I'm Dangerous

[The Stranger]

Well, at least according to the police I was on the 18th of Jan (06)

Now I have a traffic offence notice, but how do I know what it relates to?

all it says is that I drove a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner and details the vehicle, but not what I did.

And hey that was a couple of months ago and I do so much dangerous shit how do I know which incident to prepare for?

And whilst we are on the subject, any one know a decent lawyer for dealing with this type of thing?

Decent lawyer? Well you know what I mean.

[loosebruce]

Ha I'm only Careless :Pokey:

[bugjuice]

no no.. I'm dangerous.. and so's my wife...

18th Jan was a wednesday.. caught out, ay?

[Grahameeboy]

Build a Bridge.................................

[DemonWolf]

request full disclosure?

[The Stranger]

Ha I'm only Careless :Pokey:

Um NO!
You just haven't been caught yet, there is a big difference.

[Sniper]

I had one of those once. Waited for a couple of months for repercussions and then threw it in the bin.

[loosebruce]

What Demon said Noel, before you bother being charged by a lawyer for their services request full disclousure, you should get an SOF explaining what you done (told you too lay off the wheelies outside schools at 3pm mate).
Then go from there, ask lawyers advice, PM sent, sounds like another ticket being sent out hoping they might get lucky and you'll roll over and play good dog and take it.

[Grahameeboy]

Um NO!
You just haven't been caught yet, there is a big difference.

Exactly......innocent until proven guilty...........

[crashe]

Have you given the police a statement of the events of what happened on the day of the accident at all ?????????



If not ............ why havent they contacted you to get a statement.

Surely one must give a statement before being charged or sent a fine....
Any police in here wanting to comment... how this all works...
thanks.

[Mental Trousers]

Thought it was a thread about having had a dodgy curry or something.

[Grahameeboy]

One for our Police friends to answer.......maybe someone did one of those complaint letters and the Police decided to do something other than a 'Friendly' letter.......

Sounds like a little questioning will make the whole thing go away.

[Grahameeboy]

Thought it was a thread about having had a dodgy curry or something.

I guess it could be as we do not have full details yet...............

[SwanTiger]

I'm wondering when I will be receiving one of these letters.

Now I know what to do when it happens, come and bitch on KB :rofl:

[loosebruce]

One for our Police friends to answer.......maybe someone did one of those complaint letters and the Police decided to do something other than a 'Friendly' letter.......

Sounds like a little questioning will make the whole thing go away.

Nah one letter is not enough to go on, there has to be two separate witness's to the infringment and two complaints to be laid.
I'd say it's more likely to be an off duty officer in this case, especailly for a dangerous charge to be handed out.

[R6_kid]

thats wierd, find out what happened before you say anything i suppose...

swanny - they cant give you ticket just for being a homo and riding a hyosung, but if you keep touching little kids you WILL get in trouble. :bash:

[Grahameeboy]

Nah one letter is not enough to go on, there has to be two separate witness's to the infringment and two complaints to be laid.
I'd say it's more likely to be an off duty officer in this case, especailly for a dangerous charge to be handed out.

How can an off duty officer do this........does his view count for 2 witnesses then...seems a bit dodgy to me guv....

[Mrs Busa Pete]

What so you did know how to do a hand brake trick after all:Police:

[SwanTiger]

swanny - they cant give you ticket just for being a homo and riding a hyosung, but if you keep touching little kids you WILL get in trouble. :bash:

No little kids jokes.

You can make fun of my bike, call me a homo, but that sort of shit I wont tolerate even as a joke.

I think thats a fair call.

[Lou Girardin]

Nah one letter is not enough to go on, there has to be two separate witness's to the infringment and two complaints to be laid.
I'd say it's more likely to be an off duty officer in this case, especailly for a dangerous charge to be handed out.

Sorry Brucey, but they can issue a notice on the evidence of one person.

[thehollowmen]

You have a handbrake on your 'busa?!?!?!



What so you did know how to do a hand brake trick after all:Police:

[Madness]

I'm impressed by the speedy response to the aforementioned complaint of dangerous driving.
Let's see, your house gets burgled-police turn up in a couple of days. Your car gets stolen-couple of weeks. Dangerous driving-two months. Do 116km/hr on the open road in perfect conditions, a copper is waiting around the next bend.
Thank you Aunty Helen.:bleh: :bleh: :bleh:

[idb]

I'm impressed by the speedy response to the aforementioned complaint of dangerous driving.
Let's see, your house gets burgled-police turn up in a couple of days. Your car gets stolen-couple of weeks. Dangerous driving-two months. Do 116km/hr on the open road in perfect conditions, a copper is waiting around the next bend.
Thank you Aunty Helen.:bleh: :bleh: :bleh:
Well, I feel so much safer.................

[dangerous]

I'm Dangerous

no no.. I'm dangerous.. and so's my wife...
Well who the fuk am I then :innocent:

[Madness]

Well who the fuk am I then :innocent:

An imposter????:rofl:

[Madness]

Dangerous driving would be replaced with "Creative Motorcycle Riding" and Merit-Points would be issued. I was particularly creative yesterday afternoon, maybe I'll get a ticket in May????
:scooter: :scooter: :scooter: :scooter:

[Psalm42]

Like Wolf and Bruce said.

Disclosure is the way to go,
Do be specific, ask for full disclosure including but not limited to
a copy of the complaint,
witness statments,
evidence as to whom was riding the bike,
description of rider,
description of bike,
weather conditions,
photographic evidence,
traffic conditions,
where it is alledged to have taken place etc.

You know the ususal stuff every one asks for.

[GIXser]

Well, at least according to the police I was on the 18th of Jan (06)

Now I have a traffic offence notice, but how do I know what it relates to?

all it says is that I drove a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner and details the vehicle, but not what I did.

And hey that was a couple of months ago and I do so much dangerous shit how do I know which incident to prepare for?

And whilst we are on the subject, any one know a decent lawyer for dealing with this type of thing?

Decent lawyer? Well you know what I mean.

thats fucked< how can they send you a infringement/offence notice months later!!!
fuckin dirty pigs again--

[GIXser]

No little kids jokes.

You can make fun of my bike, call me a homo, but that sort of shit I wont tolerate even as a joke.

I think thats a fair call.

still a "little" funny though!!!! and even though you ride a hysing/hyosar/hingosir/ fuck whatever" doesnt make you a homo-- would only make you a homo if it was red" as well!!!:eek:

[Dafe]

Damn, That was the same day I test rode your bike......... But I wasn't the only one that test rode it.

However, I'm not admitting to any dangerous driving. But I will own upto riding your bike that day. But only coz I wasn't the only one that rode it.

Surely there's another couple of local riders that rode it too that day! (Riders that insist they didn't ride it dangerously!)

[Madness]

Damn, That was the same day I test rode your bike......... But I wasn't the only one that test rode it.




Sounds like a "group activity" I hope it was consentual!!!:msn-wink:

[Patrick]

Gotta be more to this story... they don't charge unless they know who the driver is...unless you have been asked already and decided not to say? Gotta bemore to this story.

[Patrick]

thats fucked< how can they send you a infringement/offence notice months later!!!
fuckin dirty pigs again--

Can be charged up to 6 months later...Cop probably thought it was GIXSER and ismaking it all up...

[The Stranger]

It's not relating to the bin crashe.
The bin was earlier in the month, on a different road and they already notified me they taking that one no further.

[The Stranger]

I'm wondering when I will be receiving one of these letters.

Now I know what to do when it happens, come and bitch on KB :rofl:

Hey AH, don't assume that just cause you bitch when things go wrong that I am.

I am asking advice twat.

It will be a cold day before I want your sympathies.

[The Stranger]

Gotta be more to this story... they don't charge unless they know who the driver is...unless you have been asked already and decided not to say? Gotta bemore to this story.

Yeah sure, there is more to it. I got a letter asking who the driver was, which I duly answered, being the law abiding and safe driver that I am I told the truth.

But as to my original post that changes nothing. I still don't know what I have done wrong, other than apparently drive dangerously.

And no I am not bitching or moaning, just seeking advice on how best to defend this scurrilous accusation.

[marty]

the letter that you duly answered, probably conatined the phrase 'operated a vehicle in a dangerous manner on Xxx Rd' or something similar.

If you answered that it was you, then there and then you signed your guilty plea....

[The_Dover]

If I got one of those letters I'd just say Texmo was riding my bike. They've already done him once!

[The Stranger]

Normally there is a covering letter, its very strange. It should tell you the time and street you were on, were you doing anything that was a bit loose around that time?

Yeah, like I am not trying to withold detail here guys.

There is a covering letter and yes it does tell me what road I was on and the date and the time.

Now think back to the 18th of January at 16:20. What were you doing at the time?

It still does not tell me what I supposedly did wrong, which really is the crux of the matter is it not?

[Lou Girardin]

Like Patrick says, this sounds very strange. Dangerous is not an infringment offence. If it was a complaint you should have been interviewed before being charged. If it was witnessed by a cop, why has it taken so long?

Whatever the case I'd get onto it now, otherwise you'll have a minimum 6 months on Shanks's Pony.

[crashe]

It's not relating to the bin crashe.
The bin was earlier in the month, on a different road and they already notified me they taking that one no further.


Oh sorry about that, I thought you were referring to your accident.
My apologies.


Good luck in sorting this charge out...
Do let us know how you get on.

Maybe as Marty says in his post... you may have signed your guilty plea off.

the letter that you duly answered, probably conatined the phrase 'operated a vehicle in a dangerous manner on Xxx Rd' or something similar.

If you answered that it was you, then there and then you signed your guilty plea....


