Evidential contrast leading to frustration

[Gremlin]

And if its say a non-prisonable offence and you have pretty well no money do you just plead guilty because you can't afford to fight the charges?
You do have to consider the ramifications of doing so, insurance, record disclosure for employment etc...

I don't mind judges though, on the whole, Ive found them fair and bollocked whomever deserved it. The JPs are awful. Rubber stamp pretty much anything the cops say, a mate even had a solid case for one charge (and he wasn't responsible) gave a whole presentation pointing out all the mistakes etc. JPs went away and discussed and came back and said sorry, it stands.

[FJRider]

If you reread what I said you may find that I was talking about a presumption of guilt on the part of the court simply because you decide not to fight the charges. Even though the charge is not proven.

I re-read your post ... no mention (said or implied) of the above. BUT ...

If you decide NOT to fight the charges ... it is Admission of guilt. NOT presumption of guilt.


Sorry if I wasn't clear but this is essentially what I meant. And also that one witness would be insufficient to satisfy legal proof if we truly had an automatic repsumption of innocence.

Tell that to the judge ...when/if YOU were the only person that saw somebody stealing your car. By YOUR rules ... that person walks free.

The onus is on the witness to prove they are a credible witness. (To the satisfaction of the Judge)

[swbarnett]

I re-read your post ... no mention (said or implied) of the above.
Never mind. That's what I meant.


If you decide NOT to fight the charges ... it is Admission of guilt. NOT presumption of guilt.
A decision not to fight doesn't say anything. It is the judicial system that is presuming that because you didn't fight the charge you are admitting to it.

Deciding not to punch out a driver that ran you of the road doesn't make you guilty of whatever they're accusing you of. It just means that they're bigger than you. The same goes for the courts.


Tell that to the judge
Not the words "would be". I'm talking about what would happen under a true presumption of innocence, not the guilty first system we currently have.


...when/if YOU were the only person that saw somebody stealing your car. By YOUR rules ... that person walks free.
Yes, they would. If I am ever in a jury I will never convict on the testimony of one eye witness, no matter how credible. There must be other corroborating evidence. Which, of course, can be other credible witnesses.

I would rather have a murderer on the street than have one innocent person in jail.

[Big Dog]

I would rather have a murderer on the street than have one innocent person in jail.
Easier to say when it is not your child, sibling or parent.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[FJRider]

A decision not to fight doesn't say anything. It is the judicial system that is presuming that because you didn't fight the charge you are admitting to it.

Given the fact that the infringement fees are a penalty administered by the Executive branch of Government ... the Judicial system only gets involved when you don't pay the fee .... you assume the Judicial system has more involvement in the Infringement notice issuing system ... than it actually has.

Pay the fee and no court conviction will result. Don't pay the fee and a court conviction may result. With a heavier penalty than the original fee ..

Interesting reading here ..

http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/i/infringement-guidelines/guidelines-for-new-infringement-schemes


Deciding not to puch out a driver that ran you of the road doesn't make you guilty of whatever they're accusing you of. It just means that they're bigger than you. The same goes for the courts.

Deciding not to (I assume you mean) punch out that driver ... doesn't make you guilty of assault either.



Not the words "would be". I'm talking about what would happen under a true presumption of innocence, not the guilty first system we currently have.

If innocence is found in a court of law ... following failure to pay the infringement fee ... your actions in taking the matter to court would be justified.

Remember ... some countries require any court convictions declared .. as do many Companies prior to possible employment.

The payment of infringement fees does not make you a criminal .. as they are not resulting from criminal activities.


Yes, they would. If I am ever in a jury I will never convict on the testimony of one eye witness, no matter how credible. There must be other corroborating evidence. Which, of course, can be other credible witnesses.

I would rather have a murderer on the street than have one innocent person in jail.

good for you.

But ...

Guilt is not determined on one witness in any criminal (requiring a Jury) court case. Sufficient evidence is required.

[swbarnett]

Easier to say when it is not your child, sibling or parent.
I honestly believe that putting innocent people in prison is seriously detrimental to the health of society.

Ideally there'd be no guilty people on the streets and no innocents in prison but that's almost unacheivable. Better to err on the side of leniency.

[swbarnett]

Given the fact that the infringement fees are a penalty administered by the Executive branch of Government ... the Judicial system only gets involved when you don't pay the fee .... you assume the Judicial system has more involvement in the Infringement notice issuing system ... than it actually has.
I had assumed that the police were part of the judicial system. My bad, I've not had a lot to do with it.

[FJRider]

I had assumed that the police were part of the judicial system. My bad, I've not had a lot to do with it.

Police: Responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.

Judicial: Of, by, or appropriate to a law court, or judge; relating to the administration of justice:

[swbarnett]

Police: Responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.

Judicial: Of, by, or appropriate to a law court, or judge; relating to the administration of justice:
I stand corrected. Or, in this case, I sit corrected.

[rastuscat]

So an presumption of guilt then in the eyes of the law.

If we truly had an "innocent until proven guilty" system you could just ignore the charge until the cops take it to court and provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. And the opinion of one witness would not be sufficient. No matter how credible they are.

How would that work? Say I'm riding my patrol bike and I see a bloke driving while updating his KB on tapatalk while driving.

There's just the one of me on the troll bike. The obvious key is a Go Pro or similar, but that has issues too. If I video it and produce it in court, the JPs will begin to expect video. Next time I turn up without a video, I'm screwed.

Other complications include that me eyes can look at a lot of stuff that a camera can't see. They're good, but not that good. We've done that camera thing for red lights, and seen lots or offences that the camera didn't see because it wasn't set up for that view.

Challenges. Not saying it won't or shouldn't happen, just that it had its challenges.

[R650R]

Other complications include that me eyes can look at a lot of stuff that a camera can't see. They're good, but not that good. We've done that camera thing for red lights, and seen lots or offences that the camera didn't see because it wasn't set up for that view.

Challenges. Not saying it won't or shouldn't happen, just that it had its challenges.

I often wonder whether Police have any proper advice when they use cameras and video in their operations. Of if its just directed by whoever the local hobbyist in the force is...
Even the 'proper' police photographer who turned up to arson attack on nearby house had me scratching my head, didn't look like he was working to any kind is system.

Think you should stick with stills and not video though. Video is time intensive to review and you need very high quality to be able to get a decent freeze frame snapshot of someone's face or number plate.
For the cost effectiveness I don't understand why its not utilised more. Oh I do know, its because the govt doesn't want you guys to catch too many people as it upsets that whole voting and feeling of democratic society thing.

As an example when there is a seatbelt or cellphone checkpoint by my house generally it ties up about 4 cops for at least an hour or so. When all that's needed is an SLR inside a plywood box at base of powerpole running off a triggertrap app and one cop on other side of road keeping an eye on it looking like he's busy with something else. Then review the footage afterwards and send ticket in mail. Now that really sucks as you don't get to rant or see the pretty blue lights.
Wonder if the one at cold kiwi stop sign was doing that for those who wanted to be railway ornaments....

[rastuscat]

When all that's needed is an SLR inside a plywood box at base of powerpole running off a triggertrap app and one cop on other side of road keeping an eye on it looking like he's busy with something else. Then review the footage afterwards and send ticket in mail. .

A common misunderstanding.

Unless it's an approved speed camera or red light camera, we can't just post the ticket out.

We have to write a letter to the owner, demanding driver details. If they don't reply, it becomes an enquiry file.

One hour of filming we used to do generated 8 hours of paperwork and enquiry. So we stopped using it.

It'd sure be easier if we could post tickets out based on a photo, but we can't.

[Trade_nancy]

A common misunderstanding.

Unless it's an approved speed camera or red light camera, we can't just post the ticket out.

We have to write a letter to the owner, demanding driver details. If they don't reply, it becomes an enquiry file.

One hour of filming we used to do generated 8 hours of paperwork and enquiry. So we stopped using it.

It'd sure be easier if we could post tickets out based on a photo, but we can't.

Fair enough too. Why should the owner of the vehicle get a surprise ticket for something the driver did? The offense is committed by the driver - not the licensed owner.

[swbarnett]

How would that work?
The first thing is don't patrol solo.

The second, as you say, is to film everything. Prefereably in a POV fashion (the camera sees exactly what you see).

This is the one and only time that I agree with the proliferation of video cameras - every cop should have one.


Challenges. Not saying it won't or shouldn't happen, just that it had its challenges.
As does anything worth doing. Most of the shit we get into as a society is through thinking something that shuold be done as a matter of principle is too hard to bother with.

[Akzle]

Fair enough too. Why should the owner of the vehicle get a surprise ticket for something the driver did? The offense is committed by the driver - not the licensed owner.

you're making up quasi-legal shit.
what you mean to say is "person registered in respect of motor vehicle" not "licensed owner"
- an owner does not require a license, an owner is not necessarily the person registered in respect and you are not told to have a license to own things.

[R650R]

you're making up quasi-legal shit.
what you mean to say is "person registered in respect of motor vehicle" not "licensed owner"
- an owner does not require a license, an owner is not necessarily the person registered in respect and you are not told to have a license to own things.

What's your hourly rate son, your going on my speed dial. Very sharp.

[Akzle]

What's your hourly rate son, your going on my speed dial. Very sharp.

depends what you want me for :msn-wink:

[R650R]

depends what you want me for :msn-wink:

LOL. Just your ever-pertinent legal advice. Not any horticultural supplies or other dubious matter lol... My last good legal advisor fled to Mexico...

300764

[Akzle]

LOL. Just your ever-pertinent legal advice. Not any horticultural supplies or other dubious matter lol... My last good legal advisor fled to Mexico...


oh, you have a problem with all these damn bats? :laugh::laugh:

[R650R]

oh, you have a problem with all these damn bats? :laugh::laugh:

No but that damn trippy hitchhiker did and he ran into the path of a semi, now the trucking company trying to sue.
Which is kinda screwed up as in Nevada its illegal to own your own horde of bats under the vermin control act of 1896 :)

[zooter]

If the cycle lane is safe for cycles but not m/cycles, the only difference I can see is speed of travel.
The dangers I see are is traffic entering the cycle lane from your left or right which would apply to all cycle lane users.
My thoughts would be a speed restriction for all users of the cycle lane would be a better idea, and may encourage more onto bikes and
reduce traffic congestion.
Bloody good idea.

[FJRider]

If the cycle lane is safe for cycles but not m/cycles ...

It's not even safe for cycles ...

EVERY other road user believes it is THEIR right to enter/use/cross those cycle lanes at THEIR convenience .. if it suits ..

[Akzle]

It's not even safe for cycles ...

EVERY other road user believes it is THEIR right to enter/use/cross those cycle lanes at THEIR convenience .. if it suits ..

cyclists shouldn't be on the fucking road.
if ANY motorist deigns not to run the fucking cunts over, the peddley in question should be eternally grateful.

[scumdog]

cyclists shouldn't be on the fucking road.
if ANY motorist deigns not to run the fucking cunts over, the peddley in question should be eternally grateful.

A truckie had much the same to say about motorcyclists...

[awayatc]

Fair few (motor)cyclist seem to be needing fuck all help in getting wiped out....

[Akzle]

A truckie had much the same to say about motorcyclists...

dont even fucking start me on trucks! Those cunts...!

[rastuscat]

dont even fucking start me on trucks! Those cunts...!

Don't hold back, say what you mean.

[FJRider]

dont even fucking start me on trucks! Those cunts...!

SIZE does count. (your wife will have told you that already)

[husaberg]

SIZE does count. (your wife will have told you that already)
She refused to do a written statement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCo_I6MXPJ4
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1131580/Introducing-incredible-talking-What-What-goat.html

[Akzle]

SIZE does count. (your wife will have told you that already)

mind didnt, she's used to it.
Yours though, jeez can she complain
'its too big...! No not in the bum either!... Christ, Why dont you just fist me instead...'