Do I pay this ticket?

[Mitch001]

On our South Island holiday last week it finally happened - got a ticket.
Straight road , only me and one other car, happened to be a mufti cop.
Lucky was only 115 kph. Not too big a deal.
When I got home there was a letter from the cop, date was wrong, my address was wrong on ticket. So he says that ticket is cancelled and he has issued a replacment!
Can they do this? would you pay?

[Nasty]

If you want to go to court and challenge it don't pay.

[Finn]

Don't fight the law. The law will win... They even made a song about it.

[MSTRS]

A clever lawyer would get you off that. Probably. Is $80 and 20 demerits worth his fee tho? Plus the court costs if you lose?

[Blue Velvet]

Is $80 and 20 demerits worth his fee tho? Plus the court costs if you lose?

+1

I'd just pay it. Time = money and all that...

[kiwibryn]

Challenge it but be prepared to pay. Silly bugger, you should never admit to speeding... say your speedo obviously needs adjusting...

[Str8 Jacket]

On our South Island holiday last week it finally happened - got a ticket.
Straight road , only me and one other car, happened to be a mufti cop.
Lucky was only 115 kph. Not too big a deal.
When I got home there was a letter from the cop, date was wrong, my address was wrong on ticket. So he says that ticket is cancelled and he has issued a replacment!
Can they do this? would you pay?


If you want to go to court and challenge it don't pay.

Yep, BUT if you want to go to court then you need to inform the Issuing Authority, in this case the Police that you would like to dispute the fine. If you dont and the fine ends up with the Ministry of (in)Justice then ya fooked and will probably be "forced"to pay it.....

[Tank]

Im thinking that if you go to court you sill still lose. At the end of the day you were speeding, you admit it. The odds of it being thrown out sounds unlikely and you might just end up pissing off the judge.

If you are going to fight a ticket - make sure its a big one.

[Str8 Jacket]

Im thinking that if you go to court you sill still lose. At the end of the day you were speeding, you admit it. The odds of it being thrown out sounds unlikely and you might just end up pissing off the judge.

If you are going to fight a ticket - make sure its a big one.

He's right. Cause if you lose then you'll have t opay court costs as w ell as the ticket AND the judge may decided that the ticket should be higher..... Maybe not worth it?!

[Blue Velvet]

If you are going to fight a ticket - make sure its a big one.

Haha, reminds me of some advice my dad gave me... If you're going to go to jail, make sure it's for something big.

[kiwifruit]

You'd get off it with a little wriggling. May take some time and effort. I'd dispute it :yes:

[vifferman]

They make it quite clear that even if the address and date are wrong, the ticket will still be upheld. Unless you definitely were not speeding, and can prove it, just pay up.

[Coldrider]

Exactly how correct do the facts of the matter have to be, to be presented in Court?, any ol' day where you are somewhere else.

[avgas]

Tell the cop not to bother issuing you a new one, say you managed to pick one up when you got home....from another cop.

[WasPhantom]

Do the crime, do the time. Pay the fine son.

If you don't want to pay fines, stop speeding.

[Str8 Jacket]

Also, if you were actually pulled over for this offence and not caught on camera then you WILL have to pay it unless you dont agree with the speed. Their theory will be: "You know you that you were pulled over so you know you were fined".....

[dickytoo]

a friend of mine tried to get off a ticket once based on a technical error. colour of car was wrongly stated. in the end, he just paid up as the cost of fighting it was not worth the trouble.

[325rocket]

...yes....

[Clockwork]

... also wouldn't any court hearing be held in the SI where the ticket was issued?

[spudchucka]

Closest court to where the alleged offence took place.

[MotoGirl]

They make it quite clear that even if the address and date are wrong, the ticket will still be upheld. Unless you definitely were not speeding, and can prove it, just pay up.

I'm not a legal type but find this interesting. If the date's wrong doesn't this just make it easier to find an excuse why you were somewhere else and couldn't have possibly been speeding?

[Str8 Jacket]

I'm not a legal type but find this interesting. If the date's wrong doesn't this just make it easier to find an excuse why you were somewhere else and couldn't have possibly been speeding?

Well with this particular offence the guy was pulled over so they got his drivers licence and they spoke to the guy, ive had to much to dink to give you an indepth answer...... When I worked for MOJ these types are fines are pretty much impossible to get off....

[MotoGirl]

Well with this particular offence the guy was pulled over so they got his drivers licence and they spoke to the guy, ive had to much to dink to give you an indepth answer...... When I worked for MOJ these types are fines are pretty much impossible to get off....

Would it get challenging if the rider couldn't produce a licence? Still find it interesting that a cop can just change a ticket. Does that not mean they could send me a ticket for an offence I did (say) last year and just change the date to suit? Same principle.

[Str8 Jacket]

Would it get challenging if the rider couldn't produce a licence? Still find it interesting that a cop can just change a ticket. Does that not mean they could send me a ticket for an offence I did (say) last year and just change the date to suit? Same principle.

Yeah, get what your saying... I guess if you were fined for not producing a licence then you'd definately have grounds to disoute!

[Sue VFR]

As you where travelling along a straight piece of road, where was the other car?
Was the mufti car coming towards you? Where was it in relation to the other car?

[Gremlin]

Be happy it wasn't for 136... :crybaby: Now I know why, the lower the SH number, the more crappy the road.


Closest court to where the alleged offence took place.
I believe you can apply to have it moved to a court nearer you (can't remember if you have to plead guilty or not, to get it moved) - but don't know the details in terms of what you can have moved. Did this on my other offence.

[fredie]

wrong date ?? wrong adress?? maybe wrong speed . cop pig fucked up . take it too court:niceone:

[spudchucka]

Be happy it wasn't for 136... :crybaby: Now I know why, the lower the SH number, the more crappy the road.


I believe you can apply to have it moved to a court nearer you (can't remember if you have to plead guilty or not, to get it moved) - but don't know the details in terms of what you can have moved. Did this on my other offence.

Yes you can transfer a charge on a guilty plea. This is still an instant fine however and wont become a court hearing until the person involved elects to defend the charge, (which would suggest they have no intention of pleading guilty to transfer the matter to a closer court).

[geoffm]

Onus of proof is on the defendant in traffic charges - the cops just need to say you are guilty, and lo and behold, there you are, a menace to society and deserve everything you get and more.
Real crimes, the cops have to provide evidence, but this does not apply.
Since you got pulled over, they could always get the cop to identify you in court as a witness. This is not necessary as cops never lie or make mistakes, so you must be guilty if they say so. Pay up and consider it a donation to the Labour Party reelection fund

[homer]

i would go to court

if the addy and the date are all incorrect you have to get off it as you wernt there that day or time ,were you

if it saves you 20 points isnt it worth the cost of the lawyer
after all if the points didnt exist at all how much money would slow us down

Personally i dont believe the officers in this country should be able to change a ticket after its issued ,
as you cant change the log book in a truck and they can ping you weeks later just by looking back through it

Good argument for your lawyer

Maybe everyone should go changing documents just for the hell of it at a later date
some people do and look where they end up .

[doc]

On our South Island holiday last week it finally happened - got a ticket.
my address was wrong on ticket.
Just ignore it they will send the ticket to some other poor sucker. Admit nothing .

[scumdog]

Yes they can cancel a ticket with errors on it and issue another one with the correct details.

But what would I know, just read and believe what the other wannabe bush lawyer know-it-alls have posted on the topic if you want..............:crazy:

[Patrick]

A clever lawyer would get you off that. Probably. Is $80 and 20 demerits worth his fee tho? Plus the court costs if you lose?

$400 per hour.. hmmm... yeah, good idea for a $80 ticket... Dont forget to add court costs on too.


Challenge it but be prepared to pay. Silly bugger, you should never admit to speeding... say your speedo obviously needs adjusting...

Speedo out is no defence.


I believe you can apply to have it moved to a court nearer you

only for a guilty plea. Otherwise, defended hearing in the court nearest thelocation of the offence.


wrong date ?? wrong adress?? maybe wrong speed . cop pig fucked up . take it too court:niceone:

Read the thread... re issued with another ticket after the errors were noticed. New ticket is correct, assumedly. Old inaccurate one was cancelled (ie: doesn't exist anymore...).


Onus of proof is on the defendant in traffic charges - the cops just need to say you are guilty, and lo and behold, there you are, a menace to society and deserve everything you get and more.
Real crimes, the cops have to provide evidence, but this does not apply.
Since you got pulled over, they could always get the cop to identify you in court as a witness. This is not necessary as cops never lie or make mistakes, so you must be guilty if they say so. Pay up and consider it a donation to the Labour Party reelection fund

Bwahaha... no evidence in court for speeding? What about speedo calibration certificates, rader calibration certificates, log book filled in, user certified to use it, admissions made, all for a $80 ticket... sheesh.. Identity is not an issue for tickets. The ticket was issued, full stop, end of story. How the hell is a snake going to remember every face to every ticket issued? Some of those fellas issue 1000's a year.

But quite right, I say you're guilty, so lo and behold, there you are...


Maybe everyone should go changing documents just for the hell of it at a later date
some people do and look where they end up .

He didn't. He found an error and issued a new one, cancelling the old one. The problem is?


Yes they can cancel a ticket with errors on it and issue another one with the correct details.

But what would I know, just read and believe what the other wannabe bush lawyer know-it-alls have posted on the topic if you want..............:crazy:

On ya scummy... bwahahahahahahahahaha... Must spead more blingy stuff... Just trying to save the newbie some $$$...

[Skyryder]

If he got the date wrong you could challange on the grounds that he got the speed wrong. At the end of the day it would would come down to who has the most credibility. Bob Jones would hire a team of lawyers for something like this just to prove a point but unless you have some serious dosh to take on the 'system' the judge is going to belive the copper. If you were speeding I'd be inclined to pay up and move on.

The other move you could make is a letter to the Minister of Police telling her that you expect a better standard of proffessionalism from her department. Won't change anything but might make you feel better knowing that the cop needs to 'up' his play.

Skyryder

[scumdog]

The other move you could make is a letter to the Minister of Police telling her that you expect a better standard of proffessionalism from her department. Won't change anything but might make you feel better knowing that the cop needs to 'up' his play.

Skyryder

It might make him feel better - but the cop certainly won't feel any different or realize he needs to 'up his play' as he'll receive no notification that the letter ever existed.

Oh, and I guess doing a job 100% correctly a 100% of the time must feel good for those that can do it - us lesser mortals have an 'oops' now and then....

[duckonin]

:crybaby:Just pay it not worth any other consideration at all, try and take it to court multiply the $80 at least ten times for and end result if you use a solicitor or consider the time spent sitting around a court room with all the other dead beats of society, $80 bucks what three tanks of gas, or there abouts....anyway what road was he patrolling, wil be in the South for a month as of Wednesday, think I will stick to the speed limit unless I'm travelling behind a hare, then he will be my radar for me..

[Skyryder]

It might make him feel better - but the cop certainly won't feel any different or realize he needs to 'up his play' as he'll receive no notification that the letter ever existed.

Oh, and I guess doing a job 100% correctly a 100% of the time must feel good for those that can do it - us lesser mortals have an 'oops' now and then....

Not entirely true. Last thing anyone wants is 'their' boss on their backs. I'd be sending a copy to the area commander. One of the things I'd be asking is for conformation that the officer has been spoken too on the need for accuracy of documentation of facts. That should do it.

No SD I do not expect 100%. We all make mistakes but as a member of the public I do expect the police to 'document' facts accuratley 100%. The police expect no less of me.

Skyryder

[scumdog]

Not entirely true. Last thing anyone wants is 'their' boss on their backs. No SD I do not expect 100%. We all make mistakes but as a member of the public I do expect the police to 'document' facts accuratley 100%. The police expect no less of me.

Skyryder

One ticket (or even a half dozen) won't even raise a ripple for the boss.)

And they did document the facts 100% - hence the second ticket, the 100% accurate one.

Expect no less from you?? what do you mean? They want you to do no faster than 100kph, not even 101kph?.

[Skyryder]

One ticket (or even a half dozen) won't even raise a ripple for the boss.)

And they did document the facts 100% - hence the second ticket, the 100% accurate one.

Expect no less from you?? what do you mean? They want you to do no faster than 100kph, not even 101kph?.

If the officer documented the original ticket 100% correctly there would be no need for the second.

As I understand the police have considerable resources at their disposal from a patrol car. Establishing the correct day and date and year I surmise is one of them.

What do I mean??

If a 'statement' is made to the police that will be used in a court of law there is an expectation from the police that the statement is factualy correct. Certainly pertaining to the date that the statement matters refer's to.

Skyryder

[Patrick]

If the officer documented the original ticket 100% correctly there would be no need for the second.

As I understand the police have considerable resources at their disposal from a patrol car. Establishing the correct day and date and year I surmise is one of them.

What do I mean??

If a 'statement' is made to the police that will be used in a court of law there is an expectation from the police that the statement is factualy correct. Certainly pertaining to the date that the statement matters refer's to.

Skyryder

So the second ticket is inaccurate? If so, challenge it then... If not, he has issued a 100% correct ticket after cancelling one that was inaccurate. Job well done, give that man a donut.

[spudchucka]

As I understand the police have considerable resources at their disposal from a patrol car. Establishing the correct day and date and year I surmise is one of them.

Every cop has a notebook, not just a ticket book.

At the start of each day a cop writes the date in their notebook, at the start of each new entry for that day they will write in the time. Consequently, if they have used their notebook, (they will have because that's what cops do) they would have recorded the details of the offence, (date & time etc) correctly.

They may have made a mistake in writing out the infringement notice but since they have recorded the details correctly in their notebook in the first instance they are then able to refer to these notes when issuing a second ticket subsequent to cancelling the first one.

[Skyryder]

Every cop has a notebook, not just a ticket book.

At the start of each day a cop writes the date in their notebook, at the start of each new entry for that day they will write in the time. Consequently, if they have used their notebook, (they will have because that's what cops do) they would have recorded the details of the offence, (date & time etc) correctly.

They may have made a mistake in writing out the infringement notice but since they have recorded the details correctly in their notebook in the first instance they are then able to refer to these notes when issuing a second ticket subsequent to cancelling the first one.

So if you know the cop recorded the details correctly as you state in your post how is it that he gets the date right in one book and the date wrong in the other? That's assuming that he 'did' write the correct date in his notebook. You do realise of course that the 'logical' assumption from my position is that if he got it wrong on the infringment notice then there is also the likelehood he got it wrong in his notebook too. So from what you have told me it is 'possible' that the cop made two mistakes instead of one.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

Anything is possible mate, the cop might even be human. Wouldn't that be a shock!

[CookMySock]

When I got home there was a letter from the cop, date was wrong, my address was wrong on ticket. So he says that ticket is cancelled and he has issued a replacment!
Can they do this? would you pay?No, and No.

First, do NOTHING until they send you the computer printed notice. Then reply thusly ;

"Dear Sir,
I have received an infringement notice dated blah/blah/blah in the area state highway blah etc.

I can prove I was not in this area on this date.

The street address quoted on the infringement notice is NOT MY ADDRESS. I have never lived at 123 forgetitpig street, pigtown.

My legal advice is to not pay this fine, and to not enter into discussion with regard to it.


best regards,
up yours etc"

You will get then another letter from them probably in ALL CAPS to which you should reply in similar fashion "MY LEGAL ADVICE IS THAT THIS INFRINGEMENT NOTICE WILL NOT STAND IN A COURT OF LAW".

They will know you have them, coz you do.

DB

[DingoZ]

Every cop has a notebook, not just a ticket book.

At the start of each day a cop writes the date in their notebook, at the start of each new entry for that day they will write in the time. Consequently, if they have used their notebook, (they will have because that's what cops do) they would have recorded the details of the offence, (date & time etc) correctly.

They may have made a mistake in writing out the infringement notice but since they have recorded the details correctly in their notebook in the first instance they are then able to refer to these notes when issuing a second ticket subsequent to cancelling the first one.

XXXX

Plus it is also on record at Comms, what time the officer stopped the vehicle, where they stopped it and what enquiries were done. Another form of checking which can be used as a referance. Sometimes things are written down wrong - this happens...Human error....:doh:...Like everyone else hasn't made an error from time to time....

XXXX

[CookMySock]

remember it's not like it is a major P Lab bust.. its only an $80 fine and they have much more interesting and productive thing so tspend a whole morning on.

DB

[Str8 Jacket]

remember it's not like it is a major P Lab bust.. its only an $80 fine and they have much more interesting and productive thing so tspend a whole morning on.

DB

Your are very correct.... however, they will just pass it on to the Ministry of inJustice who actually DO have the time and resources to waste as much time in collecting it. It just becomes a pain in the bum for you just cause you didnt want to pay $80......

[crazybigal]

tell you what
why dont you goto court and when you get wacked by the judge with court costs, all the people on here who said fight it can help you pay it:niceone:

[CookMySock]

...just cause you didnt want to pay $80......I agree. For some of us it is just a game to play though, and we like that sort of crap.

Others don't - celebrate that we can choose !

DB

[spudchucka]

"MY LEGAL ADVICE IS THAT THIS INFRINGEMENT NOTICE WILL NOT STAND IN A COURT OF LAW".

It will stand up in court and when the Infringement Bureau receives your letter they will just put you in the moron basket, wait till you don't turn up for your court hearing and have you convicted in your absence.

[spudchucka]

remember it's not like it is a major P Lab bust.. its only an $80 fine and they have much more interesting and productive thing so tspend a whole morning on.

DB

The Infringement Bureau has interesting and productive things to do? Why haven't I been told this before?

[CookMySock]

The thing to rely on is, the pigs don't like egg on their face in front of the judge - it's not a professional look for them when they need all the credibility they can get (in court anyway - credibility in public irrelevant.) When the judge is shown yet another line of collossal blunders all for an $80 ticket, it doesnt look good for them at all.

So exploit any mistake they make with as much bullshit and strong wording as possible, and if you are lucky they will say "ahhh fuckit" and throw it in the rubbish bin. It helps to mention a few large organisations, such as the NZRTA lawyers etc - that makes then swallow hard.

I haven't been ticketed for anything for years and years, and I don't aim to be, but I know a bit about how to fuck people up so they go elsewhere.

While I dislike the pigs intensely (rant deleted) I am glad they are there getting the pissheads and other morons off the road so they don't kill your and my teenage daughters.

nuff sed

DB

[jafar]

They make it quite clear that even if the address and date are wrong, the ticket will still be upheld. Unless you definitely were not speeding, and can prove it, just pay up.

Wrong they must have all of the imformation correct or the ticket is invalid

[GIXser]

Do the crime, do the time. Pay the fine son.

If you don't want to pay fines, stop speeding.

spoken like a true homosexual

[spudchucka]

The thing to rely on is, the pigs don't like egg on their face in front of the judge - it's not a professional look for them when they need all the credibility they can get (in court anyway - credibility in public irrelevant.) When the judge is shown yet another line of collossal blunders all for an $80 ticket, it doesnt look good for them at all.

So exploit any mistake they make with as much bullshit and strong wording as possible, and if you are lucky they will say "ahhh fuckit" and throw it in the rubbish bin. It helps to mention a few large organisations, such as the NZRTA lawyers etc - that makes then swallow hard.

I haven't been ticketed for anything for years and years, and I don't aim to be, but I know a bit about how to fuck people up so they go elsewhere.

While I dislike the pigs intensely (rant deleted) I am glad they are there getting the pissheads and other morons off the road so they don't kill your and my teenage daughters.

nuff sed

DB

I can see why you live in Edgecumbe!

Minor traffic matters are heard before JP's not a judge. Mistakes like this are quite common, tickets get cancelled and reissued frequently. If the mistake was one that would result in the ticket getting thrown out in court the Infringement Bureau will simply cancel it and send out a letter advising such.

[madandy]

On our South Island holiday last week it finally happened - got a ticket.
Straight road , only me and one other car, happened to be a mufti cop.
Lucky was only 115 kph. Not too big a deal.
When I got home there was a letter from the cop, date was wrong, my address was wrong on ticket. So he says that ticket is cancelled and he has issued a replacment!
Can they do this? would you pay?

Confused yet Mitch? :crazy:
You will receive a ticket with your name on it, your bike's rego on it, your rider license details on it...seriously mate...$80.

[Soul.Trader]

Wrong they must have all of the imformation correct or the ticket is invalid

WRONG mate. A minor clerical error in dates, names, number plates etc is irrelevant. Do you really believe that our legal system relies on no one ever making a mistake? Tickets will NOT become invalid due to clerical errors. Period.

[scumdog]

Wrong they must have all of the imformation correct or the ticket is invalid

Sure.

But the original ticket was cancelled eh!

The new one was correct.

I hope you're only trolling and not planning to join the other KB 'I know the law' morons giving erroneous legal advice??

[jafar]

WRONG mate. A minor clerical error in dates, names, number plates etc is irrelevant. Do you really believe that our legal system relies on no one ever making a mistake? Tickets will NOT become invalid due to clerical errors. Period.

Strange how I have had a few reversed because of 'clerical errors' in the past then isn't it.
ANY clerical error in the ORIGINAL TICKET is enough to get it thrown out.
Any half decent lawyer will have a field day with this

[Soul.Trader]

Strange how I have had a few reversed because of 'clerical errors' in the past then isn't it.
ANY clerical error in the ORIGINAL TICKET is enough to get it thrown out.
Any half decent lawyer will have a field day with this
Without going into the details, I cant comment on your situation. But you're correct - clerical errors will see the ticket promptly cancelled. And then reissued within minutes.

[jafar]

Sure.

But the original ticket was cancelled eh!

The new one was correct.

I hope you're only trolling and not planning to join the other KB 'I know the law' morons giving erroneous legal advice??

It would seem the original ticket was wrong & the officer then wrote a new one with the correct information on it, or is it ??
Is he able to write yet another ticket for this if he or his boss finds yet another error ??????
It would be unlikely that prosecution would proceed if this ticket was challenged.

& no I'm neither trolling or claiming to be a bush lawyer

[spudchucka]

ANY clerical error in the ORIGINAL TICKET is enough to get it thrown out.

Why do you think that they cancel it and issue another with the correct details?

[jahrasti]

Why do you think that they cancel it and issue another with the correct details?


I wouldn't even bother anymore as it's not getting through. :shutup:

[scumdog]

Explanations from those who know on this thread = :brick::brick::brick: and:bash:

[MGST]

I got pingind for 69k on Tamaki Drive last month. The dipshit cop ( he was white, and a Kiwi ) that wrote out the ticket spelt my name wrong ( copied off my licence ), spelt the road I live on wrong, spelt the suburb I live in wrong, and put down a non-existant class of vehicle. So I wrote to Wellington and said that I will settle for them throwing away the ticket. They wrote back, saying that the ticket is not a legal document so it doesn't matter if there are "minor clerical errors" on it, and quoted some case from 1993 about some similar thing where the court said the ticket stands, and they want me to pay it. Fuck that shit!!

I don't have the time or money for lawyers etc, so I wrote a cheque for the ticket ( $120 ) and wrote a shitty letter saying that if the ticket is not a legal document then there is no legal obligation for me to pay it, and if that's the best their officers can do no wonder no one respects them. It's the old "do as I say, not as I do" routine.

Useless fucks.

[madandy]

Is it really that crucial that Police are perfect spellers? You were speeding in a 50 zone mate. That's the worst offense in NZ didn't ya know?
I can understand people getting off fines where the fine itself is unreasonable but in a case where you've been caught fairly whats the big deal? You know you were in the wrong. HTFU. or get a radar detector.

[nick69]

The police can and do cancel then reissue tickets. It is lawful and will stand up in court as long as they have reissued it in a timely fashion. If you fail to pay it you will find yourself in court and paying the court costs if found guilty. :Police:
Its easy really if you dont want a ticket dont speed, they cant give out tickets without someone doing something wrong. Just chalk down to experience and make sure you are careful in future. I know this wont bode well with some people on here but you cant please everyone. :no:

[Patrick]

No, and No.

First, do NOTHING until they send you the computer printed notice. Then reply thusly ;

Blah blah...

That will be the notice replacing the dud one, the right one, ay?



I agree. For some of us it is just a game to play though, and we like that sort of crap.

Others don't - celebrate that we can choose !

DB

Bailiffs love that game too. Don't pay, they happen along and see fines outstanding, turn it into a warrant to seize property on the spot, and bingo, bye bye bike/car/whatever... Sold to defer the fines and costs accumulated. Doesn't matter if it isn't yours either... there is a thing called "apparent use of" and it is then deemed to be yours.


Wrong they must have all of the imformation correct or the ticket is invalid

No. Just most of it correct. And as fore the speelling.... hoo gives a rats ass (or is that arse?). Its the new standard out there... no one can spell any more.

[Divot]

It will stand up in court and when the Infringement Bureau receives your letter they will just put you in the moron basket, wait till you don't turn up for your court hearing and have you convicted in your absence.

Is that the D.S.G.F letter?

[jafar]

No. Just most of it correct. And as fore the speelling.... hoo gives a rats ass (or is that arse?). Its the new standard out there... no one can spell any more.[/QUOTE]



Does this mean that next time I get a ticket & it has the wrong date, wrong time, wrong street, wrong name, wrong speed, wrong car, wrong rego, wrong driver, wrong spleeling . That I should just pay it cos the orificer needs to keep his quota up ?:laugh:
Oh thats right they don't have "quota's" what was I thinking :doh:

[scumdog]

No. Just most of it correct. And as fore the speelling.... hoo gives a rats ass (or is that arse?). Its the new standard out there... no one can spell any more.



Does this mean that next time I get a ticket & it has the wrong date, wrong time, wrong street, wrong name, wrong speed, wrong car, wrong rego, wrong driver, wrong spleeling . That I should just pay it cos the orificer needs to keep his quota up ?:laugh: :doh:[/QUOTE]

Have you NOT followed this thread at all?:shit:

Ya wait until the proper ticket arrives - the first one is just a teaser...

[Soul.Trader]

Does this mean that next time I get a ticket & it has the wrong date, wrong time, wrong street, wrong name, wrong speed, wrong car, wrong rego, wrong driver, wrong spleeling . That I should just pay it cos the orificer needs to keep his quota up ?:laugh:
Oh thats right they don't have "quota's" what was I thinking :doh:

Or, why not just stop getting tickets? You talk as if the cops are the bad guys, but you're the one knowingly breakign the law. It doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not, it's your obligation to follow it.

[BIHB@0610]

You are just lucky you didn't hit someone. At 110km/h in a car you are twice as likely to crash as at 100km/h (don't ask where I heard that statistic, I freely admit I can't remember - think it was on the Dominion Post website - if challenged I'll happily retract it).

You might think speeding isn't a big deal, but it's dangerous and illegal. If you speed and get caught, apologise to the cop (I mean it!!!) for wasting his time, be thankful you didn't hurt anyone, and pay the fine like a real man.

By trying to challenge the ticket because of errors, possibly dragging it into a hearing, you are wasting everyone's time. That's time that the cops could be spending out on the road helping people after an accident, comforting the dying, stopping drunk drivers, redirecting traffic after a truck has rolled around a blind corner, and doing what they do best - keeping us all safe.

So, to take it that one step further, while you play your silly little games, you are putting my family at risk because there are less police out there to protect and help us.:mad:

[CookMySock]

They wrote back, saying that the ticket is not a legal document so it doesn't matter if there are "minor clerical errors" on itYes this is correct, and you are skrewed.

DONT REPLY TO THE HANDWRITTEN INFRINGEMENT NOTICE. AT ALL. SAY NUTHIN. NADA.

Wait for the computer printed one and when that is incorrect then tell them to stick THAT one up their arse.

DB

[Soul.Trader]

...And as already stated, they'll say "whoops a few minor clerical errors, here's a new ticket to stick up your own arse".

[CookMySock]

Is it really that crucial that Police are perfect spellers? You were speeding in a 50 zone mate. That's the worst offense in NZ didn't ya know?
I can understand people getting off fines where the fine itself is unreasonable but in a case where you've been caught fairly whats the big deal? You know you were in the wrong. HTFU. or get a radar detector.The discussion is not about spelling or wrong-or-right, the discussion is about how to get off a speeding ticket on a technicality.

Exceeding the speed limit is against the law, as is downloading copyrighted material, as is double parking, as is smoking dope, as is installing unlicensed software, and the list goes on..

The fact is, many or most people do it anyway and they are able to reconcile their feelings with so so-what, big deal.

Don't get caught with pirated software, smoking dope, speeding, or let ur mrs catch you perving at that 18 yearold coz you are going to get BUSTED! and if you do get busted then carry on that old old kiwi tradition and WEASEL UR FUCKIN WAY OUT OF IT LOL. :spanking:

DB

[davereid]

A Ticket is an account, to swap money and admissio of guilt, for a court case.

ie..

If you don't pay it, the police will prosecute via the courts.

If you do pay it, you have admitted guilt, and so will get the associated demerits etc, but you will not be prosecuted via the courts.

So, the ticket, while it will form part of the prosecution evidence, will not form the basis of the entire case.

So if its wrong, the police can simply correct it, at any time, right up to the time they use it in court as part of evidence.

[Drunken Monkey]

If you contest the ticket, it should automatically be assigned to the district in which the infringement was issued, i.e. where you were in the Sth Island. You should then get a notice advising you of the preliminary hearing. You don't need to attend this, but you do need to write the registrar of that court and advise them of your plea (i.e. not guilty)
You can then write to the registrar again and request the hearing is moved to your local district court. They should grant this (note I said should, not will). Then on the court day you can turn up and hope the police don't send the officer or a rep and you can find a flaw in any written statements they produce to try and get the ticket thrown out. There is a risk the court will still enforce the infringement anyway. They're kinda unpredictable like that.

Court costs start form around $60 and in this case depending on how far you take it can cost a few hundred (not thousands).

It's risky, but it has been known to work (well we have experience with one case where it worked). My old flatmate who works in the courts prosecutions here in Auckland reckons it's not worth the trouble though. If it's not the money and you're the kind of guy who likes to make the bureaucracy work for the sake of working, you can have a go at it. The real cost in everyone's time is actually more than the costs they can sting you with, but it's an expensive way to waste time if you lose.

[Str8 Jacket]

Court costs start form around $60 and in this case depending on how far you take it can cost a few hundred (not thousands).



Court costs are usually $130....
And im pretty sure that if the judge finds you guilty then he can increase th fine to whatever he sees fit. This is what is was like when I worked for MoJ....

[madandy]

I got pingind for 69k on Tamaki Drive last month. The dipshit cop ( he was white, and a Kiwi ) that wrote out the ticket spelt my name wrong ( copied off my licence ), spelt the road I live on wrong, spelt the suburb I live in wrong, and put down a non-existant class of vehicle. So I wrote to Wellington and said that I will settle for them throwing away the ticket. They wrote back, saying that the ticket is not a legal document so it doesn't matter if there are "minor clerical errors" on it, and quoted some case from 1993 about some similar thing where the court said the ticket stands, and they want me to pay it. Fuck that shit!!

I don't have the time or money for lawyers etc, so I wrote a cheque for the ticket ( $120 ) and wrote a shitty letter saying that if the ticket is not a legal document then there is no legal obligation for me to pay it, and if that's the best their officers can do no wonder no one respects them. It's the old "do as I say, not as I do" routine.

Useless fucks.


Is it really that crucial that Police are perfect spellers? You were speeding in a 50 zone mate. That's the worst offense in NZ didn't ya know?
I can understand people getting off fines where the fine itself is unreasonable but in a case where you've been caught fairly whats the big deal? You know you were in the wrong. HTFU. or get a radar detector.


The discussion is not about spelling or wrong-or-right, the discussion is about how to get off a speeding ticket on a technicality.

Exceeding the speed limit is against the law, as is downloading copyrighted material, as is double parking, as is smoking dope, as is installing unlicensed software, and the list goes on..

The fact is, many or most people do it anyway and they are able to reconcile their feelings with so so-what, big deal.

Don't get caught with pirated software, smoking dope, speeding, or let ur mrs catch you perving at that 18 yearold coz you are going to get BUSTED! and if you do get busted then carry on that old old kiwi tradition and WEASEL UR FUCKIN WAY OUT OF IT LOL. :spanking:

DB

Clearly, the post I replied to was about spelling.
Referring to the original post by the thread starterI inferred that the yopic was about weather or not the fine should be paid rather than how to 'weasel' out of paying said fine.

I don't download copyright material (I wouldn't like you stealing my hard work) , double park, use pirated sofware (not even to screw MS), smoke dope or hide from my Mrs.- those things are all unecessary.
When I exceed the open road speed limit I do so using my best judgement and a RD. If I am stopped by a Cop its most likely for good reason, I'm not gonna cry about it but would contest it if it were wrong - if I'm in the wrong it's my loss.
Do the crime do the time. Its called accountability.

[Patrick]

No. Just most of it correct. And as fore the speelling.... hoo gives a rats ass (or is that arse?). Its the new standard out there... no one can spell any more.

Does this mean that next time I get a ticket & it has the wrong date, wrong time, wrong street, wrong name, wrong speed, wrong car, wrong rego, wrong driver, wrong spleeling . That I should just pay it cos the orificer needs to keep his quota up ?:laugh:
Oh thats right they don't have "quota's" what was I thinking :doh:[/QUOTE]

There ya go... I highlighted the important part for ya... just to help ya out...
And it aint quotas.... its "Flybuys"... I nearly got enough for a flash toaster!!!


The discussion is not about spelling or wrong-or-right, the discussion is about how to get off a speeding ticket on a technicality.

and if you do get busted then carry on that old old kiwi tradition and WEASEL UR FUCKIN WAY OUT OF IT LOL. :spanking:

DB

Fair enough there... "If ya don't ask, ya get nothing..." sort of thing?


You can then write to the registrar again and request the hearing is moved to your local district court. They should grant this (note I said should, not will).

WRONG. Defended hearings are ONLY heard where the offence was committed. You can have it transferred for a guilty plea ONLY. Unless it was a paedophilia matter where the entire town was fiddled with so a "fair trial" could not be held, then it would be transferred to another "neutral" location.

My old flatmate who works in the courts prosecutions here in Auckland

Is he still the janitor?

[faredce]

A clever lawyer would get you off that. Probably. Is $80 and 20 demerits worth his fee tho? Plus the court costs if you lose?

sorry to say but prob the best way to go. screw fighting it with the cost and time involved. i think it sucks the cop is a tool, but pay and move on dude not worth it:calm:

[CookMySock]

Clearly, the post I replied to was about spelling.SPELLING!!! LOL


Referring to the original post by the thread starterI inferred that the yopic was about weather or not the fine should be paid rather than how to 'weasel' out of paying said fine.LOL isnt that the same thing ? :bash:


I don't download copyright material (I wouldn't like you stealing my hard work) , double park, use pirated sofware (not even to screw MS), smoke dope or hide from my Mrs.- those things are all unecessary.
When I exceed the open road speed limit I do so using my best judgement and a RD. If I am stopped by a Cop its most likely for good reason, I'm not gonna cry about it but would contest it if it were wrong - if I'm in the wrong it's my loss.
Do the crime do the time. Its called accountability.:zzzz: oh cmon now.... live a little. :headbang:

DB

[Blue Velvet]

Blah blah blah blah blah...

Just pay the fucken ticket already! :blink: :lol:

[nodrog]

Blah blah blah blah blah...

Just pay the fucken ticket already! :blink: :lol:

i think poor old mitch has bailed and gone on the run to avoid paying.

[Str8 Jacket]

i think poor old mitch has bailed and gone on the run to avoid paying.

Considering the price of petrol it would've been cheaper to have just paid the fine!

[nodrog]

Considering the price of petrol it would've been cheaper to have just paid the fine!

maybe he's not going to pay for that either?

[Str8 Jacket]

maybe he's not going to pay for that either?

Bloody dodgy motorcyclists!

[Drunken Monkey]

WRONG. Defended hearings are ONLY heard where the offence was committed. You can have it transferred for a guilty plea ONLY. Unless it was a paedophilia matter where the entire town was fiddled with so a "fair trial" could not be held, then it would be transferred to another "neutral" location.

Is he still the janitor?

Erm, no he's a lawyer and works in prosecutions. What you're talking about applies to criminal cases. Infringement notices, like Spudchucka said earlier in the thread, are heard by JPs.

[P38]

Stop ya whinging

Pay the Fine!!!!

[Toaster]

So he says that ticket is cancelled and he has issued a replacment!
Can they do this? would you pay?

Yes, absolutely they can.

[jafar]

And it aint quotas.... its "Flybuys"... I nearly got enough for a flash toaster!!!

I knew there was a system:dodge:



Or, why not just stop getting tickets? You talk as if the cops are the bad guys, but you're the one knowingly breakign the law. It doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not, it's your obligation to follow it.

Your on what planet exactly ?? The discussion is about errors on tickets !!
If you wish to get on your soapbox about not getting tickets that is in another thread :spanking:

[Blue Velvet]

<a href="http://www.wikihow.com/Look-Like-a-Dirty-Biker" target=blank>Bloody dodgy motorcyclists!</a>

<tencharacters>

[Patrick]

Erm, no he's a lawyer and works in prosecutions. What you're talking about applies to criminal cases. Infringement notices, like Spudchucka said earlier in the thread, are heard by JPs.

By JP's, in the court where the offence is committed, if it is defended.... otherwise everyone will want it transferred to Invercargill/Kaitaia or summit... If ya nodding, it can be transferred wherever ya like. Mind you, I've never been to Invercargill - could be a taxpayer funded trip?:banana:

[Drunken Monkey]

Only to your own local DC. It's a blue form, IN14 or something like that. I'll see if I've still got the instructions somewhere.

[Zuki Bandit]

On our South Island holiday last week it finally happened - got a ticket.
Straight road , only me and one other car, happened to be a mufti cop.
Lucky was only 115 kph. Not too big a deal.
When I got home there was a letter from the cop, date was wrong, my address was wrong on ticket. So he says that ticket is cancelled and he has issued a replacment!
Can they do this? would you pay?
I would just pay it. Not worth the hassle!

[Patrick]

Only to your own local DC. It's a blue form, IN14 or something like that. I'll see if I've still got the instructions somewhere.

You will find it is only for guilty pleas. Defended hearings will only be heard in the court nearest the location of the offence. They will not fly witnesses (who are usually locals be it Police, civillian or whatever) to wherever the Defendant might want it to go to.

[Manxman]

Do the crime, do the time. Pay the fine son.

If you don't want to pay fines, stop speeding.

Can't argue with that logic.

[sAsLEX]

A clever lawyer would get you off that. Probably. Is $80 and 20 demerits worth his fee tho? Plus the court costs if you lose?

A simple lawyer should. The charge is flawed.

I know if we made a fuck up like that charging someone in the NZDF it would get chucked out on legal grounds.

[scumdog]

A simple lawyer should. The charge is flawed.

I know if we made a fuck up like that charging someone in the NZDF it would get chucked out on legal grounds.


Even if you realised the error and amended it??

Harsh, man, harsh.

Perfection must be so hard to live with....

[swbarnett]

By trying to challenge the ticket because of errors, possibly dragging it into a hearing, you are wasting everyone's time. That's time that the cops could be spending ..[snip].. doing what they do best - keeping us all safe.
But that's not their job. The job of the police is to uphold the law.

[kinger]

So what, exactly, stops a traffic officer (whom I generally appreciate for their work) from "realising" the ticket for 111kmh should have been for 141kmh?
Without the need for you to sign the ticket when it is issued, there seems to be an opinion that we should all lie down and let the uniforms do as they see fit to defenceless, conformist members of the public.

Good job the Germans didn't win eh?:argh:

I'm not saying I dispute the issuing of a ticket, but surely it shouldn't be amendable at a later date. This is the most common reason for disputing a ticket in UK, and yes, speeders are worse than paedophiles or suicide bombers in the governments' eyes there as well

[Soul.Trader]

What you're illustrating, kinger, is the difference between legitimate changes, and illegitimate alterations to an infringement notice. Overhauling the offence after it has been given is obviously not going to go down well - thankfully, there's plenty of evidence that it's happened. If you're given a ticket for 11kph over, and you later receive a new infringement for 40kph over, you would obviously challenge it, and only expect to pay for the 11kph fine, if any. You have your copy of the infringement notice, as well as the officer's notes to support the fact that the ticket was issued illegitimately. Trying to draw a similarity between a genuine clerical error and a deliberate and illegal alteration is not really credible.

[kinger]

And suppose the offender had already accumalated 80 points (with a multitude of failing to stay to the left as far as possible offences), this ticket could result in him his losing his licence, then, because he can't get to work, his job, then, because he can't pay his bills, his house.
With the potential to change your life, the least you should be able to expect is that the officer could be good enough to ensure it was correct in the first place, dontcha think?

[Soul.Trader]

And suppose the offender had already accumalated 80 points (with a multitude of failing to stay to the left as far as possible offences), this ticket could result in him his losing his licence, then, because he can't get to work, his job, then, because he can't pay his bills, his house.
With the potential to change your life, the least you should be able to expect is that the officer could be good enough to ensure it was correct in the first place, dontcha think?

That has nothing to do with the fact an offence was committed. Are we supposed to sympathise with someone who gets caught speeding (a recidivous offender by your story), just because the cop spelt their home address wrong?

[scumdog]

And suppose the offender had already accumalated 80 points (with a multitude of failing to stay to the left as far as possible offences), this ticket could result in him his losing his licence, then, because he can't get to work, his job, then, because he can't pay his bills, his house.
With the potential to change your life, the least you should be able to expect is that the officer could be good enough to ensure it was correct in the first place, dontcha think?

I hear that bleat from time to time at the roadside.

I sympatheticly suggest they should have thought of all that before once again they got caught speeding........

[Sanx]

You are just lucky you didn't hit someone. At 110km/h in a car you are twice as likely to crash as at 100km/h (don't ask where I heard that statistic, I freely admit I can't remember - think it was on the Dominion Post website - if challenged I'll happily retract it).

Absolute unmitigated shite. There is absolutely no correlation between speed and accident rate despite the government having spent a fairly large sum of money with Transit and various consultants to try and prove it.



You might think speeding isn't a big deal, but it's dangerous and illegal.

No - it's illegal. Safe speed is defined as a speed suitable for the conditions. A speed limit doesn't define safe speed. If you're actually stupid enough to think that driving under or at the limit automatically makes you a safe driver, then get off the roads.


So, to take it that one step further, while you play your silly little games, you are putting my family at risk because there are less police out there to protect and help us.:mad:

:rofl:

[Sanx]

What you're illustrating, kinger, is the difference between legitimate changes, and illegitimate alterations to an infringement notice. Overhauling the offence after it has been given is obviously not going to go down well - thankfully, there's plenty of evidence that it's happened. If you're given a ticket for 11kph over, and you later receive a new infringement for 40kph over, you would obviously challenge it, and only expect to pay for the 11kph fine, if any. You have your copy of the infringement notice, as well as the officer's notes to support the fact that the ticket was issued illegitimately. Trying to draw a similarity between a genuine clerical error and a deliberate and illegal alteration is not really credible.

Actually, kinger made a very good point. There is no difference between changing a ticket because the name or address were wrong on the original or changing it because the offence was wrongly entered. You say that there is "plenty of evidence that it's happened". If one type of correction is allowed due to a clerical error, then another one should be allowed either. As there is absolutely no proof required in speeding cases other than an officer's assertion that he thought or observed the person to be speeding, an officer could probably get away with 'upgrading' the charge of a few tickets. However, I can't imagine why an officer would go to that bother. If he was so concerned about the tickets, he'd just go out and make up a few on the street ;)

[pritch]

They wrote back, saying that the ticket is not a legal document so it doesn't matter if there are "minor clerical errors" on it, and quoted some case from 1993 about some similar thing where the court said the ticket stands, and they want me to pay it.

I don't have the time or money for lawyers etc, so I wrote a cheque for the ticket ( $120 ) .

Did you date the cheque 1993?

[scumdog]

Actually, kinger made a very good point. There is no difference between changing a ticket because the name or address were wrong on the original or changing it because the offence was wrongly entered. You say that there is "plenty of evidence that it's happened". If one type of correction is allowed due to a clerical error, then another one should be allowed either. As there is absolutely no proof required in speeding cases other than an officer's assertion that he thought or observed the person to be speeding, an officer could probably get away with 'upgrading' the charge of a few tickets. However, I can't imagine why an officer would go to that bother. If he was so concerned about the tickets, he'd just go out and make up a few on the street ;)

So....if a cop scored out the mistake on the original and corrected it there and then would that be OK?

Or on realising the errors he wrote out a brand new ticket (without the mistakes) there and then would that make it OK

And if he did it in his car how would you ever know? (If you weren't sitting beside him).

Oh, so many questions, so many questions....

[Badjelly]

Absolute unmitigated shite. There is absolutely no correlation between speed and accident rate despite the government having spent a fairly large sum of money with Transit and various consultants to try and prove it.


That's a brave statement. As I read it, you're not just saying there's a lack of evidence for a correlation between speed and accident rate (absence of evidence) you're saying there is no correlation (evidence of absence). No correlation, however small, none! None at all! Zero! Care to show us your evidence for this zero correlation?

[cleopatraxxx]

hey how do i post a thread please

[BIHB@0610]

That's a brave statement. As I read it, you're not just saying there's a lack of evidence for a correlation between speed and accident rate (absence of evidence) you're saying there is no correlation (evidence of absence). No correlation, however small, none! None at all! Zero! Care to show us your evidence for this zero correlation?

Agree Badjelly - if those statements can be backed up with evidence this guy could make a fortune working as a consultant. Wonder if he ever slows for corners, or rain, or oil on the road???? Frankly I'm growing weary of armchair wizards who bandy about rash statements and statistics without thinking first. Thankfully if my family ever comes across someone on the road who has just figured out there's a correlation between speed and accidents, they're in a nice, solid, European car. May the best man win.

[BIHB@0610]

No - it's illegal. Safe speed is defined as a speed suitable for the conditions. A speed limit doesn't define safe speed. If you're actually stupid enough to think that driving under or at the limit automatically makes you a safe driver, then get off the roads.



:rofl:

Don't put words in my mouth. And don't question my intellect. As far as I'm concerned you can go and test your little theory - preferably in poor light, in the rain, following a diesel truck that's overfilled it's tanks. Then come back and post your findings.

[swbarnett]

Agree Badjelly - if those statements can be backed up with evidence this guy could make a fortune working as a consultant. Wonder if he ever slows for corners, or rain, or oil on the road???? Frankly I'm growing weary of armchair wizards who bandy about rash statements and statistics without thinking first. Thankfully if my family ever comes across someone on the road who has just figured out there's a correlation between speed and accidents, they're in a nice, solid, European car. May the best man win.
The assertion is that there is no correlation between speed and accident rate. Nowhere was it said that speed to high for the conditions does not correlate with accident rate. Speed alone is not a primary causative factor.

[Str8 Jacket]

Don't put words in my mouth you fecking tosser. And don't question my intellect. As far as I'm concerned you can go and test your little theory - preferably in poor light, in the rain, following a diesel truck that's overfilled it's tanks. Then come back and post your findings. Dick.

Settle Gretal! Take a breathe! I agree with you to a degree BUT I also get what Sanx is saying and agree with him to a degree as well. Everyone has their own story to tell.....

[swbarnett]

Don't put words in my mouth you fecking tosser. And don't question my intellect. As far as I'm concerned you can go and test your little theory - preferably in poor light, in the rain, following a diesel truck that's overfilled it's tanks. Then come back and post your findings. Dick.
Again you're talking about speed too high for the conditions.

[BIHB@0610]

Settle Gretal! Take a breathe! I agree with you to a degree BUT I also get what Sanx is saying and agree with him to a degree as well. Everyone has their own story to tell.....

Yeeeeappp, agree totally - and I accept that speed isn't the only factor to take into account. Sorry (esp. to Sanx). Having some hormone issues at the moment (obviously quite serious ones) - no excuse though, my brain should still be the dominant organ.:crazy:

Chamomile tea coming out.

[Str8 Jacket]

Yeeeeappp, agree totally - and I accept that speed isn't the only factor to take into account. Sorry (esp. to Sanx). Having some hormone issues at the moment (obviously quite serious ones) - no excuse though, my brain should still be the dominant organ.:crazy:

Chamomile tea coming out.

Try alcohol. It works better. Go to your local tinny house if its *that* bad! :)

[sidecar bob]

Yeeeeappp, agree totally - and I accept that speed isn't the only factor to take into account. Sorry (esp. to Sanx). Having some hormone issues at the moment (obviously quite serious ones) - no excuse though, my brain should still be the dominant organ.:crazy:

Chamomile tea coming out.

Yeah, they are quite serious, A bit more than a random bit of PMT, Cheers guys.

[kinger]

That has nothing to do with the fact an offence was committed. Are we supposed to sympathise with someone who gets caught speeding (a recidivous offender by your story), just because the cop spelt their home address wrong?
I'm not saying you should sympathise, but applying "the letter of the law" shouldn't be applying the letter of the law plus whatever amendments we choose to make at a later date.
My main point of objection is that the ticket should be correct at the time of issue, and if the ticket is wrong, it's shouldn't be valid, and therefore should be contested.
We all know that the choice to break the laws of the land is down to the individual, but if we are to maintain respect for the enforcement authorities, then at least let them do the courtesy of issuing a correctly worded ticket.

[Soul.Trader]

I'm not saying you should sympathise, but applying "the letter of the law" shouldn't be applying the letter of the law plus whatever amendments we choose to make at a later date.
My main point of objection is that the ticket should be correct at the time of issue, and if the ticket is wrong, it's shouldn't be valid, and therefore should be contested.
We all know that the choice to break the laws of the land is down to the individual, but if we are to maintain respect for the enforcement authorities, then at least let them do the courtesy of issuing a correctly worded ticket.

It is of course possible to apply "the letter of the law" AND make a clerical error, without invalidating the fact that the officer was genuinely ticketing someone who genuinely broke the law.

[Insanity_rules]

I'd pay it. Not worth the defense cost.

[jahrasti]

I'm not saying you should sympathise, but applying "the letter of the law" shouldn't be applying the letter of the law plus whatever amendments we choose to make at a later date.
My main point of objection is that the ticket should be correct at the time of issue, and if the ticket is wrong, it's shouldn't be valid, and therefore should be contested.
We all know that the choice to break the laws of the land is down to the individual, but if we are to maintain respect for the enforcement authorities, then at least let them do the courtesy of issuing a correctly worded ticket.

then if that is the case could I give the officer wrong spelling of my address and then defend it as being written wrong?

[Jantar]

And suppose the offender had already accumalated 80 points ....
Talking with a group of middle aged and generally respectable members of society (my local lions club), this is the reason why so many drivers are doing runners. It isn't the fine, it isn't that they are carrying drugs or stolen property, it isn't even that they are wanted by the law. But they get stopped once more at 112 kmh and its bye bye licence.

One guy who has just celebrated his 72nd birthday did a runner last month and got away.

[Badjelly]

The assertion is that there is no correlation between speed and accident rate.

Please elaborate. What exactly do you mean? What's the evidence for the absence of a correlation?

[swbarnett]

Please elaborate. What exactly do you mean? What's the evidence for the absence of a correlation?
Note the emphasis on speed in the post repeated below. Perhaps I should've said speed alone.

This is an assertion based on logic alone, no evidence is necessary. If speed alone caused accidents Apollo XI would never have made it to the moon.


The assertion is that there is no correlation between speed and accident rate. Nowhere was it said that speed to high for the conditions does not correlate with accident rate. Speed alone is not a primary causative factor.

[kinger]

then if that is the case could I give the officer wrong spelling of my address and then defend it as being written wrong?

As far as I'm aware, you'd be in a bit deeper crap for providing incorrect details wouldn't you? Your address isn't difficult to check against your licence. At which point, I shall now withdraw gracefully from this debate.:dodge:

[Patrick]

there seems to be an opinion that we should all lie down and let the uniforms do as they see fit to defenceless, conformist members of the public....

Defenceless conformist members of the public don't speed, so don't get tickets..... so they don't need to lie down, unless they are tired, perhaps...:doh:


And suppose the offender had already accumalated 80 points

Does the term "Slow learner" ring any bells?



My main point of objection is that the ticket should be correct at the time of issue, and if the ticket is wrong, it's shouldn't be valid, and therefore should be contested.

Sigh.... again....

The ticket was not correct, so it was cancelled... (ie: it is no longer valid). The replacement ticket is correct and is the only one that is enforceable.

The message seems to be missed, so..... Contest a cancelled ticket all you like then...

[jaykay]

The easiest and least time consuming thing to do is pay the ticket. However if you want to have to some fun and don't mind risking $130 court costs, but with the reasonable possibility of the whole thing being dropped here is what you do.
1. Do NOTHING until the Reminder Notice arrives.
2. The Reminder Notice will say you must write within 28 days and request a hearing (to deny liability).
3. Write and put in the post on on day 26, "without a copy of the original ticket a hearing is requested".

Almost guaranteed the reply from the Police will be that you were too late asking for a hearing as the law says they must receive it within 28 days.

However (and this forum is the first to hear this news), I was in the High Court a couple of days ago (against the Police), and the Judge was almost frothing at the mouth with the wording on the Reminder Notice and told the Crown lawyers to sort it out yesterday. So if any more Reminder Notices get issued with the incorrect wording the Police are in contempt of court.

Anyway, if you end up with a notice of fine after asking for a hearing you have to go and fill in a Form 57, and the procedure gets more complicated - it will take the OP some time to do all this, (which is why I said the easiest thing to do is pay).

And no, I didn't have to pay any costs in the High Court (but I didn't get any either).

[scumdog]

The easiest and least time consuming thing to do is pay the ticket. However if you want to have to some fun and don't mind risking $130 court costs, but with the reasonable possibility of the whole thing being dropped here is what you do.
1. Do NOTHING until the Reminder Notice arrives.
2. The Reminder Notice will say you must write within 28 days and request a hearing (to deny liability).
3. Write and put in the post on on day 26, "without a copy of the original ticket a hearing is requested".

Almost guaranteed the reply from the Police will be that you were too late asking for a hearing as the law says they must receive it within 28 days.

However (and this forum is the first to hear this news), I was in the High Court a couple of days ago (against the Police), and the Judge was almost frothing at the mouth with the wording on the Reminder Notice and told the Crown lawyers to sort it out yesterday. So if any more Reminder Notices get issued with the incorrect wording the Police are in contempt of court.

Anyway, if you end up with a notice of fine after asking for a hearing you have to go and fill in a Form 57, and the procedure gets more complicated - it will take the OP some time to do all this, (which is why I said the easiest thing to do is pay).

And no, I didn't have to pay any costs in the High Court (but I didn't get any either).

Well, I certainly hope the above advice is more accurate than THIS gem you once offered to KBer:

"Well, this is all very interesting. You see I was in court the other day (helping), and the police woman said whilst on the witness stand that you don't have to stop for the police and they can't do anything if you simply drive away. The big problem the police actually have is that when they do stop you there ask them if they are detaining you, if the answer is no...drive off - if the answer is yes then they must read you your rights (to remain silent).":pinch:

[jahrasti]

Well, I certainly hope the above advice is more accurate than THIS gem you once offered to KBer:

"Well, this is all very interesting. You see I was in court the other day (helping), and the police woman said whilst on the witness stand that you don't have to stop for the police and they can't do anything if you simply drive away. The big problem the police actually have is that when they do stop you there ask them if they are detaining you, if the answer is no...drive off - if the answer is yes then they must read you your rights (to remain silent).":pinch:

I love it, you have made my day.:first: and:second: even

[spudchucka]

The easiest and least time consuming thing to do is pay the ticket. However if you want to have to some fun and don't mind risking $130 court costs, but with the reasonable possibility of the whole thing being dropped here is what you do.
1. Do NOTHING until the Reminder Notice arrives.
2. The Reminder Notice will say you must write within 28 days and request a hearing (to deny liability).
3. Write and put in the post on on day 26, "without a copy of the original ticket a hearing is requested".

Almost guaranteed the reply from the Police will be that you were too late asking for a hearing as the law says they must receive it within 28 days.

However (and this forum is the first to hear this news), I was in the High Court a couple of days ago (against the Police), and the Judge was almost frothing at the mouth with the wording on the Reminder Notice and told the Crown lawyers to sort it out yesterday. So if any more Reminder Notices get issued with the incorrect wording the Police are in contempt of court.

Anyway, if you end up with a notice of fine after asking for a hearing you have to go and fill in a Form 57, and the procedure gets more complicated - it will take the OP some time to do all this, (which is why I said the easiest thing to do is pay).

And no, I didn't have to pay any costs in the High Court (but I didn't get any either).

Traffic infringement, High Court, Crown Prosecutor????

Smells like bullshit to me!

[jaykay]

I'm not the bullshitting type, the crown were actually the respondents. I had appealed an order for costs to the High Court as I was annoyed about being hounded for fifteen months about a couple of speed camera tickets when it wasn't my vehicle and I wasn't driving. The police (not for the first time) dropped the whole thing a week before the hearing date but I'd spent some hours defending the charges up to this point. So after "notices of fine" and "final demands" the police decide they don't have sufficient evidence and expect to walk away without any consequences. I gave them some.
Get one thing clear, if anyone receives a Reminder Notice that says that you should "write within 28 days to request a hearing" after the middle of next week, this will show the Police disobeying a High Court Judge. The paperwork should say they have to receive the hearing within 28 days.

Don't forget that paying a speeding fine after being stopped results in demerit points. You don't get the points until you pay. A friend of mine was given a ticket on Waitangi Day 2007 - as usual his request for a hearing was just too late. The Notice of Fine hasn't been chased yet. When it is he'll get it back into court via a Form 57. Then the Police will have to go to all that bother of getting a witness statement from the officer, and there is a very good chance it will get dropped - and even if he is found guilty (eventually) the costs will only be an extra $130 - and the points will expire after a few months.

I have more stories if you want, it's up to you if you want to believe them. The phantom seat belt wearing incident, dropped 9pm the day before the hearing. $50 in costs against the city council as yet again they cocked up a parking ticket. A ticket for 123 dropped 3 days before hearing as the police lost the paperwork. 12 speed camera tickets dropped despite all sorts of threats.

[scumdog]

Don't forget that paying a speeding fine after being stopped results in demerit points. You don't get the points until you pay.

Another urban myth hits the screens on KB...........

[Ixion]

No, that is true. You don't get the points added until you admit guilt (usually by paying the fine), or are convicted.

But when the points are added they are backdated until the date of the offence.

And if they take you over the 100 the 3 months suspension doesn't start until they collect your licence.

So paying or not paying doens't help reduce anything.

[Swoop]

No. Just most of it correct. And as fore the speelling.... hoo gives a rats ass (or is that arse?). Its the new standard out there... no one can spell any more.



Does this mean that next time I get a ticket & it has the wrong date, wrong time, wrong street, wrong name, wrong speed, wrong car, wrong rego, wrong driver, wrong spleeling . That I should just pay it cos the orificer needs to keep his quota up ?:laugh:
Oh thats right they don't have "quota's" what was I thinking :doh:[/QUOTE]
But they do have to send younger officers on english courses...
Or would you like your ticket via TXT message?:rofl:

[spudchucka]

I have more stories if you want, it's up to you if you want to believe them.

How about you post the Court record numbers, that way I can look up the judgements and have a good read of all the juicy details.

[Badjelly]

This is an assertion based on logic alone, no evidence is necessary. If speed alone caused accidents Apollo XI would never have made it to the moon.

OK. I think a quote from The Hunting of the Snark (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext91/snark12h.htm) is appropriate here:

“But, now that you’ve stated the whole of your case,

More debate would be simply absurd.

[CookMySock]

[...]My main point of objection is that the ticket should be correct at the time of issue, and if the ticket is wrong, it's shouldn't be valid, and therefore should be contested.
We all know that the choice to break the laws of the land is down to the individual, but if we are to maintain respect for the enforcement authorities, then at least let them do the courtesy of issuing a correctly worded ticket.Exactly. The cops can sharpen up their act, or else the good ol' kiwi tradition of "wriggling out of it" shall apply.

There are two types of "wrongs" and they are "things that are wrong" and then there is "getting caught doing something wrong." Long may we carry on the tradition of getting off scot-free on things. :p

To be clear, I am not about infringing upon your rights or others. I will have my fun, some of it dodgy or borderline legal, and that is the way of it. What I WILL NOT do, is do it at someone elses' risk, expense, or emotional cost. Everyone has the right to live their lives in peace, as do I. It's about freedom, but not at someone elses' expense. Yes, frightening people on the road is bad, particularly, you will note, when it is done to you, but popping a wheelie on clear road, or doing 125km/hr isn't (mostly.)

Have a good time. ;)

DB

[CookMySock]

I have more stories if you want, it's up to you if you want to believe them. The phantom seat belt wearing incident, dropped 9pm the day before the hearing. $50 in costs against the city council as yet again they cocked up a parking ticket. A ticket for 123 dropped 3 days before hearing as the police lost the paperwork. 12 speed camera tickets dropped despite all sorts of threats.

OH YES, lets wiki them up !! They dissapear on the forum, but on the Wiki they last forever!! LOL

You just type them in, and I'll format and spellcheck for ya. Do it !! lol


DB

[Tank]

ANYWAY ......

Back to the original poster.

Mitch001 - after 143 replies since your original post, what did you actually do with the ticket?

and I saw you online this morning - so don't you go ignoring us.....

C

[Sanx]

Yeeeeappp, agree totally - and I accept that speed isn't the only factor to take into account. Sorry (esp. to Sanx). Having some hormone issues at the moment (obviously quite serious ones) - no excuse though, my brain should still be the dominant organ.:crazy:

Chamomile tea coming out.

The phrase I used was "speed suitable for the conditions". Exceeding this is inherently dangerous. Exceeding an often arbitrary limit is not, unless that speed also is unsuitable for the conditions.

So taking your suggestion that I try my "theory" on a dark wet diesel-covered corner ... dark, wet and diesel-covered are conditions. Conditions exist define the safe speed - the same hypothetical corner would obviously be safer to take faster if the road was dry, well-lit and hydrocarbon-free. A speed limit does not define a safe speed - as the late Paul Smith of Safe Speed regularly said, "Safe driving cannot be measured in miles-per-hour".

I'd suggest you read through Safe Speed and then apply some of the things you see to the figures published on the LTSA's website. In particular, correlate the year-on-year average fall in open road speed and the yearly road toll. The LTSA used to claim that for every 1kph reduction in average speed, x number of lives would be saved (I can't remember the number, though 12 springs to mind). They don't claim that any more, as the figures show it to be a complete mockery. In fact, despite ever more strict road policing, lower speed limits and improved car safety (more cars have traction control, ABS, airbags, etc.) the road toll has stayed pretty static since the current government's obsession with speed started in 2002. According to the ACC's statistics, however, hospitalisations due to RTAs has risen markedly.

Lower average speed = no reduction in road toll + more hospitalisations.

Does that look like a vindication of the 'speed kills' philosophy?