Hope it won't be too expensive when you go to court over it.
Court fees are $130 as well.

[Lou Girardin]

He hasn't pleaded guilty for God's sake. He's only admitted to being the rider.
They will still have to prove the charge.

[marty]

'guilty plea' is probably the wrong phrase to use, as it implies that you have already pleaded guilty. all i meant is that you have acknowledged the offence, and that you were the operator of the vehicle. it certainly makes the officers job easier, when you acknowledge that you were operating a vehicle, when they consider that that vehicle was being in a manner that has given rise to a complaint.

i presume the notice you recived is a green traffic offence notice. this notice is only a means to tell you that you are going to be charged. if it's for dangerous, you will soon be summonsed to court, and appear before a judge. dangerous carries a minimum sentence of disqualification, so it's in your interests to chase up the details.

it is likely the file has not yet been fully created - it should have gone to the bureau in wellington where the information is laid and file is made up. you should write to the bureau to obtain as much info as possible - witness details, videos, statements, etc etc.

it's easy to make it difficult - it's often worth it just so you can discuss dropping the charge to careless (no mandatory disqual eh bruce :) but in any case, you are entitled to full disclosure.

[GIXser]

Can be charged up to 6 months later...Cop probably thought it was GIXSER and ismaking it all up...

HEhehehe:spudwave:

[spudchucka]

Surely one must give a statement before being charged or sent a fine....
Any police in here wanting to comment... how this all works...
thanks.
You have the right to refrain from making a statement so why would there be a requirement that a person suspected of an offence should make a statement before they can be charged? Makes no sense. Its up to the suspected / charged person whether or not they want to make a statement, they can't be compelled to give one.

[spudchucka]

How can an off duty officer do this........does his view count for 2 witnesses then...seems a bit dodgy to me guv....
I guess that because they deal with traffic offences all the time then their credibility as a witness is somewhat higher than a lay-persons.

[spudchucka]

thats fucked< how can they send you a infringement/offence notice months later!!!
fuckin dirty pigs again--
Generally a charge has to be laid within 6 months of the offence. No problem here as its only been two months. So stop your moaning.

[The Stranger]

it's easy to make it difficult - it's often worth it just so you can discuss dropping the charge to careless (no mandatory disqual eh bruce :) but in any case, you are entitled to full disclosure.

A little slow, but the penny has dropped.

It's a game right?

Had I done dangerous shit, like say overtaking on a blind bend, I would remember, cause well I don't do that shit.

So I have obviously pissed someone off, and maybe it was careless, but how do they get me for careless?

Well the easiest way is to charge me with dangerous. I sweat and worry and loose sleep for the next 6 months until it gets near court and then I am so worried about my license I agree to plead guilty to careless and I go away thinking I have got off lightly.

The ultimate fleece.

And hey if they realise that I have a case they can reduce the charge if they want at the last minute anyway.

[The Stranger]

Don't be shy squeek the rat, I am sure your red rep comments are very insightful to all in the forum too.

[Indoo]

A little slow, but the penny has dropped.

It's a game right?

Had I done dangerous shit, like say overtaking on a blind bend, I would remember, cause well I don't do that shit.

So I have obviously pissed someone off, and maybe it was careless, but how do they get me for careless?

Well the easiest way is to charge me with dangerous. I sweat and worry and loose sleep for the next 6 months until it gets near court and then I am so worried about my license I agree to plead guilty to careless and I go away thinking I have got off lightly.

The ultimate fleece.

And hey if they realise that I have a case they can reduce the charge if they want at the last minute anyway.


You won't find out if you can't remember what exactly it was, until you receive the caption summary which you will get as part of disclosure.

That will say on this date, at this time, its alleged you did this and detail what exactly was dangerous about it. It will also state how many witnesses there are and if they are Police or members of the public.

They have 6 months to lay the charge after the alleged offence, so maybe the cop was on leave or just took a while to getting around to it because of workload etc.

Just wait and see what it is before you take any action.

[Lou Girardin]

or just took a while to getting around to it because of workload etc.

.

Couldn't have been that serious then?
Workload bullshit. What about the right to present an effective defence?
"I'm sorry your Honour, I can't remember" doesn't really cut it in court.

[marty]

but then lou wouldn't have anything to complain about!

[Mrs Busa Pete]

Could this be related to the accident that we had.

[Indoo]

Couldn't have been that serious then?
Workload bullshit. What about the right to present an effective defence?
"I'm sorry your Honour, I can't remember" doesn't really cut it in court.

I was only saying that could be a contributing factor. The reality is in Auckland, on the frontline you don't have time to do paperwork, you are called from job to job each one accumulating more paperwork which you then have to rank in order of importance and the need to get it done asap.

The other option is you sacrifice your personal life, do a couple of hours unpaid overtime a shift and never see your family/friends etc. Doing paperwork in my own time for free, never really appealed much to me though.

[Scouse]

I was only saying that could be a contributing factor. The reality is in Auckland, on the frontline you don't have time to do paperwork, you are called from job to job each one accumulating more paperwork which you then have to rank in order of importance and the need to get it done asap.

The other option is you sacrifice your personal life, do a couple of hours unpaid overtime a shift and never see your family/friends etc. Doing paperwork in my own time for free, never really appealed much to me though.Ah the youngsters today no dedication

[Indoo]

Ah the youngsters today no dedication

The significant other is more scary than any Sergeant~

And has better breasts...

[Patrick]

Its just surprising that you haven't been "spoken to" about it...have you received a ticket (a green one?) Sure they asked who was riding etc at the time, maybe they thought you have been honest and aren't pursuing it any more? If no ticket, don't lose any sleep, it sounds like it went away... or did I miss that point?

[Lou Girardin]

I was only saying that could be a contributing factor. The reality is in Auckland, on the frontline you don't have time to do paperwork, you are called from job to job each one accumulating more paperwork which you then have to rank in order of importance and the need to get it done asap.

The other option is you sacrifice your personal life, do a couple of hours unpaid overtime a shift and never see your family/friends etc. Doing paperwork in my own time for free, never really appealed much to me though.

The third option is not to write tickets months later.

[scumdog]

The third option is not to write tickets months later.

Why not, the law says up to three months later is o.k.
At what point SHOULD an offender get away with whatever????

I bet if the cop said to you "Nah, it's two months down the track, we're not going to bother anymore with your driving complaint, bad luck" you may have a different point of view???.

[Patrick]

The third option is not to write tickets months later.

And the real first option would be....????

"DONT DO STUPID SHIT ON THE STREETS, PERHAPS???"

[Indoo]

I'm sure Lou is equally as anti against the rape trial against Rickard etc even though its 20+ years after the fact.

[Lou Girardin]

Why not, the law says up to three months later is o.k.
At what point SHOULD an offender get away with whatever????

I bet if the cop said to you "Nah, it's two months down the track, we're not going to bother anymore with your driving complaint, bad luck" you may have a different point of view???.

Perhaps at the point where the 'offenders' defence is harmed by the delay.
If I hadn't been stopped by a cop as a result of a complaint by a driver who didn't know the overtaking rules, I may have got a ticket weeks later when I wouldn't have remembered that I passed the tosser on the left of two lanes.
I would have missed the pleasure of seeing the light dawn in Plod's eyes as he realised he'd just wasted 20 minutes loooking for my car.
As for your second point, I've heard words to that effect 2 weeks after a complaint from me and an independant witness. Apparently the other drivers word was worth more than both of ours!


The bottom line is that nobody should identify the driver of a vehicle until they know the nature of the enquiry.

[Lou Girardin]

I'm sure Lou is equally as anti against the rape trial against Rickard etc even though its 20+ years after the fact.

Perhaps, if it weren't for Rickards bosses deterring her from making a complaint originally. But then rape is a little different to a driving offence, isn't it.

[scumdog]

Perhaps, if it weren't for Rickards bosses deterring her from making a complaint originally. But then rape is a little different to a driving offence, isn't it.

Yep, more likely to get killed by somebody committing a driving offence.:dodge:

[scumdog]

The bottom line is that nobody should identify the driver of a vehicle until they know the nature of the enquiry.

In context of course - you wouldn't want to be summonsed to Court for a penalty of up to $10,000 for failing to supply details/identity of the driver of your car when the only reason they wanted to know who was driving to give them a warning or even $150 ticket of some sort.

[Lou Girardin]

In context of course - you wouldn't want to be summonsed to Court for a penalty of up to $10,000 for failing to supply details/identity of the driver of your car when the only reason they wanted to know who was driving to give them a warning or even $150 ticket of some sort.

I'd take that chance, especially when the fines seldom, if ever, exceed three figures.
What I wouldn't do is admit anything until I know the details.

[The Stranger]

In my view the Rickards case should never have made it to court. I am not saying that they are innocent, not saying they are guilty, simply saying we will never know the truth.

No matter how the decision falls one party will claim vindication when the reality it is nothing of the sort. We and the jury will never know the truth and justice will never be served by this trial.

[Pixie]

In my view the Rickards case should never have made it to court. I am not saying that they are innocent, not saying they are guilty, simply saying we will never know the truth.

No matter how the decision falls one party will claim vindication when the reality it is nothing of the sort. We and the jury will never know the truth and justice will never be served by this trial.
Three poor feeble minded cops,one of whom has risen to a very high position in management,were seduced by a sly, evil teenage girl,with ulterior motives.

[scumdog]

I'd take that chance, especially when the fines seldom, if ever, exceed three figures.
What I wouldn't do is admit anything until I know the details.

As I mentioned before:
Boy does skid,
Boy gets notice to supply details of driver of his car at that time of skid, boy says get stuffed, not telling you neyah!
Boy gets summonsed to court, boy gets $1,500 fine.

Boy would have got a lot less of a fine if he had owned up.

As I said, you have to put it in context.

(and yeah, boy knew details on this one, heard it from friends.
Don't have to tell them details when serving notice on them)

[scumdog]

Three poor feeble minded cops,one of whom has risen to a very high position in management,were seduced by a sly, evil teenage girl,with ulterior motives.


Amazing how many sly evil teenage girls inflict their ulterior motives on people who have money.
(Or they think have money)
I won't quote examples but I know of quite a few where if the guy was a broken-arse bum she wouldn't even try.

[Lou Girardin]

I'm not talking about a mouth-breathing boy-racer who wouldn't know if his arse is on fire until he smells burning.
I'm talking about replying to the letter and asking why the information is required.
You really need to get away from hillbilly central Scummy.
Come up to the big smoke for the HOG rally in '07 and you can have a soundproof room at Casa Luigi.

[Psalm42]

I'd take that chance, especially when the fines seldom, if ever, exceed three figures.
What I wouldn't do is admit anything until I know the details.

Couldn't agree more.

I have been through this routine with the cops, to cut a long story short, if I had not been belligerent about my right to be informed of the nature and the cause, I would have ended up with a dangerous driving charge. The cop got very indignant when I said no one was driving the vehicle, why do you want information relating to this car, what's the nature and the cause of your investigation. So he tried doing me for failing to give details. Ended up, his informant had made a few mistakes, and so had he.

His superior offered to drop the failing to give name charges on the condition I dropped the civil claim against the police officer for damages.

Not being enough of a stirer at the time, I took the offer.

[spudchucka]

Three poor feeble minded cops,one of whom has risen to a very high position in management,were seduced by a sly, evil teenage girl,with ulterior motives.
Just one of many possible truths. Wait for the movie to come out, then well know the truth.:weird:

[Lou Girardin]

His superior offered to drop the failing to give name charges on the condition I dropped the civil claim against the police officer for damages.

Not being enough of a stirer at the time, I took the offer.

Another win for the little guy?

[scumdog]

I'm not talking about a mouth-breathing boy-racer who wouldn't know if his arse is on fire until he smells burning.
I'm talking about replying to the letter and asking why the information is required.
You really need to get away from hillbilly central Scummy.
Come up to the big smoke for the HOG rally in '07 and you can have a soundproof room at Casa Luigi.

Yeah, I know what you're saying BUT the law does not differentiate between the two types....
And it was a fire-breathing V8 HQ Holden - we don't have/allow the 'other type' down here.:Punk:

HOG Rally? I'm not decided yet, want to buy my 'dream bike' (Superglide T Sport) AND now have two boys at Uni so money is a little tighter than it was but we'll see.

[The Stranger]

Well, at least according to the police I was on the 18th of Jan (06)

Now I have a traffic offence notice, but how do I know what it relates to?

all it says is that I drove a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner and details the vehicle, but not what I did.

And hey that was a couple of months ago and I do so much dangerous shit how do I know which incident to prepare for?

And whilst we are on the subject, any one know a decent lawyer for dealing with this type of thing?

Decent lawyer? Well you know what I mean.

Ok this is back on the agenda.
Revieved a summons yesterday.

I was told previously that the summons would set out what I had done, well guess what it too says that I drove dangerously. So it looks like they expect me to turn up at court, listen to the charge and defend my actions without any preparation or nothing.

Wow justice NZ style aye. You got to love it.

So coming back to my original post. Is there any lawyer etc around Auckland which people have had experience with and could recommend for this type of thing.

How does one go about requesting full disclosure so as I can find out what I am defending... or is that not allowed in this country?

[Patrick]

So... when you were told, again and again earlier in the thread to seek disclosure, what did you receive and what did that tell ya??????

Oops... my bad... missed ya bottom line above...

Write in to the Police Prosecution Section at wherever the charge is being heard, (IE: Auckland Distrct Court - write to Auckland Central Police Station Prosecutions) advising them of your name and the date of your hearing and that you are after full disclosure of the case against you. Give em the address to post it too. You do not even have to write... a verbal request over the phone is still a request under the official information act and either verbal or written, it has to be acted on within 20 days.

[Grahameeboy]

I suspect that dislosure arises once you defend Offence.
Speak to Loosebruce since from memory he was in a similar situation which he posted and I think his charge was reduced.
Looking at LTSA site it looks like there is normally a mandatory 28 day suspension and it seems odd that they too all this time to issue you with a notice.
Plenty of Solictors in Yellow Pages but try Peter Tomlinson - 09 309 9519....I only know him to talk to on Ferry and Village but he seems a good down to earth type and just say that guy with Daughter in wheelchair mentioned you and hopefully you should be cushty.

[Karma]

no no.. I'm dangerous.. and so's my wife...

Well if you're dangerous then I can be brian...

[Grahameeboy]

So... when you were told, again and again earlier in the thread to seek disclosure, what did you receive and what did that tell ya??????

Oops... my bad... missed ya bottom line above...

Write in to the Police Prosecution Section at wherever the charge is being heard, (IE: Auckland Distrct Court - write to Auckland Central Police Station Prosecutions) advising them of your name and the date of your hearing and that you are after full disclosure of the case against you. Give em the address to post it too. You do not even have to write... a verbal request over the phone is still a request under the official information act and either verbal or written, it has to be acted on within 20 days.

Those Guys in Auckland really helpful.........were great when I was applying for a limited licence.

[Ixion]

I've heard good reports of Patrick Winkler , as a specialist traffic lawyer. Dunno his number, but it'll be in the phone book.

[The_Dover]

Do you know of any that will work for sexual favours?

I may need one soon too but i'm skint.

[Grahameeboy]

Do you know of any that will work for sexual favours?

I may need one soon too but i'm skint.

Why have you lost your address book Dover!!

[Grahameeboy]

I've heard good reports of Patrick Winkler , as a specialist traffic lawyer. Dunno his number, but it'll be in the phone book.

09 575 5111

[Lou Girardin]

I suspect that dislosure arises once you defend Offence.

Looking at LTSA site it looks like there is normally a mandatory 28 day suspension

Not necessarily. You need diclosure to ascertain if you have a defence.
There is no 28 day suspension for dangerous. (It's not as bad as speeding, you see) But you can be arrested for it, but not for exceeding the speed limit..
This is lawmakers logic.

[The Pastor]

Lawyers fess are often higher than what the driving offence will be.

Just get the details and pick holes in the "facts" do a little bit of ground work then get the lawyer to see if you've got a case. (save a bit of dosh)

[scumdog]

I suspect that dislosure arises once you defend Offence.
Disclosure package is made up at the same time the o/c (officer in charge) of the file is making up the file, it's available just for the asking.

Disclosure should be just about everything on the file relating to the case, that way you know what the cop has that is against you and you can prepare your defence.

(One-way street here - lawyers/clients never in turn reveal how they plan in defending the charge i.e. what line of defence they are going to pursue.)

[Grahameeboy]

Disclosure package is made up at the same time the o/c (officer in charge) of the file is making up the file, it's available just for the asking.

Disclosure should be just about everything on the file relating to the case, that way you know what the cop has that is against you and you can prepare your defence.

(One-way street here - lawyers/clients never in turn reveal how they plan in defending the charge i.e. what line of defence they are going to pursue.)

Cheers for that.

Re One Way thing I guess the Police Lawyer should, based on experience, have a few inclings of what Defence will throw down.......interesting though and I guess the great onus of proof is with the Defendant.....I am sure it does not always work one way in Court.

[Grahameeboy]

Not necessarily. You need diclosure to ascertain if you have a defence.
There is no 28 day suspension for dangerous. (It's not as bad as speeding, you see) But you can be arrested for it, but not for exceeding the speed limit..
This is lawmakers logic.

Cheers Lou....the site is a mine field.

[Patrick]

Cheers for that.

Re One Way thing I guess the Police Lawyer should, based on experience, have a few inclings of what Defence will throw down.......interesting though and I guess the great onus of proof is with the Defendant.....I am sure it does not always work one way in Court.

Onus of proof is on the prosecution. Defendant doesn't even have to give evidence. If they do, they can lie through their teeth to create a reasonable doubt and still get off...

[spudchucka]

Ok this is back on the agenda.
Revieved a summons yesterday.

I was told previously that the summons would set out what I had done, well guess what it too says that I drove dangerously. So it looks like they expect me to turn up at court, listen to the charge and defend my actions without any preparation or nothing.

Wow justice NZ style aye. You got to love it.

So coming back to my original post. Is there any lawyer etc around Auckland which people have had experience with and could recommend for this type of thing.

How does one go about requesting full disclosure so as I can find out what I am defending... or is that not allowed in this country?
This event happened in January 2006 and you received a summons in August 06, 7+ months after the event???

I'm pretty sure there is a 6 months statute of limitations for driving matters. I couldn't find it written in the Act when I had a quick skim through but I did find this;


136.Time for instituting proceedings—

(1)In proceedings for an offence punishable on summary conviction against this Act, the court may dismiss the information if satisfied that the person charged has been prejudiced in the person's defence by any unreasonable delay in instituting the proceedings or in notifying the person of the time, place, and nature of the offence.

(2)If a delay in instituting the proceedings has been caused by a change in the address of the defendant, the delay is not an unreasonable delay for the purposes of this section.

(3)Section 14 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 does not apply to a prosecution for—

(a)An offence against section 32 involving driving while disqualified or contrary to the conditions of a licence or limited licence; or

(b)An offence against this Act or the Transport Act 1962 concerning—

(i)Driving hours; or

(ii)The keeping of logbooks by certain drivers; or

(iii)The issue of installation certificates and inspection certificates for alternative fuel systems.


