Steve]

Must have been a real dodgy ticket this one...I wonder who wrote it?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/6187487/Police-ordered-to-pay-officer

sounds like that was a total fuckup but I like how O'Connor try's as use it as vindication :facepalm:


This week, Mr O'Connor said: "Anyone looking at the facts is left shaking their head wondering how a case like this has ended up before the court. It would never happen with a member of the public."

Say what :blink: Does this guy know anything about what he's talking? Seems Pat is a bit more intelligent


But Palmerston North Area Commander Inspector Pat Handcock rubbished that suggestion.


"This is a case which any member of the public who somehow thinks police are easy on their own should look at. I hope it's been a lesson for the Palmerston North police."

Sounds like the O'Conner person is a total douché

The only similarities between this case & a general public one is it appears he got unfairly charged, but thats where it ends had it been general public they would have been found guilty regardless of facts & in the very unlikely case they got let off they wouldn't be getting any payout. General public have to be let off something decent like murder for that to kick in

[scumdog]

sounds like that was a total fuckup but I like how O'Connor try's as use it as vindication :facepalm:



Say what :blink: Does this guy know anything about what he's talking? Seems Pat is a bit more intelligent




Sounds like the O'Conner person is a total douché

The only similarities between this case & a general public one is it appears he got unfairly charged, but thats where it ends had it been general public they would have been found guilty regardless of facts & in the very unlikely case they got let off they wouldn't be getting any payout. General public have to be let off something decent like murder for that to kick in

Predictable.

Very predictable...:rolleyes::facepalm:

[red mermaid]

The highlighted comment just shows you know nothing about what you are talking about.


sounds like that was a total fuckup but I like how O'Connor try's as use it as vindication :facepalm:



Say what :blink: Does this guy know anything about what he's talking? Seems Pat is a bit more intelligent




Sounds like the O'Conner person is a total douché

The only similarities between this case & a general public one is it appears he got unfairly charged, but thats where it ends had it been general public they would have been found guilty regardless of facts & in the very unlikely case they got let off they wouldn't be getting any payout. General public have to be let off something decent like murder for that to kick in

[rastuscat]

Yup, Skoober yet again shows his lack of understanding.

[Kiwibaconator]

I got ticket in my mx5 doing 120kph passing this dude in falcon who speeded up dick.. and said to afficer i was over taking
still he said u shoudint go over the limit thats daft how can u overtake and not go over 100kph and do it safe
esp in shorter distance , and why do have passing lanes up hills all the time i undersand its for passing trucks
because the weight slow ;-(
Anyways i did little spin up on gravel when i left just say yeah right officer i cant drive ;-(

Anyway Have safe christmas new year and enjoyable one too

It's pretty simple. Legally you should only be overtaking those travelling slower than the speed limit.

Some punction and not spinning tyres in front of the cop would likely get any future message across with a better reception.

[FJRider]

I got ticket in my mx5 doing 120kph passing this dude in falcon who speeded up dick.. and said to afficer i was over taking
still he said u shoudint go over the limit thats daft how can u overtake and not go over 100kph and do it safe
esp in shorter distance , and why do have passing lanes up hills all the time i undersand its for passing trucks
because the weight slow ;-(
Anyways i did little spin up on gravel when i left just say yeah right officer i cant drive ;-(

Anyway Have safe christmas new year and enjoyable one too

Aside from the fact you were 5 times over the "tolerance" when you were stopped, the "sustained loss of traction" rule may have got your car impounded ...

You CAN be stopped more than ONCE in a day ...

[Scuba_Steve]

The highlighted comment just shows you know nothing about what you are talking about.

I don't know Pat so maybee he's not intelligent, but what he said has much more truth to it than what O'Connor was talking


Yup, Skoober yet again shows his lack of understanding.

I'm sorry what am I to understand? am I missing something? or are you (stupidly) trying to tell me the general public would not have bullshit cases brought against them???

I do hope it's not the latter.

[scumdog]

I fell foul of one of New Zealand's patched-up gangs a few months ago:shit:.
Like all gangs the Police has its share of good:Police: and bad:buggerd: members and a couple of the bad ones.

So....what has happened to Jack Miller, defender of the good??:blink:

[riffer]

Serving six weeks for contempt of court? <_<

[ducatilover]

Serving six weeks for being an arrogant twat? <_<

I beg your pardon?

[rastuscat]

Serving six weeks for being a twat <_<

Fixed it for ya.

[riffer]

Ah - that'll be that jolly old Police humour again. :laugh:

[Kiwibaconator]

Here's an update from me.

Got the letter today advising of the date of a preliminary court hearing. But virtually none of the requested evidence has been provided. The officers notes narrow down the area of the alleged offence from the 13km road on the ticket to a 3.5km length of road.

Should I request the hearing be delayed until the requested evidence is presented or should I turn up and inform the court that the evidence requested was not produced?

[Jantar]

...Should I request the hearing be delayed until the requested evidence is presented or should I turn up and inform the court that the evidence requested was not produced?

I think you legal advice on this one. My opinion would be to turn up and ask that the charges be dismissed due to the requested information not having been provided by the police. When is the hearing?

[Kiwibaconator]

Just noticed the future date on the cover letter.
Apparently this letter to me from the NZP was written 4 weeks in the future. :laugh:

[sil3nt]

Apparently this letter to me from the NZP was written 4 weeks in the future. :laugh:Thats the only reason they are taking it to court. They already know whos gonna win :sweatdrop

[Kiwibaconator]

Soo.

Can anyone give me the usual order of preceedings for a traffic focused preliminary hearing?

[Kiwibaconator]

Thats the only reason they are taking it to court. They already know whos gonna win :sweatdrop

Indeed they did. Me.:woohoo:

I arrived at court to be greeted by an officer who explained they had reviewed my original letter and agreed with it. Apparently the officer now believes there was a problem with the radar reading.

Just like the title of this thread, all charges dropped. Goes to show, they will only back down if you are prepared to fight it.

[sil3nt]

Indeed they did. Me.:woohoo:

I arrived at court to be greeted by an officer who explained they had reviewed my original letter and agreed with it. Apparently the officer now believes there was a problem with the radar reading.

Just like the title of this thread, all charges dropped. Goes to show, they will only back down if you are prepared to fight it.Did it cost you anything to fight it?

[Kiwibaconator]

Did it cost you anything to fight it?

Just a lot of time and a bit of postage. Worst case (if you lose in court) is you have court costs added to your original ticket.

[Scuba_Steve]

Just a lot of time and a bit of postage. Worst case (if you lose in court) is you have court costs added to your original ticket.

for future reference. You don't have to stamp it, it makes it's way there regardless :yes:

[The Pastor]

Indeed they did. Me.:woohoo:

I arrived at court to be greeted by an officer who explained they had reviewed my original letter and agreed with it. Apparently the officer now believes there was a problem with the radar reading.

Just like the title of this thread, all charges dropped. Goes to show, they will only back down if you are prepared to fight it.

Do you mind adding the details of your case? be interesting how you setup your defence.

[Kiwibaconator]

Do you mind adding the details of your case? be interesting how you setup your defence.

Sure.

This ticket stunk from the start. I was pulled over in town (well inside a 50km/h zone) by an officer who claimed I had been speeding on a main road "several kilometres back". This officer and their car came into view behind me at speed while I was stopped at an intersection in town. There was no contact with them prior. No lights, no sirens, no car braking and turning. Nothing.
The officer pulled me over and said they would like to speak to me about my speed along the main road. The officer claimed 114km/h, was unable to describe the area of the offence (even when prompted with local landmarks), showed me a 114km/h radar lock and wrote me a ticket for that speed.
The area description on the ticket was simply the name of a road 13km long.

I had just driven that road, not breaking 100km/h anywhere and nowhere near 114km/h. The area in question was mostly 65km/h linked corners where 114km/h would only be possible either on a motorbike to maximise the choice of line through the corners or in a car with soft and sticky tyres. I have driven, ridden and been driven on this road more than 1000 times. Twice more today in fact.
My usual speed, which I was doing that day, is from 85-95km/h. A full 20-30km/h slower than the alleged speed.

I had a witness, but it never came to needing that. I also had a dog on the car sitting on a bench seat. This dog stayed put throughout the drive, something that isn't possible taking 65km/h corners at 114km/h.

I am a mechanical engineer and a large chunk of my job involves calculations of motion, speed, acceleration and distance. I took map photos, overlaid bend radii and calculated cornering forces at my speed and again at the alleged speed.
The alleged speed came in at 0.6g. Well within the range of grip for performance tyres, but right on the limit for the hard commercial tyres on this vehicle. The vehicle would have been sliding and possibly tyres squealing. 0.6g is also a serious imposition on passengers and impossible for a dog to remain on a bench seat.

These calculations and the request for the ticket to be waived were summarily rejected by Sargent Ellicock in Wellington, he also put a snarky comment in the return letter. A lack of professionalism which I may follow up.


So second letter in, denying liability for the offence and requesting a court hearing.
I also requested 8 pieces of evidence:
-Calibration Certificates for the Radar - Not delivered
-Training Records - Not delivered
-User & Factory Manual for the Radar unit involved - Not delivered
-Fault History of the Radar unit - Not delivered
-Police training manual for radar involved - Not delivered
-Evidence that the officer involved has received training in the use of the particular radar while in moving mode. - Not delivered
-Copy of the radar manufacturers manual. - Not delivered
-GPS data from the officers iphone which displayed the GPS map I was shown. - Not delivered

The officers notes were the only part that was delivered, those narrowed down the area of the offence to between two roads almost 4km apart. A distance of 5.5-2km from where I was pulled up. They confirmed the officer was travelling in the opposite direction.
Simply not good enough.

So I organise my defence.
There were several angles I could have taken, but the simplest is vehicle identification. A car blows past at 114km/h in the opposite direction on roads with 200m average visibility (winding roads) and the officer has about 3 seconds to do the following:
1. Notice a speed reading on the radar.
2. Observe the car coming the other way to ensure the radar reading is trustworthy.
3. Obtain a stable radar reading
4. Manually lock in the stable radar reading
5. Identify the offending car perfectly.

Then that car is gone.
By the time the patrol car has found a place to turn around, turned around and accelerated up to a speed matching the 114km/h, the original car has a lead of approximately 750m.
Ever tried to make 750m ground on another car or bike? Not a chance, that vehicle is gone and not coming back.
There were also 48 exits from the road between the start of the zone the officer mentioned in their notes and the point I was pulled up. That is 48 different places for a car doing 114km/h to disappear down.
It appears these officers drove blindly for about 3km, came across me and wrote out a 114km/h ticket.

Now it's very easy to see the problems, but laying out a logical defence to create doubt isn't always that easy. I have spent maybe 40 hours on this, for what would be a $80 ticket. Easy to just roll over and take it, but this isn't my ticket and I'm not paying any fines I didn't earn.
I didn't want to use the calculations and cornering forces in the defence as if the Judge cannot follow them, the words are wasted. Instead I chose to focus on vehicle identification.

So we start with a statement of facts, establish common ground that cannot be denied.

Statement of Facts
I was pulled over in Town A, well inside the 50km/h zone
There was no contact with any police car prior to this.
There was no reaction from any car which passed in the opposite direction.
The road is winding, visibility is limited to only 80m in the worst places and 200-300m for most of it. There was no car visible behind me until well inside Town A's 50km/h zone.
The officer was unable to describe where the 114km/h reading was obtained.
Even when prompted with local landmarks the officer was unable to describe where the reading was obtained.
The ticket simply lists "Road E" as the area of the offence. Road E is approx 13km long.
The officers notes list "Road E, between Road C1 and Road C2" as the area of the offence, this area starts over 5km from where I was pulled up and finishes 2km from where I was pulled up.
The vast majority of this road is marked as recommended speed of 65km/h.
The 114km/h speed alleged through winding road marked at 65km/h is extreme, the noise, inclination and lateral forces on a car attempting that would be obvious to occupants and witnesses.
There are 8 public roads which join Road E between Road C1 and where I was pulled up.
There are over 40 private roads and driveways which join Road E between Road C1 and where I was pulled up.
I have requested the data from the officers GPS map, it has not been provided.
A witness from within the car verifies this story.

Then we bring in my observations.
I state the only way to guarantee identification of a car caught speeding is to keep it in sight from radar lock until it is pulled over.
Then I roll in the impossibility of positively identifying a car within the 3-4 seconds available.
Following that the absurdity of a police car driving blindly for several kilometers in the hope of catching a vehicle which already has an approx 750m head-start.

Finish with my only offence is being in the wrong place at the wrong time and possibly driving the wrong colour car.

I also had several aces up my sleeve for cross-examination of the officers in court if the chance arose. Which I won't be disclosing in detail here. But essentially ask the officer a question which can be answered two ways and blow holes in their story with their own answers either way.

I was almost looking forward to it.

Today when arriving at the local Courthouse for a "Preliminary Hearing" I was met by an officer who said I had put in an excellent set of calculations which in review had been found to be accurate. The police now agreed with my calculations and the officer believes there may have been a problem with the radar. Charge withdrawn. The above defence was never used.

The irony is, this exercise has proven to me that if you were driving through this road at 114km/h, you would be impossible to catch and ticket.

[The Pastor]

Sure.


The irony is, this exercise has proven to me that if you were driving through this road at 114km/h, you would be impossible to catch and ticket.

Thanks mate,

Do you think they had no intention of a successful charge against you and just dragged you to court to waste your time?

[Kiwibaconator]

Thanks mate,

Do you think they had no intention of a successful charge against you and just dragged you to court to waste your time?

I think it's simple, they write tickets and most people will pay them. If I hadn't fought it, they would happily have taken the money. The PR machine would notch up another victory in saving the country from another dangerous criminal. Instead of the true story where an innocent motorist has spared themselves from a miscarriage of justice from overzealous officers.

As for not informing me it was dropped until I turned up to court? We can only speculate.
It could be the information was only reviewed at the last minute. But that is also speculation. The police had all of this information three months prior.

It must be noted that if I was ticketed away from home, I would have been unable to turn up to court without serious inconvenience. At which point I would have been found guilty in absence.
The officers who pulled me over, thought I lived several hours away. Coincidence or hanging dodgy tickets on those less able to defend themselves?

[davereid]

Do you think they had no intention of a successful charge against you and just dragged you to court to waste your time?

It wasted the police a lot of time as well.

But failure to disclose relevant information may have meant the Police would have had an uphill battle to win, so choosing not to do it suggests they never expected to win, and were just hoping the OP would not show up.

I would have thought that for a case essentially based on a radar reading that :

Calibration Certificates for the Radar, Training Records, User & Factory Manual for the Radar unit involved, Fault History of the Radar unit, Police training manual for radar involved and Evidence that the officer involved has received training in the use of the particular radar while in moving mode were all very relevant.

Police may have struggled to keep the judges smile going without proper disclosure.

[Scuba_Steve]

I think it's simple, they write tickets and most people will pay them. If I hadn't fought it, they would happily have taken the money. The PR machine would notch up another victory in saving the country from another dangerous criminal. Instead of the true story where an innocent motorist has spared themselves from a miscarriage of justice from overzealous officers.

As for not informing me it was dropped until I turned up to court? We can only speculate.
It could be the information was only reviewed at the last minute. But that is also speculation. The police had all of this information three months prior.

It must be noted that if I was ticketed away from home, I would have been unable to turn up to court without serious inconvenience. At which point I would have been found guilty in absence.
The officers who pulled me over, thought I lived several hours away. Coincidence or hanging tickets on those less able to defend themselves?

This scam relies on ignorance & inconvenience. Most people don't have the patience, knowledge, and/or time to fight so they just pay cause it's far easier.

[Kiwibaconator]

This scam relies on ignorance & inconvenience. Most people don't have the patience, knowledge, and/or time to fight so they just pay cause it's far easier.

In the pursuit of fairness, I have to point out there are a lot of people ticketed who have earned all of it. I'd like to think cases like mine of completely misplaced ticketing are a very small minority.

But it's still a concern that minority exists.

[FJRider]

Do you think they had no intention of a successful charge against you and just dragged you to court to waste your time?

Yep ... with all the revenue they wrongfully gathered in the name of road safety ... they had plenty left-over for a bullshit court proceedings ... to scare the punter ...

[Jantar]

Kiwibaconator has kept me up-to-date on the progress of this case all the way through. :yes:

I was looking forward to being in court to see it play out, but it was all over before I finished work. Congratulations on a successfull outcome. :clap:

[Scuba_Steve]

In the pursuit of fairness, I have to point out there are a lot of people ticketed who have earned all of it. I'd like to think cases like mine of completely misplaced ticketing are a very small minority.

But it's still a concern that minority exists.

minority? unsure. But it is a lot more prevalent than you think, which is a sad fact.

[Kiwibaconator]

Kiwibaconator has kept me up-to-date on the progress of this case all the way through. :yes:

I was looking forward to being in court to see it play out, but it was all over before I finished work. Congratulations on a successfull outcome. :clap:

Let me know when you'd like to collect that beer you've earnt.:drinknsin

[milan24]

good work Kiwibaconator!!
i wish there are more people like you and me out there, who stand up for himself, not just roll over and take it. soon or later, the cop will learn their lesson not to push motorist around without concrete evidence.
i am taking my $230 speeding case to the court of appeal, hopefully i can bring good news in april.

[Kiwibaconator]

How did you get a $230 speeding ticket?

[milan24]

97k on 70 temp. my two argument points are:
the officer used an unapproved method to determine a vehicle’s speed, which fell short of the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt on the issue of speed as she didn’t maintain a fixed distance throughout the pace check
the temporary speed limit is not enforceable by law as the approved traffic management plan failed to follow Section 5.2(2)(b) of Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2003; the approved temporary speed limit is only applied on the southbound, where the alleged offence was took on the northbound
my submissions are written and ready to be sent out, if you are interested, pm me.
cheers

[davereid]

97k on 70 temp. my two argument points are:
the officer used an unapproved method to determine a vehicle’s speed, which fell short of the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt on the issue of speed as she didn’t maintain a fixed distance throughout the pace check
the temporary speed limit is not enforceable by law as the approved traffic management plan failed to follow Section 5.2(2)(b) of Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2003; the approved temporary speed limit is only applied on the southbound, where the alleged offence was took on the northbound
my submissions are written and ready to be sent out, if you are interested, pm me.
cheers

Milan

Id suggest you don't make any contact with the police infringement bureau. You are providing them with details of your defence. The court is the right place to make your submission. Its an equal playing field there, and they don't get given the chance to think up evidence to support their case, if you haven't revealed your defence.

I have defended all my tickets over the years, and I don't even bother writing to the police except to deny the offence, and for disclosure.

[Scuba_Steve]

The court is the right place to make your submission. Its an equal playing field there,

:blink: what court are you going to??? I have yet to meet one of these "playing fields"

[milan24]

going to court of appeal in wellington, have been to the other two playing fields in akl, from my experience, i can tell you that the referee will turn a blind eye as much as possible! hopefully 3rd time lucky.

[Gremlin]

:blink: what court are you going to??? I have yet to meet one of these "playing fields"
From my experience JP's will mostly rubber stamp whatever the cops say, but judges are muuuch better, bollocking whoever screwed up. :yes:

[The Pastor]

from my experience, limited as it may be, I have concluded that it is a primary police tactic to waste the person defending the ticket's time as much as possible. The police's view (from the officer who gives the ticket) is this - 'I'm still getting paid to be here'. They have told me this themselves on every ticket i've defended, different cops in different areas.

No matter what happens, the cops always win.

and lawyers.

Just don't stop for tickets, if you own a sports bike :D (but remember to breathe!!!)

[davereid]

No matter what happens, the cops always win.


I think its the other way around.

Every time you defend a ticket, win or lose we all win.

Its all about meeting targets for performance. The cops simply cant meet them if they are in court all the time.

It only works for them if you take the ticket and pay it.

[The Pastor]

Ok heres a ticket i currently have. (Auckland transport, not the cops) BUSH LAWYERS UNITE!

This is the charge im charged with.

On Saturday 28 January 2012 at 8.20am on XXXX avenue, XXXX, IN THAT YOU, BEING THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE XXXX Operated a motor vehicle on a road when the current licence issued to the vehicle and appropriate for its use was not affixed to it in the manner prescribed. This is an offence against land transport (Motor Vehicle Registration & licensing) Regulations 2011 regulation 77(2)(b)(ii).

This was for my rego running out on my broken down truck i stored on the road (since towed it off the road!!).

Can I defend this as parking a vehicle is not operating it?

Edit, Just found this cool site which pretty much says im screwed. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2011/0079/latest/DLM2938433.html?search=ts_regulation_land+transpor t_resel&p=1#DLM2938433

A person commits a stationary vehicle offence if the person operates a motor vehicle in contravention of section 242(1) of the Act by causing or permitting it to be on a road or driven on a road if the motor vehicle—

(a) is not registered and licensed in accordance with Part 17 of the Act; or

(b) does not have affixed to it and displayed in the manner prescribed by these regulations—

(i) the registration plates issued for it; and

[Usarka]

I Its all about meeting targets for performance. The cops simply cant meet them if they are in court all the time.


ACC's tactic for this (sorry for slight off topic) is take it to court, but if they know they are going to lose they bail out at the last minute.

That means that their "went to review but lost" stats don't look so bad, but they get to fuck over the people too stupid or stressed to fight them.

Cunts.

[Kiwibaconator]

Ok heres a ticket i currently have. (Auckland transport, not the cops) BUSH LAWYERS UNITE!

I think it was posted on this site that you should cover the vehicle and plates to prevent such a situation occuring. In your case, looks too late.

[caspernz]

I think its the other way around.

Every time you defend a ticket, win or lose we all win.

Its all about meeting targets for performance. The cops simply cant meet them if they are in court all the time.

It only works for them if you take the ticket and pay it.

:2thumbsup

Too right!!

[scumdog]

. The cops simply cant meet them if they are in court all the time.

.

Or it might make them even more zealous in dishing out ticket after Court, - you know, to catch up on their non-quota...<_<

[jaykay]

Milan


I have defended all my tickets over the years, and I don't even bother writing to the police except to deny the offence, and for disclosure.

And I thought I was the only one who argued about every ticket, I salute you.

I think I'm five to one up against the police personally, with one draw at present.

Alleged speeding; stupidly paid the first one nine years ago - took two camera ones to the High Court forcing the Police to correct their paperwork (took 18 months), three others have been dropped within a couple of days of the hearing. Last one is drawn at present - demerit points have run out, haven't been chased for fine yet.

Suffice to say that a couple of other family members cases have disappeared into a black hole of ???

[davereid]

And I thought I was the only one who argued about every ticket, I salute you.

I think I'm five to one up against the police personally, with one draw at present.

Alleged speeding; stupidly paid the first one nine years ago - took two camera ones to the High Court forcing the Police to correct their paperwork (took 18 months), three others have been dropped within a couple of days of the hearing. Last one is drawn at present - demerit points have run out, haven't been chased for fine yet.

Suffice to say that a couple of other family members cases have disappeared into a black hole of ???

If you get convicted of the last offence and it carries demerits, you may still lose your licence.

If you get more than the specified number of demerits in the specified period, based on date of offence not date of conviction, then they still apply.

Speed camera tickets are voluntary - you only pay them if you want to.

If you can't remember being the driver, so dont think you were, and you make exhaustive enquires to find out who was and no one else remembers being the driver, you have a complete defence.

And for some reason, memory lapses around speed cameras are common.

The government gave me a lifetime licence, and forgot they had done it.
The government said speed cameras would be clearly marked with signs, and forgot they had done it.
The government said speed cameras would never be hidden, and they forgot they had done it.
The government said speed cameras would only be used where there was high risk and they forgot they had done it.
The government said speed cameras would only be set to catch the top 5% of speeding drivers, and they forgot they had done it.

So its hardly surprising that I forgot who was driving.

[Scuba_Steve]

tell ya what boys if you want it even easier (or don't have the time) just ignore them. Been working for me so far.
I used to fight them, regardless of guilt cause I sorta enjoyed it really (had I been any good at the England I'd probably be a lawyer right now :facepalm:.) But then more recently I found I didn't have time to piss round with scams so I just ignored them & it's been working quite well.

[Zedder]

tell ya what boys if you want it even easier (or don't have the time) just ignore them. Been working for me so far.
I used to fight them, regardless of guilt cause I sorta enjoyed it really (had I been any good at the England I'd probably be a lawyer right now :facepalm:.) But then more recently I found I didn't have time to piss round with scams so I just ignored them & it's been working quite well.

What about the court enforcement actions (income deductions, property seizure etc) when you don't pay up Scube?

[Delerium]

I think it's simple, they write tickets and most people will pay them. If I hadn't fought it, they would happily have taken the money. The PR machine would notch up another victory in saving the country from another dangerous criminal. Instead of the true story where an innocent motorist has spared themselves from a miscarriage of justice from overzealous officers.

As for not informing me it was dropped until I turned up to court? We can only speculate.
It could be the information was only reviewed at the last minute. But that is also speculation. The police had all of this information three months prior.

It must be noted that if I was ticketed away from home, I would have been unable to turn up to court without serious inconvenience. At which point I would have been found guilty in absence.
The officers who pulled me over, thought I lived several hours away. Coincidence or hanging dodgy tickets on those less able to defend themselves?

I may need your help. Have received 2x speed camera tickets (same camera) which was not me. Rental truck i drove for my previous employer in January 2011. Tickets issued in august 2011 - I receive court notice in DECEMBER 2011. Much chasing around, the tickets HAVE been paid by the actual person - courts dont care any more as the fine has been paid. But, the infringement is STILL on my drivers license. (it took a long time to decipher the near illiterate letter sent by the cops to me). Now I have to chase up the court registra AGAIN as they have not actioned my initial paper work to prove it wasnt me (the cops agree, but the courts havent done anything). way to go nz justice.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I may need your help. Have received 2x speed camera tickets (same camera) which was not me. Rental truck i drove for my previous employer in January 2011. Tickets issued in august 2011 - I receive court notice in DECEMBER 2011. Much chasing around, the tickets HAVE been paid by the actual person - courts dont care any more as the fine has been paid. But, the infringement is STILL on my drivers license. (it took a long time to decipher the near illiterate letter sent by the cops to me). Now I have to chase up the court registra AGAIN as they have not actioned my initial paper work to prove it wasnt me (the cops agree, but the courts havent done anything). way to go nz justice.

Write a letter of complaint to the Minister of Justice, and the Minister responsible for the Courts, and copy the Prime Minister. They quite literally have nothing better to do than to ensure the bureaucracy is not oppressing law abiding citizens. Yes I am serious.

[davereid]

I may need your help. Have received 2x speed camera tickets (same camera) which was not me. Rental truck i drove for my previous employer in January 2011. Tickets issued in august 2011 - I receive court notice in DECEMBER 2011. Much chasing around, the tickets HAVE been paid by the actual person - courts dont care any more as the fine has been paid. But, the infringement is STILL on my drivers license. (it took a long time to decipher the near illiterate letter sent by the cops to me). Now I have to chase up the court registra AGAIN as they have not actioned my initial paper work to prove it wasnt me (the cops agree, but the courts havent done anything). way to go nz justice.

There are currently no demerits recorded for speed camera offences.

If the money has been paid it can be ignored.

[Scuba_Steve]

What about the court enforcement actions (income deductions, property seizure etc) when you don't pay up Scube?

I'll let you know when it happens :msn-wink:

[Zedder]

I'll let you know when it happens :msn-wink:

Thanks.

In future though I'd appreciate it if you didn't have me wait half a day while you load all your gear into a trailer and do a runner so the authorities don't catch up with you.

[Scuba_Steve]

Thanks.

In future though I'd appreciate it if you didn't have me wait half a day while you load all your gear into a trailer and do a runner so the authorities don't catch up with you.

:laugh: last time I packed up all my stuff & moved it took 3 days. I don't plan on doing that again anytime soon

[Zedder]

:laugh: last time I packed up all my stuff & moved it took 3 days. I don't plan on doing that again anytime soon

Yep, "moving house" is a real pain alright.

[MSTRS]

There are currently no demerits recorded for speed camera offences.

If the money has been paid it can be ignored.

Nup. Insurance is affected (if you tell them, like you are legally obliged to - or they find out some other way).

[davereid]

Nup. Insurance is affected (if you tell them, like you are legally obliged to - or they find out some other way).

The NZTA only record demerits - the law does not allow them to record tickets that do not include demerits, so speed camera tickets are not recorded against your licence.

[scumdog]

There are currently no demerits recorded for speed camera offences.

.

This is KB.
Stop clouding the issue with facts...

[MSTRS]

The NZTA only record demerits - the law does not allow them to record tickets that do not include demerits, so speed camera tickets are not recorded against your licence.

Please tell me why insurers ask if you have had any traffic offences in the last 5 years INCLUDING speed camera ones...if they don't count.

[Bassmatt]

Please tell me why insurers ask if you have had any traffic offences in the last 5 years INCLUDING speed camera ones...if they don't count.

Any excuse to avoid making a payout

[MSTRS]

Any excuse to avoid making a payout

If they find out you lied, after the fact. Or they increase the premium and excess at the time of taking out the policy.
The point being that davereid is not quite right when he asserts that speed camera fines don't count.

[Zedder]

If they find out you lied, after the fact. Or they increase the premium and excess at the time of taking out the policy.
The point being that davereid is not quite right when he asserts that speed camera fines don't count.

Davereid was right in that speed camera fines don't carry demerit points. Therefore, the fines shouldn't be listed against a licence and the court has been overly officious there for some reason.

The insurance companies ask for any driving offence or traffic enfringments obviously to assess risk so all offences, regardless of speed camera or otherwise, should be listed. Insurance cover is null and void unless this is done.

[MSTRS]

Davereid was right in that speed camera fines don't carry demerit points. Therefore, the fines shouldn't be listed against a licence and the court has been overly officious there for some reason.


Fair enough. I know they carry no demerits. Yet - IF speed camera offences/fines are not recorded against a person's licence, then why should anyone be upfront to insurers? Since how would they find out any other way?

Re-reading Delerium's post, I'm not sure why he received these tickets. If they'd been paid, why would the courts be 'chasing' him? Alternatively, how did the guilty get sprung, if the OP's details were on record?

[Zedder]

Fair enough. I know they carry no demerits. Yet - IF speed camera offences/fines are not recorded against a person's licence, then why should anyone be upfront to insurers? Since how would they find out any other way?

Re-reading Delerium's post, I'm not sure why he received these tickets. If they'd been paid, why would the courts be 'chasing' him? Alternatively, how did the guilty get sprung, if the OP's details were on record?

You're getting into morality here as opposed to the original issue but I suppose it boils down to whether you're an honest and decent human being. If you're a crap driver (lots of trafffic offences) and lie about an insurance question though it'll most probably catch up with you sooner or later.

Perhaps the OP needs to provide more info about his case.

[MSTRS]

Can someone clear up the issue of speed camera fines and licences?
The (original) ticket will be sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. They either pay it, or provide details of who should. Somewhere in the system is the licence of the accused, which is no doubt how the courts find them.
No demerits, but is the offence listed against the licence? Or not?

[davereid]

If they find out you lied, after the fact. Or they increase the premium and excess at the time of taking out the policy.
The point being that davereid is not quite right when he asserts that speed camera fines don't count.

My post was a reply to Delerium who said "I may need your help. Have received 2x speed camera tickets (same camera) which was not me... the tickets HAVE been paid by the actual person...., the infringement is STILL on my drivers license...."

I pointed out that there are no demerits for speed camera tickets so nothing is recorded by the NZTA against his licence.

I also said that as the fine has been paid its closed.

Delerium has no need to tell his insurers anything, as he is only obligated to tell them relevant stuff.

And the fact that someone else got a speed camera ticket in a van he also drives is not relevant.

[MSTRS]

Sorry to be chewing on this one, but the offence is/was recorded against somebody. Presumably their licence comes into it somewhere in the system. You say it's not recorded, but Delerium's post suggests it is. Forget the demerits. That's not the issue in this case. Insurers are interested in the offence, not the penalty. Delerium may be innocent, but the record shows he is not. And that is potentially a big problem.

[FROSTY]

Can someone clear up the issue of speed camera fines and licences?
The (original) ticket will be sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. They either pay it, or provide details of who should. Somewhere in the system is the licence of the accused, which is no doubt how the courts find them.
No demerits, but is the offence listed against the licence? Or not?
I've been having an ongoing arguement with the justice department on this exact subject for around 2 years now.
But the guts of it is that several vehicles are registered in my company name. The company isn't a person nor does the company have any kind of drivers licence. So therefore I understand that no points are registered against a licence.

[MSTRS]

Yeah Frosty, I know. No points. It's the OFFENCE itself...is it recorded against the licence of the person who was sent the infringement notice and/or the person who accepted they were the driver and paid the fine?

[davereid]

Yeah Frosty, I know. No points. It's the OFFENCE itself...is it recorded against the licence of the person who was sent the infringement notice and/or the person who accepted they were the driver and paid the fine?

I suppose the police infringement bureau will keep a record of the offence against the vehicle.

But it can't be linked to an individuals licence.

You don't need a drivers licence to own a vehicle, or to be the registered person.

The registrar (thats the NZTA) is the only one authorised or able to record or change driver licence details. So you can be assured nothing is recorded against the driver.

The police can READ PARTS of the driver licence database. But they can't read all of it, and they can't change any of it, other than creating pseudo licences.

[Max Preload]

Or it might make them even more zealous in dishing out ticket after Court, - you know, to catch up on their non-quota...<_<A normal person would cease such dodgy practices, yet here you are saying that they would instead ramp them up. Very disappointing.

Clearly your insider knowledge of their tactics is superior to ours in this regard.

[Max Preload]

There are currently no demerits recorded for speed camera offences.

If the money has been paid it can be ignored.Not the insurance implications.

[davereid]

Not the insurance implications.

Yeah true, but in this case the OP had made the point he was not the driver. So there are no insurance implications.

You have to tell your insurer relevant stuff. But in this case the fact that someone else got a ticket in a vehicle that you don't own is not relevant.

[Mushu]

I'm glad the fines leveled on OP were dropped, proves that you can and should beat them when they pull this crap

What surprises me is the reaction of some KB members who claim to represent the police, these people have been trying to push the blame around and twist the facts to blindly support all police (and failing to see that some of them are unfair toward sections of society or people they don't like)

What I would like to have read form these people is: "These are the appropriate phone numbers to get in touch with somebody who will investigate your allegations, we must do everything we can to better the public opinion of the police force by getting rid of these bad apples" or something to that effect.

These people accept anything a cop says because you should be able to trust the police, it is true they are a cross section of society just like anything else but I think the power the job commands attracts alot of these assholes and these people come across alot of temptation. I think these have likely driven that percentage alot higher than any of us would like.

I have been on the wrong side of some asshole cops in the past (I've seen friends go to jail on lying cops testimony also) and it ruins your faith in the police and the system

The biggest problem is the cops are spending all their resorces policing something that everyone does, so it takes alot of manpower to police. They should pull some of those resources to go after real criminals, the bottom 1% rather than the bottom 80%.

I have over the years been a victim of several robberies (a couple including assault too) a car theft and a home invasion among other things. This happens in society so I move on with my life but in most of these cases I gave the police some pretty solid evidence, that they never act on, the NSW police in australia used a robbery against me to get mine, my gf and all my flatmates fingerprints, told us they were for elimination purposes and each of us would get the originals back (I'll bet you anything my prints are on file in Australia) and in one case I handed the police a suspect and they told me they raided these peoples homes looking for my stuff. I have it on two indepndant, reliable sources that they did not.

For the record in pretty much any situation I wouldn't bother calling the cops if I need them, they tend to be mostly useless in my experience (except their presence is effective at diffusing alot of situations). I believe they are necessary to our society but they seem to be too interested in getting people in jail and giving out fines to bother checking that they have the right people. And the court system being impartial is a joke, if you don't have a jury and its your word against a cop (even if all the evedence points to your innocence) you are going to jail.

[Max Preload]

What surprises me is the reaction of some KB members who claim to represent the police, these people have been trying to push the blame around and twist the facts to blindly support all police (and failing to see that some of them are unfair toward sections of society or people they don't like)

What I would like to have read form these people is: "These are the appropriate phone numbers to get in touch with somebody who will investigate your allegations, we must do everything we can to better the public opinion of the police force by getting rid of these bad apples" or something to that effect.

They don't give a flying fuck about the 'bad apples'. Sick culture. 'nuff said.

[actungbaby]

tell ya what boys if you want it even easier (or don't have the time) just ignore them. Been working for me so far.
I used to fight them, regardless of guilt cause I sorta enjoyed it really (had I been any good at the England I'd probably be a lawyer right now :facepalm:.) But then more recently I found I didn't have time to piss round with scams so I just ignored them & it's been working quite well.

I did the same few years ago had them go to my pay clerk direct and take out 50.00 a week, and wanted way more than that

So dont recomend that course of action , and when they do that not thing u can do

[Max Preload]

I pointed out that there are no demerits for speed camera tickets so nothing is recorded by the NZTA against his licence.They are seperate issues. I have no doubt that it is still linked to the drivers licence (or name if they don't have a drivers licence) of the registered owner that there has been a speeding infringement offence notice issued to them which was subsequently paid. Otherwise, what paperwork is he referring to here:


the tickets HAVE been paid by the actual person - courts dont care any more as the fine has been paid. But, the infringement is STILL on my drivers license. (it took a long time to decipher the near illiterate letter sent by the cops to me). Now I have to chase up the court registra AGAIN as they have not actioned my initial paper work to prove it wasnt me (the cops agree, but the courts havent done anything). way to go nz justice.

[davereid]

They are seperate issues. I have no doubt that it is still linked to the drivers licence (or name if they don't have a drivers licence) of the registered owner that there has been a speeding infringement offence notice issued to them which was subsequently paid. Otherwise, what paperwork is he referring to here:

Not by the NZTA. But the police infringement bureau may record it.

[Max Preload]

NZTA administer driver licence records.

[davereid]

NZTA administer driver licence records.

And NZTA record demerit points which they get from the Dept of justice. They have no way of obtaining or recording speed camera fines.