Urgent bill validates speeding tickets

[mashman]

Parliament has passed a bill under urgency that validates speeding tickets issued since 2004 for breaking speed limits that councils might not have had legal authority to set. (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/28965475/urgent-bill-validates-speed-limits/)... only 10 years backdated lol.

[Voltaire]

I was bored last night and read the AA magazine, was surprised to see a scooter on the cover and an article on scootering being the future of city transport...

Amusing line was calling speeders " Revenue Donators"

Its not the speed cameras fault you can't keep to the speed it went on.

Thanks AA for the laugh.

[Scuba_Steve]

Amusing line was calling speeders " Revenue Donators"

Its not the speed cameras fault you can't keep to the speed it went on.

Thanks AA for the laugh.

I saw that one, what a numpty that guy was

[TheDemonLord]

If the Govt had any integrity, they would refund the fines, remove the Demerit points, issue a pardon for any revoked driver licenses and improve their internal processes.


however.....

[ellipsis]

...it's not revenue collecting...the *honest politician* said so on the radio this morning...


* insert Tui ad*

...I wonder if they will decide that we didn't pay enough rates over a certain past, time frame...fucking thieving cunts...

[mashman]

If the Govt had any integrity, they would refund the fines, remove the Demerit points, issue a pardon for any revoked driver licenses and improve their internal processes.


however.....

I like totes agree... ;)

[TheDemonLord]

I like totes agree... ;)

Shit.

That's twice in 2 days.

but yes - I take a dim view of the Government not holding itself to it's own rules.

[Katman]

Shit.

That's twice in 2 days.


Careful - you'll be starting to see sense next.

[mashman]

Shit.

That's twice in 2 days.

but yes - I take a dim view of the Government not holding itself to it's own rules.

:killingme... aye, as ellipsis pointed out it's likely the start of something rather unsavoury. The best one I heard recently is the bankruptcy/insolvency "claw-back" nonsense:

"When the debtor is a company that has gone into liquidation, the Companies Act enables the
liquidator to recover any voidable payments that occurred within two years prior to liquidation. "... cute eh.

[Scuba_Steve]

Shit.

That's twice in 2 days.

but yes - I take a dim view of the Government not holding itself to it's own rules.

Like the rule that makes them illegal & void in the 1st place

[TheDemonLord]

Like the rule that makes them illegal & void in the 1st place

This - Although I am not as Anti-Govt as others here, I am one in the principle of the fair and even application of Law - things like this are a direct violation of that principle, which I find distasteful in the extreme.

[Akzle]

but yes - I take a dim view of the Government not holding itself to it's own rules.

whut chu talkin bout willis?

They absolutely do!

And if thhe rules dont suit them, they change them until they do... Duh.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Imagine how miffed you would be if you had accumulated enough points for speeding tickets, and lost your licence, except the speeding tickets, and presumably the demerit points and thus the suspension, were unlawful. I haven't read the act but presumably there is now no recourse against anyone for these things but it is not hard to imagine a "no licence - no job - mortgagee sale - divorce" scenario all of which, I submit, My Lord, are reasonably foreseeable consequences of this unlawful ticket, ergo, the Crown should pay compensation. Couple of million should do it, Your Worship.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Like the rule that makes them illegal & void in the 1st place

?? explain please?

[HenryDorsetCase]

I was bored last night and read the AA magazine, .

the AA can suck my sweaty ball bag. they are just as much shills for special interest (car) now as the Road Transpurt Forum is for trucks.

fuckem.

[Scuba_Steve]

?? explain please?

One of NZ's founding laws was "that all promises of fines & forfeitures of particular persons before conviction [in a court of law] be completely illegal & void" this was created in Englandland, brought over here & is still on the books. It was created as Govt officials would use fines to extort money out of people much like traffic fines are used today. They are in complete breach of both the letter & spirit of the law

[Mike.Gayner]

One of NZ's founding laws was "that all promises of fines & forfeitures of particular persons before conviction [in a court of law] be completely illegal & void" this was created in Englandland, brought over here & is still on the books. It was created as Govt officials would use fines to extort money out of people much like traffic fines are used today. They are in complete breach of both the letter & spirit of the law

Why don't you go ahead and point me to the statute you're quoting here.

[Scuba_Steve]

Why don't you go ahead and point me to the statute you're quoting here.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/imperial/1688/0002/latest/DLM4663810.html

[mashman]

One of NZ's founding laws was "that all promises of fines & forfeitures of particular persons before conviction [in a court of law] be completely illegal & void" this was created in Englandland, brought over here & is still on the books. It was created as Govt officials would use fines to extort money out of people much like traffic fines are used today. They are in complete breach of both the letter & spirit of the law

Aye, they are the law. Thing that gets me is... where do these laws come from? Who thinks them up? What "normal" human being, as TDL was saying so very correctly and from a position of win earlier on, thinks up such a thing? We know it's nought more than a revenue earner, but it's a slippery slope. A crime was committed, nothing should stand in the way of getting a conviction? WTF? caveat: unless there's $ involved (coz the PERSON may well best serve the community and country by making money and running free) to grease the wheels of ignorance. The best thing about it though, is that it's ALL obligation and obligation is not illegal, just a behavioural side effect of the involvement of money in the life equation thing... on the positive side, heh heh, it is behaviour driven by money and therefore changeable by removing money :blip: :wari:

[swbarnett]

One of NZ's founding laws was "that all promises of fines & forfeitures of particular persons before conviction [in a court of law] be completely illegal & void" this was created in Englandland, brought over here & is still on the books. It was created as Govt officials would use fines to extort money out of people much like traffic fines are used today. They are in complete breach of both the letter & spirit of the law
Playing devil's advocate for a moment: Is there a definition of conviction that requires a court of law? I wonder if the argument could be made that a speeding ticket is actually a conviction in a legal sense.

[Oscar]

One of NZ's founding laws was "that all promises of fines & forfeitures of particular persons before conviction [in a court of law] be completely illegal & void" this was created in Englandland, brought over here & is still on the books. It was created as Govt officials would use fines to extort money out of people much like traffic fines are used today. They are in complete breach of both the letter & spirit of the law

Er - you can defend the speeding ticket in a court of law, you know.
Also by paying the fine as levied you are pleading guilty, so you're kinda paying the fine after conviction.

[mashman]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: Is there a definition of conviction that requires a court of law? I wonder if the argument could be made that a speeding ticket is actually a conviction in a legal sense.

If driving is against the law and a license is nothing more than a permit that allows you to break the law, then weren't you a convict the moment you first drive? Just a thought ;)

[Scuba_Steve]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: Is there a definition of conviction that requires a court of law? I wonder if the argument could be made that a speeding ticket is actually a conviction in a legal sense.
That's above the cops powers, they accuse NOT convict & would be in contradiction to the whole reason the law was established


Er - you can defend the speeding ticket in a court of law, you know.
Also by paying the fine as levied you are pleading guilty, so you're kinda paying the fine after conviction.
You can but legally the fine does not exist until you do & that's also a guilty until proven innocent system, again in breach of legislation of the land
Yes this is the argument; if you pay infringement notice, in exchange for admitting guilt (convicting yourself) & freeing up court time you get a lesser fee etc etc however if you don't pay the fine what happens then??? Yep that's right, they'll commit theft & illegally steal your money which is a criminal offence & for what? a mere civil offence affecting no one... I don't see how it can be alright for a criminal offence to be committed in pursuit of an illegally given civil one

[Oscar]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: Is there a definition of conviction that requires a court of law? I wonder if the argument could be made that a speeding ticket is actually a conviction in a legal sense.

No.

The Summary Proceedings Act 1957 makes it clear:


Section 78A stipulates that no conviction is to be recorded for an infringement offence, even if the offender is convicted in court (and whether or not an infringement notice was issued).

[Oscar]

That's above the cops powers, they accuse NOT convict & would be in contradiction to the whole reason the law was established


You can but legally the fine does not exist until you do & that's also a guilty until proven innocent system, again in breach of legislation of the land
Yes this is the argument; if you pay infringement notice, in exchange for admitting guilt (convicting yourself) & freeing up court time you get a lesser fee etc etc however if you don't pay the fine what happens then??? Yep that's right, they'll commit theft & illegally steal your money which is a criminal offence & for what? a mere civil offence affecting no one... I don't see how it can be alright for a criminal offence to be committed in pursuit of an illegally given civil one

You have 28 days in which to notify your intention to defend the charge and then a further 28 days to pay the fine.
Effectively that means you are admitting guilt by failing to defend the notice inside the period allowed, not by paying the fine.

[awayatc]

Parliament has passed a bill under urgency that validates speeding tickets issued since 2004 for breaking speed limits that councils might not have had legal authority to set. (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/28965475/urgent-bill-validates-speed-limits/)... only 10 years backdated lol.

At least they are consistent.........
consistent and predictable......

Sobering to be reminded it's the inmates running our asylum.....

[Scuba_Steve]

You have 28 days in which to notify your intention to defend the charge and then a further 28 days to pay the fine.
Effectively that means you are admitting guilt by failing to defend the notice inside the period allowed, not by paying the fine.

So guilty until proven innocent...
Also silence is not an admission of guilt, you do have the right to remain silent; the onus of proof is on the accuser NOT the accused & maybee you missed the part about it being illegal & void in the 1st place

Given this is civil would you be happy if I accused you of something & your options were
1) take time off work to defend yourself against said claim (which would probably cost more in lost wages than I'm taking you for) where you had to prove yourself innocent rather than me having to prove you guilty
2) Just be assumed guilty & have the courts steal your money to give to me

Sounds fair don't it :wacko:

[mashman]

At least they are consistent.........
consistent and predictable......

Sobering to be reminded it's the inmates running our asylum.....

I guess it could be worse... at least we ended up with slowly slowly catchy monkey instead of bang bang shooty shoot splodey splodey and a hey nonny nonny.

Aye, reminds me of why I don't vote.

[Brett]

I genuinely lol'd last night when I heard about this. The two examples given by the government of why this bill had to change - 1) to remove the ability of people to challenge the fines and 2) BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE GOVERNMENT. I have never heard them directly admit that speeding enforcement is a genuine revenue gatherer. Imagine if everyone were to suddenly stop speeding - bet this would prove less popular than the "speed kills" campaign.

[FJRider]

Er - you can defend the speeding ticket in a court of law, you know.
Also by paying the fine as levied you are pleading guilty, so you're kinda paying the fine after conviction.

I am old enough to recall (if my aged memory is still working correctly) that a Traffic Infringement notice (Issued by the Ministry of Transport) resulted in an invitation to Court. Should you wish to fight the chasrge you had to appear IN court. If you failed to appear ... you were THEN deemed guilty by your non appearance ... and your fine was then .. IN THE MAIL.


They shortcutted the procedings to todays ... ticket issued with fine to pay if you accept you were guilty.



Would you prefer to go back to the old system ... ??? I personally ... would not.

[HenryDorsetCase]

:killingme... aye, as ellipsis pointed out it's likely the start of something rather unsavoury. The best one I heard recently is the bankruptcy/insolvency "claw-back" nonsense:

"When the debtor is a company that has gone into liquidation, the Companies Act enables the
liquidator to recover any voidable payments that occurred within two years prior to liquidation. "... cute eh.

Uh, as it happens I know a bit about this: why is it a problem in your world?

Becuase it is (most often) used by a liquidator to claw back from a scumbag director money they have pillaged from a company before it goes tits up. I would have thought you would be all for that?

Granted there have been instances of (auckland) liquidators who have used the clawback provisions to recover (for example) funds paid to genuine third party creditors in the ordinary course of business. That is agin the intention of the section, but I gather there is to now be a lor change which explicitly states that in those circumstances the clawback cannot apply.

If the liquidators of say Bridgecorp or Hanover had one single ball between them they would have gone medieval on the directors and their family trusts to recover funds paid out in the heady days before they crashed. But nup.

[mashman]

Uh, as it happens I know a bit about this: why is it a problem in your world?

Becuase it is (most often) used by a liquidator to claw back from a scumbag director money they have pillaged from a company before it goes tits up. I would have thought you would be all for that?

Granted there have been instances of (auckland) liquidators who have used the clawback provisions to recover (for example) funds paid to genuine third party creditors in the ordinary course of business. That is agin the intention of the section, but I gather there is to now be a lor change which explicitly states that in those circumstances the clawback cannot apply.

If the liquidators of say Bridgecorp or Hanover had one single ball between them they would have gone medieval on the directors and their family trusts to recover funds paid out in the heady days before they crashed. But nup.

I was privvy to a meeting where it was once discussed as just another thing to be aware of as a tradey. Cool that they're considering a change and I'll pass that news on next time I see any of 'em.

lol@up for gittin them thar pesky pillagers.

Yeah, but the directors of them places earned those salaries <_<

[R650R]

Where were all the freakin lawyers during all this. If I'd contested a ticket during that period I'd want a refund of my legal fees for the lawyer failing to pick up on it.

As for the govt, retrospective legislation to cover their arse, nothing new.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I was privvy to a meeting where it was once discussed as just another thing to be aware of as a tradey. Cool that they're considering a change and I'll pass that news on next time I see any of 'em.

lol@up for gittin them thar pesky pillagers.

Yeah, but the directors of them places earned those salaries <_<

one of the fun things is that if you pay back a bank and request a release of say a personal guarantee, the letter from the bank always says something along the lines of "your guarantee is released, but we will hold on to it for two years in case there is a clawback"..... this is after you have paid them back mind you.

I'll see if I can find the stuff about OCB because you may find it interesting....

[mashman]

one of the fun things is that if you pay back a bank and request a release of say a personal guarantee, the letter from the bank always says something along the lines of "your guarantee is released, but we will hold on to it for two years in case there is a clawback"..... this is after you have paid them back mind you.

I'll see if I can find the stuff about OCB because you may find it interesting....

Ha. Would appreciate the information to pass on, as it all sounded a bit silly to me and wanting to look into it further is pointless given the changes to come :laugh:. But yeah, to pass on would be great ta.

[swbarnett]

As for the govt, retrospective legislation to cover their arse, nothing new.
Exactly. Yet another example of how NZ is definitely not free of corruption :angry:

Retrospective application of legislation is simply inexcusable.

[ellipsis]

...I have more than one pointy stick if anyone wants one...

[Grumph]

one of the fun things is that if you pay back a bank and request a release of say a personal guarantee, the letter from the bank always says something along the lines of "your guarantee is released, but we will hold on to it for two years in case there is a clawback"..... this is after you have paid them back mind you.

Struck this post quakes. EQC went first to the bank with whom we had done the mortgage. Long since paid off and as they admitted to us, no longer had any interest in the property. Nevertheless EQC insisted on having them as the person of record due to the bank not having cancelled the mortgage instrument...

Got that sorted toot sweet. But we'd never have known until we tried to sell. Bastards....

Neil, put me down for a pointy stick, I'll provide the matches.

[Oscar]

Struck this post quakes. EQC went first to the bank with whom we had done the mortgage. Long since paid off and as they admitted to us, no longer had any interest in the property. Nevertheless EQC insisted on having them as the person of record due to the bank not having cancelled the mortgage instrument...

Got that sorted toot sweet. But we'd never have known until we tried to sell. Bastards....

Neil, put me down for a pointy stick, I'll provide the matches.

Um - it was your house, it was up to you to clear the mortgage.

[Grumph]

Um - it was your house, it was up to you to clear the mortgage.

Beg to differ here...bank registered the mortgage, not our lawyer...We were told in the end that the fees paid should also have covered the banks lawyer clearing once it was finished. AFAIK it is cleared now - at no cost to us.