What date was the charge laid? Have you received any disclosure at all at this point?

[The_Dover]

136.Time for instituting proceedings—

(1)In proceedings for an offence punishable on summary conviction against this Act, the court may dismiss the information if satisfied that the person charged has been prejudiced in the person's defence by any unreasonable delay in instituting the proceedings or in notifying the person of the time, place, and nature of the offence.

(2)If a delay in instituting the proceedings has been caused by a change in the address of the defendant, the delay is not an unreasonable delay for the purposes of this section.

(3)Section 14 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 does not apply to a prosecution for—

(a)An offence against section 32 involving driving while disqualified or contrary to the conditions of a licence or limited licence; or

(b)An offence against this Act or the Transport Act 1962 concerning—

(i)Driving hours; or

(ii)The keeping of logbooks by certain drivers; or

(iii)The issue of installation certificates and inspection certificates for alternative fuel systems.

oh bollocks.

[Finn]

oh bollocks.

You'll just have to keep moving mate.

[spudchucka]

You'll just have to keep moving mate.
Moving him back to pommy land would be a good start.

[Finn]

Moving him back to pommy land would be a good start.

What, you want the entire beer industry in NZ to collapse?

[Lou Girardin]

(One-way street here - lawyers/clients never in turn reveal how they plan in defending the charge i.e. what line of defence they are going to pursue.)

Why should they? The facts are the facts. You're not saying the Police would 'alter' things to reduce the defence, are you?:innocent:

[spudchucka]

What, you want the entire beer industry in NZ to collapse?
We'll just import another 20 Aussies to make up the difference.

[Finn]

We'll just import another 20 Aussies to make up the difference.

Think of the Woman for christ sake!

[spudchucka]

Why should they? The facts are the facts. You're not saying the Police would 'alter' things to reduce the defence, are you?:innocent:
He isn't saying that at all but the defence do bring things up from out of left field, after the prosecution has closed its case, and the prosecution then have to ask, (beg) the court to be given time to prepare rebuttal evidence. This could require a remand, unnecessarily delaying proceedings.

For instance in court recently a lawyer wanted to dispute the integrity of a blood sample based soley on the possibility that the label "may" not have been intact when it arrived at the lab. There was no evidence that the label was faulty or had been tampered with or anything else. The lawyer was just fishing for reasonable doubt once the prosecution had closed their case.

The only person that could rebutt the suggestion was the lab tech that had handled the samples. The prosecution was granted a remand and some three months later when it was back in court the rebuttal evidence was given and the guy was convicted, as he should have been.

If the defence had to disclose to the prosecution what they intended to challenge they would have had the lab tech summonsed to give evidence on the day.

[spudchucka]

Think of the Woman for christ sake!
We could import some female Ockers, they drink just as much as the blokes. Better yet we could import some Irish girls, they really know how to drink!

[kickingzebra]

Give it heaps, we can't have our campaigners credibility impunged!!

Not that I can talk...

[Grahameeboy]

He isn't saying that at all but the defence do bring things up from out of left field, after the prosecution has closed its case, and the prosecution then have to ask, (beg) the court to be given time to prepare rebuttal evidence. This could require a remand, unnecessarily delaying proceedings.

For instance in court recently a lawyer wanted to dispute the integrity of a blood sample based soley on the possibility that the label "may" not have been intact when it arrived at the lab. There was no evidence that the label was faulty or had been tampered with or anything else. The lawyer was just fishing for reasonable doubt once the prosecution had closed their case.

The only person that could rebutt the suggestion was the lab tech that had handled the samples. The prosecution was granted a remand and some three months later when it was back in court the rebuttal evidence was given and the guy was convicted, as he should have been.

If the defence had to disclose to the prosecution what they intended to challenge they would have had the lab tech summonsed to give evidence on the day.

Geeze....the cheek of the Defendant eh...........should have just accepted his fate the dork..

[sAsLEX]

This event happened in January 2006 and you received a summons in August 06, 7+ months after the event???

I'm pretty sure there is a 6 months statute of limitations for driving matters. I couldn't find it written in the Act when I had a quick skim through but I did find this;



Sorry but I will think you will find the vast majority of cases on here extend past 6 months, I know ***** had to front up to court with his lawyer multiple times and each time the case got put off so he was left with a big lawyer bill and multiple days off work all cause our courts are overwhelmed.

[The Stranger]

This event happened in January 2006 and you received a summons in August 06, 7+ months after the event???

I'm pretty sure there is a 6 months statute of limitations for driving matters. I couldn't find it written in the Act when I had a quick skim through but I did find this;


What date was the charge laid? Have you received any disclosure at all at this point?

I have recieved a Traffic Offence Notice and a letter on the 24/03/06.

The Traffic Offence Notice simply states that I drove a MV in a dangerous manner and setd out the date and location etc, but not what i did to make the situation dangerous

The letter states "As a result of a driving complaint lodged with the Police on 18/01/06 the Police have decided to charge you with driving a MV in a dangerous manner."

I was advised (admittedly by a lawyer) that the Summons would contain the information which I seek, so yeah, I didn't worry about it too much, thinking that a summons would soon appear.

Ok no summons for a while, hey maybe they forgot, got lazy whatever, best not wake sleeping dogs so I shut up until yesterday when the summons arrived. The date has been crossed out and a new date inserted by hand, so I don't know what's with that.

Taking on Patrick's advice I went into the Henderson Police Station and requested disclosure. They say they are prosecuting it but don't have the file and I got to get hold of the officer.

But anyway I shall do both, get hold of the officer and formally request disclosure in writing.

[sAsLEX]

Taking on Patrick's advice I went into the Henderson Police Station and requested disclosure. They say they are prosecuting it but don't have the file and I got to get hold of the officer.

But anyway I shall do both, get hold of the officer and formally request disclosure in writing.

Record somewhere the you went in and requested it verbally, as from what scum or someone said they have to act on that as well.

Oh and record everything you dont know where they might slip up....


EDIT guessing MV is motor vehicle no MV augusta styles..... and how can the police charge someone from another drivers statment? Might pay to get them to appear in court to give evidence

[The Stranger]

Do you know of any that will work for sexual favours?

I may need one soon too but i'm skint.

Coming from you could you actually call it a favour?

[Lou Girardin]

. and how can the police charge someone from another drivers statment? Might pay to get them to appear in court to give evidence

They'll have to, if CaN defends it. Then a good lawyer will chew the nark bastard up and spit out the bones.

[The Stranger]

A couple of other things I would like to ask please.

1) My family were behind me on the day in question about 3 - 4 cars back. It was quite a leisurly return from our holiday up north and we were deliberately taking it easy so as to stay together. Can family members be witnesses? Like this is genuine, not some trumped up arrangement. They were equally as perplexed as to the cause of the ticket.

2) What do I ask for when asking for disclosure? Do I just... Give them sufficient references to the TON and Summons and say " I wish to formally request disclosure of all relavent information to the case in question??

And hey, thank you all for the input so far.

[Lou Girardin]

Definitely use your witnesses, once you know what the facts are.

[Bend-it]

Onus of proof is on the prosecution. Defendant doesn't even have to give evidence. If they do, they can lie through their teeth to create a reasonable doubt and still get off...

No they can't... well they can, BUT lying under oath is perjury, and itself an offence... Theoretically...

[The Pastor]

A couple of other things I would like to ask please.
2) What do I ask for when asking for disclosure? Do I just... Give them sufficient references to the TON and Summons and say " I wish to formally request disclosure of all relavent information to the case in question??



Yeah thats pretty much it, if they refuse you will have to get a lawyer.

In my case the police took thier time giving out the evidence, and even then it was only 50% of what they had.

[spudchucka]

Sorry but I will think you will find the vast majority of cases on here extend past 6 months, I know ***** had to front up to court with his lawyer multiple times and each time the case got put off so he was left with a big lawyer bill and multiple days off work all cause our courts are overwhelmed.
Its a case of the charge having to be laid within six months of the date of the offence, not how long the overall proceedings get dragged out.

As I read it this case may have been laid outside of the six months limitation.

[spudchucka]

A couple of other things I would like to ask please.

1) My family were behind me on the day in question about 3 - 4 cars back. It was quite a leisurly return from our holiday up north and we were deliberately taking it easy so as to stay together. Can family members be witnesses? Like this is genuine, not some trumped up arrangement. They were equally as perplexed as to the cause of the ticket.

2) What do I ask for when asking for disclosure? Do I just... Give them sufficient references to the TON and Summons and say " I wish to formally request disclosure of all relavent information to the case in question??

And hey, thank you all for the input so far.
You can call your own defence witnesses. They may be cross examined by the prosecution.

Just ask for disclosure relating to the TON number, give them your name and the nature of the charge.

[spudchucka]

No they can't... well they can, BUT lying under oath is perjury, and itself an offence... Theoretically...
Not theoretically, it is an offence. The only problem is proving that they are lying.

[Mrs Busa Pete]

It might be a good idea to ask for full discloser in writing and taking into the police station where charges where made from and keeping a copy for yourself. Good luck

[limbimtimwim]

If you defend it, there is a pretty good chance the complainant won't be bothered showing up and then you win. Especially if your family were watching and didn't see anything seriously wrong, so it must have been pretty minor.

Hope the complainant lives a long way away and works 7 days a week :)

[sAsLEX]

If you defend it, there is a pretty good chance the complainant won't be bothered showing up and then you win. Especially if your family were watching and didn't see anything seriously wrong, so it must have been pretty minor.

Hope the complainant lives a long way away and works 7 days a week :)


And you end up going to court which costs you money! God bless the cops attitude towards charging people based on weak evidence

[The_Dover]

i'd kick the fuckin pigs if they wouldn't charge me for it.

motherfuckers

[The_Dover]

yeah man, right in the fuckin nuts

[Patrick]

A couple of other things I would like to ask please.

1) My family were behind me on the day in question about 3 - 4 cars back. It was quite a leisurly return from our holiday up north and we were deliberately taking it easy so as to stay together. Can family members be witnesses? Like this is genuine, not some trumped up arrangement. They were equally as perplexed as to the cause of the ticket.

2) say " I wish to formally request disclosure of all relavent information to the case against me to be heard at....on....

And hey, thank you all for the input so far.
Family are witnesses, let the prosecutor or the cop pushing the case know, he may change his mind once they are spoken to and drop it, if it is a weak case....

Request disclosure as above - note the date of the verbal request you made already "to any officer..." it is still a request to any officer. It does not have to be the one doing the file. Then do the written request, forward it and keep a copy. If it still isn't given, after two requests within a reasonable time frame (usually 20 days after the request, as required by the Official Information Act, but some circumstances can exist where a judge will say "fair enough...") but more often than not, the judge will toss it out on non disclosure after requests made, alone!

Check out the date of the offence and the date the information was sworn. As Spud said, there is a statute of limitations, they may have to charge you within 6 months of the offence date. (Different for some matters, where there is no limitations, like serious crimes etc, driving while disqualified also has no statute of limitation either....F.Y.I....)

[scumdog]

yeah man, right in the fuckin nuts

Join th P'lice, show us how it should be done.



Then fuck-off when you realise it can't be done.:yes:

[The Stranger]

2) What do I ask for when asking for disclosure? Do I just... Give them sufficient references to the TON and Summons and say " I wish to formally request disclosure of all relavent information to the case in question??

And hey, thank you all for the input so far.

Well I now know what I did.

I (apparently) overtook a car forcing the elderly driver off the road (note the compainant was in front of the person being forced off the road) then I followed the compainiant so close that she could not see my number plate then I overtook her "on a narrow bridge in excess of 100kph, I thought I was going to go off the bridge."

Now my version is a little different.
If we remember the compainant was actually in front of the vehicle I forced off the road, it goes something like this.
I followed a little old lady in a little white car at or about 70kmh for some distance from Wellsford along SH16. She had a hell of a lot of traffic behind her and I was 3rd car back. I took the first oppertunity to overtake, this was on a straight below the look out, so (as anyone knowing the road can attest) I had waited and picked my time carefully. As I drew level with the car behind the little old lady the little old lady braked and pulled to the sholder, I assumed to let the long line of traffic go. The car behind her, instead of braking, immediately pulled right, then looked to find me there and hit the picks real hard. I was not even level with the white car, I was still beside the second car at the time, else he would have seen me and not pulled right.

Now the compainant was a long way ahead, not even what I would have classed as in our line of traffic, but it was a long strait (I picked a safe place)

I then drove on and later overtook the complainant in fact on a bridge. This bridge is in a long straight and level with the road, there is lane marking along the length of the bridge. Visability was good and clear. I started the manouvre prior to the bridge and alas it was narrower than I at first thought. However, I was during the course of my travel across the bridge, entirely within the right lane.

This of course confuses me a bit. If it was dangerous for me to be travelling in the same direction as this woman on the bridge then would not it have been significantly more dangerous for me to have been coming the other way? And what had it been a logging truck or cattle crate?
Therefore if I was dangerous, surely it is the fault of the road engineers that it is so.

As to following too close. Almost anyone whom I have ever been a passenger with will attest I am always lecturing them to back off and reminding them what the road code says - Space is you best insurance, and it is free. It just didn't happen, never period. I surmise that her eye sight is so bad that she simply could not see my plate. Other comments in her statement would appear to back this up too, such as the small child I had in the vehicle (6" and weighs 125kg) and other comments

Now there are various other comments in her statement which are not relavent (I assume as the police appear to have ignored them) but go some way to making me wonder at her powers of observation. But that would appear to be it in a nut shell.

Ok as I see it, I can see where she assumed I forced the other car off the road, hey she was well ahead and couldn't see properly and of course I scared her, so I must have scared the other person off the road too right.

So, is it dangerous to overtake on a "narrow" bridge where the bridge is level with the road, the line of sight is good, and there is a centre line marking?

[The_Dover]

can you find out where this bitch lives?

[kickingzebra]

Bugger, well a few nice inconsistancies to highlight... Take it to the courts, and then file for costs for your very valuable time.

[SwanTiger]

I wouldn't call it dangerous, but if you were in a car, I wouldn't call over taking on a bridge the most safest option on a personal level, but it definitely wouldn't classify as dangerous.

Bloody old people aye :nya:

[The Stranger]

can you find out where this bitch lives?

Well I do have her name.
Wish I had her surname.

Believe it or not her surname is Cumming.

I am not pissed at her. She is obviously old and she probably was scared, but as I see it the Police should have given her a cuppa calmed her down and sent her on her way. I don't think being someone being scared constitutes grounds for a dangerous charge and waste of my and tax payers money.

[SPman]

Shit - half the drivers on the road are scared and wouldn't even be able to visualise how to drive comfortably themselves, let alone, anybody else!
The fact that you aren't scared of your vehicle or the road, doesnt exactly constitute grounds for a complaint!

[Ixion]

Bugger me, half the time I'm on the road I'm scared! When riding Petal I'm perpetually scared. Should I lodge dangerous driving complaints aginst everyone else on the road.

And I overtake on bridges. Where appropriate. No different to any other bit of road. Would make crossing the Harbour Bridge a bit difficult if you couldn't.

Bloody old people, if they can't hack the pace why don't they give it away. What's someone that old doing out on a State Highway, anyway?

[Indiana_Jones]

Ice.....man......I am Dangerous

-Indy

[Lou Girardin]

I wouldn't call it dangerous, but if you were in a car, I wouldn't call over taking on a bridge the most safest option on a personal level, but it definitely wouldn't classify as dangerous.

Bloody old people aye :nya:

A bridge is just another piece of road, same rules apply.

[The Pastor]

Its always the old people who have time to get to the police station and report this shit.

[Lou Girardin]

It's just occurred to me, (OK I know I'm slow) they've laid a charge based on a public complaint without interviewing the offender. Do they not think there may be two sides to the story? I'll be very surprised if this isn't thrown out.
I'd be writing to the Minister and to the PCA about it.

[Swoop]

So much for being innocent until proven guilty, eh?

[spudchucka]

So much for being innocent until proven guilty, eh?

Being charged with an offence doesn't mean you are proven "not innocent" either, eh?

[spudchucka]

It's just occurred to me, (OK I know I'm slow) they've laid a charge based on a public complaint without interviewing the offender. Do they not think there may be two sides to the story? I'll be very surprised if this isn't thrown out.
I'd be writing to the Minister and to the PCA about it.

I'd still like to know the date of the alleged offence and the date that the charge was laid, I'm pretty damn sure there is a 6 month limitation for a charge to be laid.

[Jantar]

I'd still like to know the date of the alleged offence and the date that the charge was laid, I'm pretty damn sure there is a 6 month limitation for a charge to be laid.
30 years ago, when traffic offences were dealt with under the summary proceedings act, the declaration that is sworn by the prosecutor for offences used to contain wording similar to : "I, ........., have just cause to believe, and do believe that within the six months past....".

However, as traffic offences are now dealt with under the traffic regulations, I'm not sure that it still applies.

[spudchucka]

30 years ago, when traffic offences were dealt with under the summary proceedings act, the declaration that is sworn by the prosecutor for offences used to contain wording similar to : "I, ........., have just cause to believe, and do believe that within the six months past....".

However, as traffic offences are now dealt with under the traffic regulations, I'm not sure that it still applies.

"Within the last six months past" or "within the six months last past" is the wording and it still exists.

I recall a recent converstaion in the meal room at my station with one of our local serious crash investigators in which it was discussed finalising his report quickly in order to have a dangerous causing death charge laid before the six months was up.

Its worth looking into in my opinion.

[spudchucka]

Here it is, the important bits are in bold.

Section 136, land Transport Act 1998:


136.Time for instituting proceedings—

(1)In proceedings for an offence punishable on summary conviction against this Act, the court may dismiss the information if satisfied that the person charged has been prejudiced in the person's defence by any unreasonable delay in instituting the proceedings or in notifying the person of the time, place, and nature of the offence.

(2)If a delay in instituting the proceedings has been caused by a change in the address of the defendant, the delay is not an unreasonable delay for the purposes of this section.

(3)Section 14 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 does not apply to a prosecution for—

(a)An offence against section 32 involving driving while disqualified or contrary to the conditions of a licence or limited licence; or

(b)An offence against this Act or the Transport Act 1962 concerning—

(i)Driving hours; or

(ii)The keeping of logbooks by certain drivers; or

(iii)The issue of installation certificates and inspection certificates for alternative fuel systems.


Section 14 Summary Proceedings Act 1957:


14.Time for laying information—

Except where some other period of limitation is provided by the Act creating the offence or by any other Act, every information for an offence (other than an offence which may be dealt with summarily under section 6 of this Act) shall be laid within 6 months from the time when the matter of the information arose.

An "Information" is the piece of paper that is produced when a charge is laid, (also known as an SP1), so in the context of what is written the "Information" is the "charge".

With reference to the LTA 1998, the summary proceedings act determines that there is a six month statute of limitation for driving offences except for disqualified driving, breaching a limited licence, log book offences and offences relating to alternative fuel systems, (WTF?).

Therefore dangerous driving has a six month limitation between the date of the offence and the laying of the charge. If the charge was laid outside the six months then there may be a strong chance that it will not proceed.

Look into it!

[The Stranger]

I'd still like to know the date of the alleged offence and the date that the charge was laid, I'm pretty damn sure there is a 6 month limitation for a charge to be laid.

Sorry spud, the offence occurred on 18/1/06, but TON was recieved on 24/03/06 and the summons was recieved on 03/08/06 saying that I am required to attend court on 01/09/06.

[jim.cox]

I have found that trying to keep the public happy is a job in itself.

Man, now that's a Mission - Impossible if ever there was.

[ManDownUnder]

Isn't there a full disclosure requirement? If you don't know why you're being charged how can you prepare any defense in a manner satifactory to the court?

That being said - you did get the bit of paper 5 months ago...

edit - I take it back - I see you do know... sorry mate. Good luckw ith it - sounds like "he said" "she said" stuff to me...

[Lou Girardin]

I'd still like to know the date of the alleged offence and the date that the charge was laid, I'm pretty damn sure there is a 6 month limitation for a charge to be laid.

There was when I was a snake/pig/cop (pick one)

[Swoop]

CaN.
Have you been back to the location/s where these events took place and taken photographs of the areas concerned? These will be important in court.
I believe digital photographs are not permitted in court??? (Clarification anybody?)

[Lou Girardin]

Sorry spud, the offence occurred on 18/1/06, but TON was recieved on 24/03/06 and the summons was recieved on 03/08/06 saying that I am required to attend court on 01/09/06.

I'd say you have defence based on the delay. You can't properly defend a charge after a lapse of so long.
I hope you have a brief.

[spudchucka]

Sorry spud, the offence occurred on 18/1/06, but TON was recieved on 24/03/06 and the summons was recieved on 03/08/06 saying that I am required to attend court on 01/09/06.

Thanks for that but I'd still like to know when the actual charge was laid, as in when the information was produced. Its possible that the cops copy of the TON sat in his work tray for months before he actually went and had the charge entered.

It might be clutching at straws but still worthwhile investigating.

Its over six months between the offence date and the date you were summonsed and five months between receiving the TON receiving the summons. In my experience it is highly unusual for a summons to take that long to be served.

[spudchucka]

I believe digital photographs are not permitted in court??? (Clarification anybody?)

They can be allowed but their validity can easily be challenged. Unless you are a photographer with specialist training in digital photography I'd suggest you stick to film and take the negatives to court with you as well as the prints.

[sAsLEX]

CaN.
Have you been back to the location/s where these events took place and taken photographs of the areas concerned? These will be important in court.
I believe digital photographs are not permitted in court??? (Clarification anybody?)

When the camera saves the pic it save information in the format so that any fiddling in photoshop say can easily be picked up, could be wrong though, so it should be able to prove that they are unaltered pics so cant see why they would not be allowed in court

[John Banks]

Anything digital can be modified very easily, and removing evidence that it has been modified should be just as easy.

[sAsLEX]

Anything digital can be modified very easily, and removing evidence that it has been modified should be just as easy.

http://www.abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/tch06061.shtml

think that proves it can be done from reading the first little bit so there :yes:

[Patrick]

What was the date the information was sworn (bottom left hand corner).

The offence occurred on the 18/01/06 then it had to be "sworn" before the 18/07/06. Doesn't matter when the summons was served, the charge had to be laid and sworn within 6 months of the offence date.

If it isn't, bye bye charge....

[The Stranger]

What was the date the information was sworn (bottom left hand corner).

The offence occurred on the 18/01/06 then it had to be "sworn" before the 18/07/06. Doesn't matter when the summons was served, the charge had to be laid and sworn within 6 months of the offence date.

If it isn't, bye bye charge....

Ah, ok, I am pretty new to this. It was sworn at Wellington on the 25th day of May 2006. so it looks like is a go.

[spudchucka]

Ah, ok, I am pretty new to this. It was sworn at Wellington on the 25th day of May 2006. so it looks like is a go.

I still think you could have a pretty reasonable chance of claiming unfair disadvantage due to the delay in receiving the summons and / or disclosure.

[The Stranger]

I still think you could have a pretty reasonable chance of claiming unfair disadvantage due to the delay in receiving the summons and / or disclosure.

Ok, I will speak to the lawyer on that one thank you.

However having been to court, disputes and arbitration numerous times, mostly as a result of construction claims, the one thing I know only too well is anything can, and usually does happen. I really have seen some left field shit which defies belief.

So I wish to be prepared. To this end can you guys tell me the format please? i.e I am guessing there is a single judge or similar whom will decide the case?

What is the standard of proof?
For example, it would appear that in the family court it need only have possibly happened for a decision to be decided. A mate of mine, when he cut off the additional money to the ex she claimed he had been fiddling the kid. He was never charged or anything, no medical evidence was produced. He initially lost access to the kid, then after significant cost to him and us (after all we paid for her lawyer, the court (many times), the lawyer for the kid and the psychologist reports) he was allowed supervised access.
I gather the disputes tribunal is on the balance of probability.

I guess where I am coming from is this. She (and I gather the police) says that overtaking on a bridge is dangerous. I say it is not (at least in this circumstance) do they have to prove that it is dangerous or does the judge (or whatever) simply make his own mind up? i.e how is dangerous decided?

[Patrick]

Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. You don't have to prove your innocence, but...

- Take some photos of the scene and show the bridge is a flat piece of road with awesome visability.
- Measure the lanes and your vehicle to show you could drive a bus through there.

Just cos someone got a fright doesn't make it dangerous... it just makes them look like they were unaware of their surroundings...

[sAsLEX]

Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. You don't have to prove your innocence, but...

- Take some photos of the scene and show the bridge is a flat piece of road with awesome visability.
- Measure the lanes and your vehicle to show you could drive a bus through there.

Just cos someone got a fright doesn't make it dangerous... it just makes them look like they were unaware of their surroundings...

ummm patrick if the bridge cant fit two buses on it it would be marked as one way......

Also the lane markings showing two distinct lanes also show that the road is of correct width


But hey I would struggle to join the cops aye...

[Patrick]

A picture is worth a thousand words.... and no, you probably wouldn't struggle to join. You can now...

The buses comment is a figure of speach...

[The Stranger]

Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. You don't have to prove your innocence, but...

- Take some photos of the scene and show the bridge is a flat piece of road with awesome visability.
- Measure the lanes and your vehicle to show you could drive a bus through there.

Just cos someone got a fright doesn't make it dangerous... it just makes them look like they were unaware of their surroundings...

Just did that. I was traveling in the direction where there was no yellow line, and clear view starts further back than my shot.

Whilst out there I saw 5 log trucks, which is what I was alluding to earlier. If it is not safe for me to travel in the same direction, imagine how she would have reacted to that.

The lanes are 3.7m each side. A car is about 2m wide.
So, worst case scenario 7.4m(total width) - 4m(2 cars) = 3.4m
3.4m divided by 3 lands = 1.13m

So in theory there would have been 1m each side of each vehicle.

[The Stranger]

Fark, what an eye opener.
Got to be quick and get back to court soon.
So far I have been there since 9:00.
All I wish to do is enter e not guilty plee and obtain a status date, but already it has cost me 5 hrs. Seriously considering pleading guilty just to get the hell out of there as there may be another 2 appearances.
Either way I loose. Damn I hate that.

But it is interesting none the less.
First off I am like a glow worm.
Second, the number of cases where people come up and there are subsequent or other charges pending and/or warrants outstanding and/or with many many multiple charges is incredible.

One guy driving whilst disqualified for the dozenth time just got a further six months disqualification from today, no costs. What? Like he is not going to do it again?
Easy to see why they (disqualified drivers) are over represented in accident stats.

Take their bloody cars, easy to drive without a license, hard to drive without a car.

[The Pastor]

You'll be sweet can.

The system is this(traffic related charges), Charge first, ask questions later (or never) and let the corts deal with it.

If you have any sort of defence you will usally/easily win.

The stratergy to have is, Clearly state your case. Then pick holes in the witnesses evidence (you get the option to ask them questions) If they say ONE thing wrong eg color of the car, time of the day, date of the day [get them to say 2PM TUESDAY THE 4TH OF MARCH as the date (the format not the date) if they get it wrong, you get off- ( thats how I got off driving while disqualified).

Any lawyer worth his bill will do this all for you though. But Even if you pick holes, and the judge doesnt like you he can still charge you, just him get on side and its a pice of piss mate)

In my case, the witness keeped mumbling and my lawyer keeped (almost yelling) asking him to speak up, the judge got real angry at the witness and even made him say "look at me, stop mumbiling" which was cool. And the bit about calling him a liar was nice.

Rm

[Maverick]

We could import some female Ockers, they drink just as much as the blokes. Better yet we could import some Irish girls, they really know how to drink!

mmmm... Irish Girls.... :yes:

[chickenfunkstar]

Fark, what an eye opener.
Got to be quick and get back to court soon.
So far I have been there since 9:00.
All I wish to do is enter e not guilty plee and obtain a status date, but already it has cost me 5 hrs. Seriously considering pleading guilty just to get the hell out of there as there may be another 2 appearances.
Either way I loose. Damn I hate that.



Been there done that, its incredibly frustrating huh? When I was there it took me about 4 hours to enter a plea of not guilty and to get a hearing date set. On the day of the hearing I was told that the police had dropped the case within about 1/2 an hour of arriving but then had to wait over 2 hours untill my case was called and I could be 'officially' told. Arrragh!

If you plead guilty you can usually get away before morning tea. I think it was the registrar who told me that quite a few people change their plea from not to guilty so they won't have to wait so long.

I don't think i'd bother defending a $150 ticket again. Kinda different if its a more serious charge though I guess.

[Lil_Byte]

Sounds like you had a great introduction tio the New Zealand Justice System.

:scooter:

[Drunken Monkey]

http://www.abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/tch06061.shtml

think that proves it can be done from reading the first little bit so there :yes:

That's an intersting article and I can understand the points for sure, but it still seems odd. I mean surely you can still alter the metadata at the byte level, accessing the binary data on the disc directly rather than the .jpeg itself through some 3rd party software, and alter a few hex offsets without leaving any evidence?

[sAsLEX]

That's an intersting article and I can understand the points for sure, but it still seems odd. I mean surely you can still alter the metadata at the byte level, accessing the binary data on the disc directly rather than the .jpeg itself through some 3rd party software, and alter a few hex offsets without leaving any evidence?

yes but I think that explains a way of documenting the image capture etc so that it is good as evidence, rather than proving that it cant be manipulated by smart pants type people

[Drunken Monkey]

yes but I think that explains a way of documenting the image capture etc so that it is good as evidence, rather than proving that it cant be manipulated by smart pants type people

duh me.....*removes propeller cap*

[scumdog]

Been there done that, its incredibly frustrating huh? When I was there it took me about 4 hours to enter a plea of not guilty and to get a hearing date set. On the day of the hearing I was told that the police had dropped the case within about 1/2 an hour of arriving but then had to wait over 2 hours untill my case was called and I could be 'officially' told. Arrragh!

If you plead guilty you can usually get away before morning tea. I think it was the registrar who told me that quite a few people change their plea from not to guilty so they won't have to wait so long.

I don't think i'd bother defending a $150 ticket again. Kinda different if its a more serious charge though I guess.

And certain people advocate "defend everything, all your speeding tickets because if everybody did it it it'll clog the Court system" - well it's too late for that eh?:innocent:

[Patrick]

Looking at the bridge and the clear vis shown in your photos, makes it all look good for ya. Unless there is more to this?

[chickenfunkstar]

And certain people advocate "defend everything, all your speeding tickets because if everybody did it it it'll clog the Court system" - well it's too late for that eh?:innocent:


Lol, I guess so. Its a shame it takes so long if you're genuinly innocent though. The way the system is run seems to waste everyones time, I can't see why you couldn't just ask the registrar to tick the not guitly box next to your name and be done with it. That would take about 15 seconds.

[scumdog]

Lol, I guess so. Its a shame it takes so long if you're genuinly innocent though. The way the system is run seems to waste everyones time, I can't see why you couldn't just ask the registrar to tick the not guitly box next to your name and be done with it. That would take about 15 seconds.

There are soooo many ways that time is wasted needlessly, i.e. a person pleading not guilty who have been caught red-handed - but plead not guilty just in case something crops up to get them off - then at the 11th hour plead guilty at the next hearing....
Or do the above but change their plea at the last minute when they find out its a 'soft' judge, the list goes on and on with time wasters..

[kickingzebra]

not to mention the enourmous sums of tax payers money that keep an outdated inefficiant system alive.
But surely the protocol upholds the scariness of the place, and hence provides initiative to stay out? Unless of course you are an honest person trying to defend your integrity, in which case it just rubs salt in the wounds.
Imagine charging the department with lost time.
what 50 people per day on the average $20 an hour, times 8 hours, times 300 days per year, for every major courthouse in NZ?

Nasty bill to foot. Career criminals need to be treated differently. When I went to court for careless use of a motorvehicle, I thought all the Mob members etc hanging around were gonna start a gang war in the atrium. Not good on the OSH report surely either??!
In a full court you have to sit next to some twat who hasn't bathed in a week, is half stoned, and angry at the world for some percieved wrong, so takes to beating up his kids and missus... etc etc. Hands in pockets to keep hold of wallet etc...

Flip, if you can't feel safe in the middle of the territory of the law, where the hell can you?

[Lou Girardin]

There are soooo many ways that time is wasted needlessly, i.e. a person pleading not guilty who have been caught red-handed - but plead not guilty just in case something crops up to get them off - then at the 11th hour plead guilty at the next hearing....
Or do the above but change their plea at the last minute when they find out its a 'soft' judge, the list goes on and on with time wasters..

Civil rights a such a drag. Innocence till PROVEN guilty and all that.

[The Stranger]

And certain people advocate "defend everything, all your speeding tickets because if everybody did it it it'll clog the Court system" - well it's too late for that eh?:innocent:

Just got back now, and after today I think that is a sterling idea. Plus, now I feel it is my civic duty to report every cage screw up that I see to the Police snitch line.

Mind you, even without my help the courts are more than adequately able to clog themselves up.

[Maverick]

Just got back now, and after today I think that is a sterling idea. Plus, now I feel it is my civic duty to report every cage screw up that I see to the Police snitch line.

Mind you, even without my help the courts are more than adequately able to clog themselves up.

So what happened in the end? I hope things went alright???

[Swoop]

And who are they calling as witnesses (+ how many)?

[The Stranger]

What does your summary of facts that they disclosed to you say?

Ok, I am a little confused here.

I had read it before, but did not focus attention on that, rather on the witness statement.

However the summary of "facts" is significantly at odds with the witness statement and the actual squence of events. So I guess the question is, what role does the summary of facts play in the trial?

Will take more time to type than I have right now, but I will endeavour to do this tomorrow some time.

[sAsLEX]

Summary of Facts is basically that, a brief summary of what the police believe happened.

How does it differ from the witness statement?

Ok to summarise:

The summary of facts is much like a film adaptation of a book, in this case the witness testimony, where the director , in this case a cop, decides which parts to embelish and which parts to leave out and also which bits to just plain make up and add to the original story. In the end you end up with nothing like the book and you feel violated after seeing the movies blasphemous attempt at representing your favourite novel......( you get bum sex from the judge).

[sAsLEX]

lol....time for you to bend over...

To be honest the summary of facts should not differ from the witness statement in any way. This is because the Police are relying totally on a witness rather than Police turning up at a scene and making a decision on what happened based on the facts that are stated and physical evidence.

ummm so why would our man here, and many others I have talked to find that when they get to court the facts aren't allowed to get in the way of a good story...........

[Patrick]

ummm so why would our man here, and many others I have talked to find that when they get to court the facts aren't allowed to get in the way of a good story...........

Its the same on KB... or TV3....

[sAsLEX]

Its the same on KB... or TV3....

It was your kneck of the woods a cop was recently belittled by a judge for his near purgerous accusations against a fellow KBer

[Patrick]

Still... NO IT WASN'T!!!!! AGAIN...!!! Yes, it was south of the Bombays, but that is about it...there is a whole wide piece of world south of the Bombays you know...

[sAsLEX]

Still... NO IT WASN'T!!!!! AGAIN...!!! Yes, it was south of the Bombays, but that is about it...there is a whole wide piece of world south of the Bombays you know...

Was it not Taranaki?..... you are showing you idiocy by thinking my place of residence is that of my birth. Grew up between mountain and surf mate.

[Patrick]

Was it not Taranaki?..... you are showing you idiocy by thinking my place of residence is that of my birth. Grew up between mountain and surf mate.

You're showing your own idiocy... Te Kuiti Court is in the King Country... Te Kuiti HP is in the King Country too, funny enough. Perhaps its a conspiracy...

Awakino is patrolled by Te Kuiti, but Awakino is North Taranaki I suppose, but :whocares:

[ZeroIndex]

Ok, I am a little confused here.

I had read it before, but did not focus attention on that, rather on the witness statement.

However the summary of "facts" is significantly at odds with the witness statement and the actual squence of events. So I guess the question is, what role does the summary of facts play in the trial?

Will take more time to type than I have right now, but I will endeavour to do this tomorrow some time.

umm.... unrelated topic: happy birthday :clap:

[scumdog]

Ok to summarise:

The summary of facts is much like a film adaptation of a book, in this case the witness testimony, where the director , in this case a cop, decides which parts to embelish and which parts to leave out and also which bits to just plain make up and add to the original story. In the end you end up with nothing like the book and you feel violated after seeing the movies blasphemous attempt at representing your favourite novel......( you get bum sex from the judge).


ok to summarise: If ALL summarys were THAT different to the witness statements any half-arsed lawyer would pull the case to pieces when he saw the disclosure and noticed the inconsistencies between the two - but think what you want........

[The Stranger]

ok to summarise: If ALL summarys were THAT different to the witness statements any half-arsed lawyer would pull the case to pieces when he saw the disclosure and noticed the inconsistencies between the two - but think what you want........

Spoke to the Lawyer, he basically advised to take the summary of facts with a grain of salt.
The inference I got was that they are unimportant when it comes to proving or disproving the case.
If so then really the contents are moot.

[The Stranger]

Spoke to the Lawyer, he basically advised to take the summary of facts with a grain of salt.
The inference I got was that they are unimportant when it comes to proving or disproving the case.
If so then really the contents are moot.

Well another appearance today for a status hearing.
We requested a defended hearing.
The judge took a look at the summary of "facts" and suggested that a defended hearing was probably not necessary and that the Police may like to consider reducing the charge to careless. Initial response from the Police was no, then after a bit more discussion the judge went on to suggest careless with no loss of license which the Police then agreed to consider.
Another status hearing date is set down for 28/11/06.

The way it went down looked like he was cautioning both the Police to reduce it and me to accept it or their would be consequences. I may be wrong, but that was the impression I got.

So in conclusion,
The summary of "facts" obviously does come into play as the wording appears that the Police had 2 complainants about the incident, when there is only one and their (the complainant's) conjecture was apparently treated as fact by the judge, but hey not a bad result anyway for today.

The wheels of Justice are obviously not powered by Suzuki, a defended hearing date would not have been available until March next year, some 14 months after the incident.

[sAsLEX]

The wheels of Justice are obviously not powered by Suzuki, a defended hearing date would not have been available until March next year, some 14 months after the incident.


Moving at the speed of a stalictite

And costing you how much for what was in your eyes a simple pass which scared granny friends with the police?

[adiddy]

mate , that sucks hard... better keep an eye on my riding - or cover up 1 letter as to not get "REOPORTED"

my mate got done for "loss of traction" the other day (SATURDAY) in a cage on a gravel road while doing a u turn in the country at 9.30pm he was on his restricted liscnece with two passengers...

So ok yes he had passengers, the loss of traction was almost impossible to avoid if he didnt wanna go 3 kilometeres up the road to find another road to turn down.

By the time the police finished with him it was 10.15 they told him his car was being impounded for loss of traction , and 400$ fine for passengers and he was lucky THAT HE WAS BEING KIND and not doing him for after
HOURS
WTF?! Justice system - (INSERT TUI AD HERE)

[scumdog]

my mate got done for "loss of traction" the other day (SATURDAY) in a cage on a gravel road while doing a u turn in the country at 9.30pm he was on his restricted liscnece with two passengers...

So ok yes he had passengers, the loss of traction was almost impossible to avoid if he didnt wanna go 3 kilometeres up the road to find another road to turn down.

WTF?! Justice system - (INSERT TUI AD HERE)
The sustained loss of traction bit is a tad harsh - but the breach of restircted licence bit is bad-bloody-luck, he KNEW he had these passengers there when they got in.

Oh, the 'didn't wanna go 3km up the road' bit for an excuse for the skid U-turn is a bit pathetic, still ya gotta try eh?

[adiddy]

it was the country - honestly there was nothing in it !!!!!
yes he understands about the passengers thats not the point ...
loss of traction is a load of bs it was like 0.5 seconds i was told it has to be a minimum of 3 seconds?!
plus the cop tried to say after hours considering he was questioned at 9.30 ....

[The Stranger]

Well pretty much as expected in my post 49 (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=558328&postcount=49) on the day the police reduced the charge to careless and agreed to no loss of license so I pleaded guilty to that.

They had no witness there and I doubt they were prepared for the fact that I did, but legal costs would have exceeded the fine had I proceeded and it really is a roll of the dice. Who knows, the judge may have given them some points for perseverance and I could have wound up with careless anyway.

So I got a $500.00 fine and $130.00 court costs and no doubt a lawyers bill to come, so no winners there as it wasted a lot of court and police time for something so pointless.

Thank you to those that gave me letters, the judge did note them when delivering his reprimand for my fictitious infractions.

On another note, would highly recommend the lawyer. I think I noted in a previous post that he was recommended to me by LooseBruce and has defended a couple of other KBers. Price was reasonable - way cheaper than Auckland lawyers I contacted and he is a petrol head so knows the score.

So after 15 months it is case closed.

[Disco Dan]

reduced the charge to careless

righto, good stuff!

So now your not 'dangerous' just 'careless' - you still coming along to AWNMR tomorrow to give that speech on road safety? :innocent: :shutup:

hehe

Glad its all over and sorted! :Punk: :Punk: :Punk:

[The Pastor]

Ah now the joys of an $1000 lawyers fine.


Well good to see that the cops didnt win. +1

[Finn]

so no winners there as it wasted a lot of court and police time for something so pointless.

But the citizens feel justice has been served and that the roads are a much safer place now.

[Blondini]

One less thing to be concerned about:yes: Glad it is over for ya:done: :love:

[90s]

I do so much dangerous shit how do I know which incident to prepare for?

I would have gone for that as my defence.

Still, happy its all over for you although its sad you wasted so much time and didn't get it thrown out. Thanks for keeping us all in the loop on this.

[scumdog]

Ah now the joys of an $1000 lawyers fine.


Well good to see that the cops didnt win. +1

Hopefully you're not labouring under a misapprehension that the 'cops' are going to have a lot of angst at their 'non-win'.

Still, a shame you had to be put through that and giving you a bad (a worse?) opinion of all cops.

[The Pastor]

Hopefully you're not labouring under a misapprehension that the 'cops' are going to have a lot of angst at their 'non-win'.

I don't give a rats arse what the cops think, as long as they didnt win :D:whocares:

[scumdog]

I don't give a rats arse what the cops think, as long as they didnt win :D:whocares:


Don't focus on this 'win' thing too much, just move on in life....and keep riding, stay alive - there's a whole lot more deadly things to keep your mind on right now on the road than a 'win' that happened in the past

[The Stranger]

Hopefully you're not labouring under a misapprehension that the 'cops' are going to have a lot of angst at their 'non-win'.

Still, a shame you had to be put through that and giving you a bad (a worse?) opinion of all cops.

No Scummy, I don't actually have a bad opinion of cops in general - just you.

Nah seriously, in my view you're a top bastard.
If it weren't for you and Patrick hassling Sixpack and Dover KB would be boring at times. Keep up the good work.

As to the case, was a pain in the arse, but that's life.

[Disco Dan]

was a pain in the arse

*POP* ...my bad.

[Mrs Busa Pete]

was a pain in the arse,


And a nice arse at that. So i have heard:innocent:

[The Stranger]

And a nice arse at that. So i have heard:innocent:

What do mean, you had a good grope when you helped me into that LBD.
Oh wait is this Wendy or Pete?

[Mrs Busa Pete]

What do mean, you had a good grope when you helped me into that LBD.
Oh wait is this Wendy or Pete?\

?????????????????????

[The Stranger]

\

?????????????????????


Uh oh, Pete I am guessing.

[Mrs Busa Pete]

Uh oh, Pete I am guessing.

So what have you been leading us both on you hussy you:love:

[peasea]

If it weren't for you and Patrick hassling Sixpack and Dover KB would be boring at times. Keep up the good work.
.


Yeah, I latched onto that fairly early on in the piece. It's good to see some have the time to dedicate to poking the borax at all and sundry. Great entertainment, so much better than TV. When you hurl abuse at the television that's aimed at tossers like Tony Veitch and Robert Rakete nothing happens. Tell someone on here that you think cops suck or all apple pickers are kiddie fiddlers and watch the excrement hit the air handler!

Bloody funnneeee!

Who can we climb into today? Gay greengrocers?

[ManDownUnder]

What do mean, you had a good grope when you helped me into that LBD.
Oh wait is this Wendy or Pete?

That was me ya queer bastard

[Disco Dan]

Who can we climb into today? Gay greengrocers?

Carnies. Nomades you know.. small hands.. smell like cabbage.

[ManDownUnder]

Who can we climb into today? Gay greengrocers?

Just watch it if they sell you plum juice... juice from their plums is not what you might expect

[peasea]

Just watch it if they sell you plum juice... juice from their plums is not what you might expect

See what I mean????
See what I mean????

[The Stranger]

Just watch it if they sell you plum juice... juice from their plums is not what you might expect

I know better than to ask.

[ManDownUnder]

I know better than to ask.

Think that's risque? Pop by the Gay Butcher, ask for some tenderloin and see what comes up...

[Maha]

Think that's risque? Pop by the Gay Butcher, ask for some tenderloin and see what comes up...

Did that yesterday...hence why i am standing up typing this....:shit:

[ManDownUnder]

Did that yesterday...hence why i am standing up typing this....:shit:

Yeah - that's how Waipu got it's name mate... "coz my sphincter's stretched".

[Indiana_Jones]

They didn't prosocute Helen Clark over the painting bullshit (I think it was that, might be wrong), because it's not in the public interest, but it's in the public's interest to charge me with dangerous driving :p

-Indy

[scumdog]

They didn't prosocute Helen Clark over the painting bullshit (I think it was that, might be wrong), because it's not in the public interest, but it's in the public's interest to charge me with dangerous driving :p

-Indy

Hmmm, not too many people at risk of being squashed by a phoney HelenClark painting.

[Indiana_Jones]

you're right, what was I thinking, nothing sticks to Teflon Helen lol. "I didn't know the motorcade was speeding, I was too busy drinking my tui :p"

-Indy

[Mom]

Yeah - that's how Waipu got it's name mate... "coz my sphincter's stretched".

must spread the rep...........lol

[ManDownUnder]

Hmmm, not too many people at risk of being squashed by a phoney HelenClark painting.

You're right but the commercial value is affected... fraud is also a crime - no?

[sAsLEX]

So after 15 months it is case closed.
Guilty until proven innocent, got to love this justice system we are in where someones life can be fucked over on the story of an old lady who doesn't even show in court to give the judge the ability to judge the witness, instead you were convicted on the cops word?



You're right but the commercial value is affected... fraud is also a crime - no?

No, only speeding or traffic violations these days.......

[ruphus]

Is that it. I sat here reading all the posts and words of wisdom hoping that the caped crusader is leading the fight for justice. I tell ya, it's all a conspiracy to make you tired dragging things like this through the courts when the witness should have been charged instead, for not being medically fit to operate a motor vehicle.

At least now you've joined most of the other Kbers in the 'Careless' club, myself included. oh well.

Hope this weather fines up.

[pritch]

Hmmm, not too many people at risk of being squashed by a phoney HelenClark painting.

Only the career of the odd Police Commissioner?:devil2: