Desperately need help ...

[Artee]

Hi.
I have been advised by a friend to request from members some support . My son desperately needs a lawyer who is a motorcyclist and lives in Christchurch, NZ. Following a serious accident 8 weeks ago where a motorist pulled out in front of my son which resulted in several injuries. After weeks in hospital and a questionable Serious Crash Unit investigation the police want to prosecute my son of dangerous driving. The vehicle driver's defense is simply that he didn't see him. My son does not believe that a lawyer who is not a bike rider, would be anything more than a presence in the court and he wants to fight this injustice. Please assist. Thank you in advance.

[Honest Andy]

Sorry to hear of your sons accident.
I can't give you any advice about which lawyer except that you can usually chat to them first before you hire them, to see how willing and keen they are and what they think the chance of success is (and how much it's likely to cost...).
Also I thought that it didn't matter what your son was doing, speeding or whatever, the primary cause of any accident of this nature is the person who failed to give way, therefore that's always where the blame lies. But that's just my experience, I'm not an expert.
Sincerely, good luck with your case.

[Oakie]

I don't think it's good advice to limit yourself to just a biker lawyer. There can't be more than a handful in Christchurch and only a subset of those would do traffic. (Pretty sure one of our Ch members is a lawyer but what sort, I dunno.)

Road rules are road rules regardless of whether you ride two wheels, four wheels or eighteen wheels. A lawyer who is a biker may be more passionate on behalf of a biker perhaps but any lawyer who does traffic would be able to argue based on the facts and the law.

Just my humble opinion anyway.

[husaberg]

Hi.
I have been advised by a friend to request from members some support . My son desperately needs a lawyer who is a motorcyclist and lives in Christchurch, NZ. Following a serious accident 8 weeks ago where a motorist pulled out in front of my son which resulted in several injuries. After weeks in hospital and a questionable Serious Crash Unit investigation the police want to prosecute my son of dangerous driving. The vehicle driver's defense is simply that he didn't see him. My son does not believe that a lawyer who is not a bike rider, would be anything more than a presence in the court and he wants to fight this injustice. Please assist. Thank you in advance.


Twat.

.
Pagging Henry.................

you could also talk to Rastuscat
he might be able to give you some insight to why your son is being charged form a ex policeman prospective

,,,,,,.

[Akzle]

lawyers are all filthy jew cunts. so's court. don't encourage them at all.

[Black Knight]

"Simply didn't see him" really means he wasn't fucking looking,nail the bastard.

[PistonBlown]

You could contact the NZ Law Society and ask them for suggestions. There will be lawyers in CHCH that specialise in vehicle/accident related cases and they should know who they are and be able to make recommendations. I did have a look on their search page for you (https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/for-the-community/find-lawyer-and-organisation) but Vehicle/Accident wasn't an option for specialisation so probably needs direct contact to the Society

[jasonu]

Sorry to hear of your sons accident.
I can't give you any advice about which lawyer except that you can usually chat to them first before you hire them, to see how willing and keen they are and what they think the chance of success is (and how much it's likely to cost...).
Also I thought that it didn't matter what your son was doing, speeding or whatever, the primary cause of any accident of this nature is the person who failed to give way, therefore that's always where the blame lies. But that's just my experience, I'm not an expert.
Sincerely, good luck with your case.

Agreed.
'I didn't see him' is hardly a defense and could be considered an admission of guilt if argued properly.

However, years ago my mate was riding his XR200 at dusk (not dark) with a broken headlight when a car pulled out of a side street right in front of him causing a collision. The driver said he didn't see my mate as no headlight and the cops put the blame on my mate and did nothing about the car failing to give way at an intersection.

[Berries]

'I didn't see him' is hardly a defense and could be considered an admission of guilt if argued properly.
Everyone says that whether it is a bike or a train they don't see. Would be interested to see what this chap was doing beforehand to go straight to a dangerous driving charge.

Regardless of what is said above, you cannot always blame the driver. If you come around a blind corner at warp factor nine or ride at night with no lights then you have to give the driver some benefit.

[jellywrestler]

i can go around and flour bomb the guys chicken coop if that would help?

[Maha]

This ''a questionable Serious Crash Unit investigation'' :lol: and this ''the police want to prosecute my son of dangerous driving''?
Suggest that a lawyer would probably be a waste of good money.

SCU's generally get it wrong only in the eyes of those to be prosecuted in an accident.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Hi.
I have been advised by a friend to request from members some support . My son desperately needs a lawyer who is a motorcyclist and lives in Christchurch, NZ. Following a serious accident 8 weeks ago where a motorist pulled out in front of my son which resulted in several injuries. After weeks in hospital and a questionable Serious Crash Unit investigation the police want to prosecute my son of dangerous driving. The vehicle driver's defense is simply that he didn't see him. My son does not believe that a lawyer who is not a bike rider, would be anything more than a presence in the court and he wants to fight this injustice. Please assist. Thank you in advance.

I am a lawyer. I am from Christchurch. I am a motorcyclist.

This is not my area of competence. I can give you some referrals. What you need is a competent criminal lawyer because emotion aside you are defending a serious criminal charge. Motorcyclist or not does not matter a fuck. Any lawyer instructed will be doing what they do to the best of their ability, particularly if you are paying the full freight and not farting around with legal aid. If you dont have any sing out and I will come up with some names.

[HenryDorsetCase]

lawyers are all filthy jew cunts. so's court. don't encourage them at all.

absolutely agree. Still, it pays the bills.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Pagging Henry.................

you could also talk to Rastuscat
he might be able to give you some insight to why your son is being charged form a ex policeman prospective

decent independent expert witness too, if it came to that.

[HenryDorsetCase]

This ''a questionable Serious Crash Unit investigation'' :lol: and this ''the police want to prosecute my son of dangerous driving''?
Suggest that a lawyer would probably be a waste of good money.

SCU's generally get it wrong only in the eyes of those to be prosecuted in an accident.

A lawyer won't be a waste of money. The point is to test the Crown case. For example the charge might be dangerous driving (presumably causing injury?) but it might be more careless IF you get the disclosure and IF you can do a deal with them. It happens all day every day. If you just rock up to Court and go "Mea culpa" then you will get it straight up the arse no lube. You might still get it straight up the arse but maybe a smaller diameter, or some Astroglide or something

I've dealt with SCU a couple of times and both times I found them to be very thorough, very professional.

[husaberg]

decent independent expert witness too, if it came to that.
All for the price of couple of jelly donuts.
Its highly likey the story is a bit more complicated than initally described, The 'innocent" motorcyclist may be getting charged as he was going 160kph at the time for all we know:scooter::scooter:

[Maha]

A lawyer won't be a waste of money. The point is to test the Crown case. For example the charge might be dangerous driving (presumably causing injury?) but it might be more careless IF you get the disclosure and IF you can do a deal with them. It happens all day every day. If you just rock up to Court and go "Mea culpa" then you will get it straight up the arse no lube. You might still get it straight up the arse but maybe a smaller diameter, or some Astroglide or something

I've dealt with SCU a couple of times and both times I found them to be very thorough, very professional.

With the SCU and Police investigation findings being the Crowns case, testing it shall be futile. But....test away. I suppose having a Lawyer stand there are giving you a character reference at best may feel like a cuddle from grandma, so not all will be lost.

[jasonu]

i can go around and flour bomb the guys chicken coop if that would help?

Dog shit in the letter box.

[FJRider]

... 'I didn't see him' is hardly a defense and could be considered an admission of guilt if argued properly ...

"Driving without due care and attention" is the possible charge for this admission alone ...

[FJRider]

I'm stupid ....

Your most intelligent post yet ... :shifty:

[FJRider]

As the driver has said they did not see your son is this not an admission of guilt I would have thought? If the driver had said they had right of way though it would be another thing again. I would get in touch with the serious crash unit to find out what their grounds are for dangerous driving and if you get nowhere go to the Police Complaints Authority before spending money on a lawyer.

1. "I did not see him" equates to without due care of attention ... and as such ... may have some defense. But ... in no way can that always mean ... the OP is entirely innocent ...

2. The SCU do not investigate "Dangerous driving" offenses ... unless a death (or serious injuries) are involved.

3. Google Dangerous driving ... If those "grounds" are not met ... there is no case. Reminder ... the OP has NOT yet described the chain of events that led up to the charge.

[HenryDorsetCase]

With the SCU and Police investigation findings being the Crowns case, testing it shall be futile. But....test away. I suppose having a Lawyer stand there are giving you a character reference at best may feel like a cuddle from grandma, so not all will be lost.

On the two occasions I have interacted with them, once was to look at a report as to how a fatal motorcycle accident had occurred, the other was an independent review of an SCU investigation by a private (but ex SCU) investigator. Like I said, professional and thorough

[R650R]

and IF you can do a deal with them. It happens all day every day. If you just rock up to Court and go "Mea culpa" then you will get it straight up the arse no lube. You might still get it straight up the arse but maybe a smaller diameter, or some Astroglide or something



NO NO NO freakin NO.... Don't do a deal witht hem, this is how the shonkey system works.....

Yeah all they want is a careless charge and they prob have insufficient evidence for that so they bully you with the serious dangerous charge......

Dangerous driving is actually a very hard charge to prove, dangerous is not just speeding or going fast, unless your going stupid fast through roadworks or past school etc. Dangerous involves credible witnesses providing evidence about the MANNER of your driving/riding.

Yes get a lawyer and geta good one, they don't need to know anything about bikes, its all a debating game about the evidence presented.

[FJRider]

My son does not believe that a lawyer who is not a bike rider, would be anything more than a presence in the court and he wants to fight this injustice. Please assist. Thank you in advance.

Nobody understands a biker ... we're special. The more people that gets this simple fact ... the better it will be for all motorcyclists.

Well ... ME anyway ... :blank:

[Akzle]

.

Yes get a lawyer and geta good one, they don't need to know anything about bikes, its all a debating game about the evidence presented.

the best liar wins.


also the judges and lawyers, they always win too.

[T.W.R]

Since when was Eric building his bikes in 1972??:whistle:

[pritch]

Once many moons ago I was charged with careless use. I checked the paper to see what happened to people who appeared in court charged with same. It seemed they all lost their licence. Losing my licence would have been a major inconvenience at the time, it would have made work seriously difficult, so I consulted a lawyer.

I didn't attend court, but the lawyer did, according to the paper two other people appeared on the same charge that day, they lost their licence, I didn't.

OK, so there was a lawyer's bill, but it was worth every cent.

Since then having spent some time sitting in a court room as part of my job, I have formed the impression that the court system is a big game of money-go-round. It seems quite possible that the judges give credit for your hiring a lawyer as you are seen to be playing the game. Their game.

YMMV

[Maha]

Once many moons ago I was charged with careless use. I checked the paper to see what happened to people who appeared in court charged with same. It seemed they all lost their licence. Losing my licence would have been a major inconvenience at the time, it would have made work seriously difficult, so I consulted a lawyer.

I didn't attend court, but the lawyer did, according to the paper two other people appeared on the same charge that day, they lost their licence, I didn't.

OK, so there was a lawyer's bill, but it was worth every cent.

Since then having spent some time sitting in a court room as part of my job, I have formed the impression that the court system is a big game of money-go-round. It seems quite possible that the judges give credit for your hiring a lawyer as you are seen to be playing the game. Their game.

YMMV

Yes it's kind of like your first court appearance, normally gets a $600-1000 fine and six months loss of licence.

[Ginge09]

Careless, reckless, dangerous driving. Three grades of charges in order from less serious to most serious.

Careless has discretionary disqualification attached to it. The other two have mandatory disqualification attached to them.

Dangerous I think is a qualifying conviction which, when mixed with certain breath alcohol convictions over a certain time period (2 or 5 years) provides for indefinite disqualification.

Worth a lawyer to get the charge negotiated back or argued back.

There's more to this than we are being told. You have to be doing something really wrong to cop Dangerous driving, although the serious consequences will count as well.

Your son needs a specialist traffic lawyer not a biker lawyer.

[Moise]

The police must consider that they have a good case if they are prosecuting for dangerous driving. Have you seen the SCU report?

As others have said, definitely look for a good lawyer rather than a biker lawyer. Also, you will need a good expert witness as effectively you will need to discredit the SCU report.

We defended a drink driving charge against our son about 10 years ago, which cost thousands. The police made a real mess of the case, and both a police officer and ambulance driver were shown to have lied in their statements.

But discrediting a SCU report is a whole different level.

Sent from my SM-G9208 using Tapatalk

[jasonu]

Once many moons ago I was charged with careless use. I checked the paper to see what happened to people who appeared in court charged with same. It seemed they all lost their licence. Losing my licence would have been a major inconvenience at the time, it would have made work seriously difficult, so I consulted a lawyer.

I didn't attend court, but the lawyer did, according to the paper two other people appeared on the same charge that day, they lost their licence, I didn't.

OK, so there was a lawyer's bill, but it was worth every cent.

Since then having spent some time sitting in a court room as part of my job, I have formed the impression that the court system is a big game of money-go-round. It seems quite possible that the judges give credit for your hiring a lawyer as you are seen to be playing the game. Their game.

YMMV

You had better luck than me. I faced a dangerous speed charge (that I was totally guilty of), hired a lawyer, told him the story which he repeated to the judge and charged me $450 for his 'service'. I lost my license and got a fine which is most likely the same outcome had I represented myself.

[Maha]

You had better luck than me. I faced a dangerous speed charge (that I was totally guilty of), hired a lawyer, told him the story which he repeated to the judge and charged me $450 for his 'service'. I lost my license and got a fine which is most likely the same outcome had I represented myself.

I had a very similar experience in 1984, though Judge Moynihan was notorious for being a tad cunty.

My Sister worked for a Defence Lawyer in Taupo at the time and she ''enticed'' me have him represent me in Court. I begrudgingly agreed, went to a meeting with him and coughed up the money (quite a bit for a wage earner at that time) He spoke on my behalf in Court, my eyes didn't leave Moynihan noting that his eyes did not once make contact with Mr Roberts (the Lawyer) in fact he stared at his desk the whole time. When Mr Roberts had finished, Moynihan made his (in my view) his pre arranged judgement and I looked at Mr Roberts and said ''is that it''?

[YellowDog]

This can't be that tough to work out. A starting point would be to ask for the evidence the Police are basing their judgement upon.

If the car driver states that the bike was going too fast to be seen, before they pulled out, then they are potentially using such a statement to defend their own negligence. That's not enough for a charge to stick. There must be something else, like a superduper long skid or a radar-gunless eye witness?

[haydes55]

This thread proves (maybe) the value of always having a Gopro on. Those that rubbished having them on in the other thread would maybe reconsider after reading this thread. You could save thousands of dollars avoiding a court battle having a Gopro on maybe.
I saw on kiwibiker that Cassina had posted in "Desperately need help"... it's been a long time coming but I'm happy she's finally asked for the help she needs.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[FJRider]

If you read poster 1 post again he said the SCU are involved so the accident must fit the criteria you state.

If you read the first post ... you will see the original poster (with one only post credited to her) is saying her darling son is being charged with dangerous driving. At NO point does she say her son was being blamed for causing the accident. Just being charged (it would seem) for HIS part/factor in the chain of events that led to the accident.

He needs a sympathetic judge ... not a sympathetic lawyer ... good luck finding either.

[Akzle]

This can't be that tough to work out. A starting point would be to ask for the evidence the Police are basing their judgement upon.
?

that be called full disclosure.

[Akzle]

This thread proves (maybe) the value of always having a Gopro on. Those that rubbished having them on in the other thread would maybe reconsider after reading this thread. You could save thousands of dollars avoiding a court battle having a Gopro on maybe.

you should hedge your bullshit assertions by saying "maybe" a lot.

//o, wait on...

[Ginge09]

I've worked in the criminal justice system, as others on this thread appear to have done.

SCU get involved because of the extent of the injury. Police need to respond to the SCU report. Money has been spent, people have been hurt, damage to bikes and cars has been done. As tax payers and rego payers we'd be pissed off if the boot was on our foot.

End of the day there's a wash up in court. It's wrong to label Judges and lawyers as money grubbing or disinterested. They work in a dirty world. There's not a lot of happiness comes out of court rooms.

Original Poster hasn't fronted up to respond but it's been a good exchange of views.

[Oakie]

He needs a sympathetic judge ... not a sympathetic lawyer ... good luck finding either.

Hmmm. My cousin Stephen is a District Court Judge in Christchurch ... (true!)

[HenryDorsetCase]

that be called full disclosure.

The Crown are required to produce it on request. OP's lawyer can request it. There's time limits n'stuff too.

[Akzle]

. I threatened the Police Complaints Authority over an accident I was in fault.

tough guy huh

[Akzle]

it's been a good exchange of views.

you'll never make it on KB.




also, judges and lawyers are, pretty much by definition, money grubbing jew cunts.

[Akzle]

The Crown are required to produce it on request. OP's lawyer can request it. There's time limits n'stuff too.

any cunt can request it. nee, demand.

you lawyer faggots aren't endowed with any special power except the perception that you're worth paying in 6 minute intervals.


when i'm voted in as king you'll be lined up and shot.

[HenryDorsetCase]

tough guy huh

I could be wrong but I dont think an IPCA complaint can be made until after the original matter is dealt with (i.e. if we could complain about the Po po BEFORE the matter was dealt with in Court, then we'd all do it as a way of avoiding having the matter dealt with in Court) - I know I would.

[HenryDorsetCase]

any cunt can request it. nee, demand.

you lawyer faggots aren't endowed with any special power except the perception that you're worth paying in 6 minute intervals.


when i'm voted in as king you'll be lined up and shot.

Fuck you, when I rule you all (and I will) I will cut your benefit off and make you work for a living. I will also legalise weed and give Rothmans an exclusive licence so that will remove your income, you'll be digging ditches on a work scheme in Waiouru in winter, son, mark my words.

Oh, and the firm I currently work for does not "do" time recording or time based charging. I agree with you entirely: the six minute interval is a means of rewarding lazy stupid people who are inefficient. When you ask me to do work for you I will either quote you a fixed fee for a job, or give you an estimate and tell you I will bill you monthly. Most of what my team and I do is fixed fee... even stuff like the complex subdivisional work, commercial sales and purchase (not land - businesses) and all that. The exceptions are if your job turns completely to shit (I have one where a fucking building company* are being cunts) and deceased estates (they can be difficult and time consuming). But I am required by the Act and by our ROPC to tell you what its costing, and not to overcharge.

It is a very refreshing change from the previous place (which I co-owned) where we had that fucking shitty 6 minute interval system.

*friends don't let friends build with GJ Gardner

[rastuscat]

When I read the OP I couldn't understand the Police decision.

And that's the key. If a decision doesn't make sense, it's because all the facts aren't on the table. It'd be interesting to see what the Police decision was based on.

[Akzle]

.

*friends don't let friends build with GJ Gardner

hahahaha. fuck those cunts. totalspan are also shit.

[Akzle]

For me it was just a case of making the threat to get the police motivated to proceed with my case rather than disputing any issue of fault that one poster believes on here. Lots of people complain about the police not being quick enough in processing their complaints so maybe if more people did what I did their cases would get actioned more quickly. I did give the police plenty of time by the way before making the threat.

i dont think you realise that the "I" in ipca isn't.
it's cops "investigating" cops, which basically comes down to a reacharound in the showerblock a shared bottla of JD and hangovers and/or regrets.

what it does do is make paperwork. and only drones and accountants and lawyers like paperwork.

which i like to think is the implied threat every time cops run my name, cos they usually can't get away from me fast enough when they realise i'll chain them to a desk for 6 months.

[pritch]

When I read the OP I couldn't understand the Police decision.

And that's the key. If a decision doesn't make sense, it's because all the facts aren't on the table. It'd be interesting to see what the Police decision was based on.

Ah yes. This probably wouldn't be the first time ever a lad had not disclosed to his mum all of the details, or had even offered her 'alternate facts'.

[FJRider]

When I read the OP I couldn't understand the Police decision.

And that's the key. If a decision doesn't make sense, it's because all the facts aren't on the table. It'd be interesting to see what the Police decision was based on.

Few cannot get the fact ... you can be "Dangerous Driving" and still within (or near) the posted speed limit. But in this case ... it may be a lane splitting gone wrong.

Might be this event ... http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/91910598/motorcyclist-seriously-injured-after-crash-in-christchurch

[FJRider]

I remember years ago getting stopped for speeding by an MOT bike cop who added a charge of going through a red light about 3kms back from where he stopped me. I appealed the red light charge on the grounds that he should have stopped me for that 3kms back and that he did not chase me but followed me from that point. I actually ended up getting off the speeding ticket
and not the the red light ticket which I felt odd as that was what I was doing when he stopped me and not going through a red light. My reason for going through the red light was actually due to the lights not triggering for my bike which he should have noticed that I had stopped at the light anyway and no other traffic was present.

The Officer had what is known as "Discretion" to issue (or not) a ticket for a (usually) minor offence. He probably did notice the light triggering issue ... and chose to follow you and see if you continued to disregard the rules. Which you did do.

Had you kept within the posted speed limit ... you probably would not have been stopped.

After you complained ... he just charged you with the more serious of the two charges.

Lucky you ... eh .. !!!

[FJRider]

That story gives no indication whatsoever that its the same accident. Not all accidents get the attention of the media. Mine never did.

You have so many .... most readers would just say ... "fuck .. HER again" ... :lol:

[jasonu]

I remember years ago getting stopped for speeding by an MOT bike cop who added a charge of going through a red light about 3kms back from where he stopped me. I appealed the red light charge on the grounds that he should have stopped me for that 3kms back and that he did not chase me but followed me from that point. I actually ended up getting off the speeding ticket
and not the the red light ticket which I felt odd as that was what I was doing when he stopped me and not going through a red light. My reason for going through the red light was actually due to the lights not triggering for my bike which he should have noticed that I had stopped at the light anyway and no other traffic was present.

It was miles not km's when the MOT were running shit ya fucking moran.

[FJRider]

No if I had got done for speeding the ticket would have been higher as I think he clocked me doing 80km on a 50km road. The road was one of the 2 lane roads around Hagley Park in ChCh where its quite easy to let the speed get up.

You might need this link. As might the original poster ...

http://www.lawyerhelp.co.nz/traffic/?gclid=CPTHjYzSy9QCFZMGKgodJXYNLA

Nowdays ... running a red will cost you $150 and 20 demerits. But he was being kind with his discretion. I guess he figured you would have enough issues on the road in the future ... one less fine wouldn't bankrupt the country. And would get you another time.

[T.W.R]

It was miles not km's when the MOT were running shit ya fucking moran.

The MOT only came to be in 1968 :msn-wink:

[Luckylegs]

That story gives no indication whatsoever that its the same accident. Not all accidents get the attention of the media. Mine never did.

Not yours no... usually just the spca

[Luckylegs]

...I will also legalise weed and give Rothmans an exclusive licence...

Please include a clause that prohibits the sale of "soft packs", theyre an outrage

[FJRider]

... I have not had any problem with a traffic light not triggering for years so maybe it's all the steel plates I now have in my head ..

Possibly ... :shifty:

[R650R]

Some definitions below, interesting.... actually very open ended. Seems a very difficult word to defend against.




Section 7(2): amended, on 22 June 2005, by section 6(2) of the Land Transport Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 77).

A person may not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person.

35 Contravention of section 7, or section 22 where no injury or death involved

(b)
drives or causes a motor vehicle to be driven on a road at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person

Oxford dictionary Able or likely to cause harm or injury.


‘a dangerous animal’

Likely to cause problems or to have adverse consequences.

[husaberg]

It would have been the 1980s I got my ticket and the metric system came in when I was at school around 1970 (maybe earlier) which makes you the fuckin moron sport.
No real need for swearseys:lol:
Did you forget you were not logged in as Steve.............

[caseye]

No real need for swearseys:lol:
Did you forget you were not logged in as Steve.............

OLh you naughty Naughty Boy, how purile of you to think they could be one an the same!

[husaberg]

OLh you naughty Naughty Boy, how purile of you to think they could be one an the same!

Well i have yet to see overwhelming irrefutable evidence from impartial sources that it not:innocent: