Summons

[The Stranger]

So a mate (no, not me, I learned my lesson and only ride responsibly now) has just got his summons for a court date in 24/03/3009.

He's wondering if he needs to turn up for court on 24/03/2009 or just ignore it.
My advice - given that it's a dangerous driving charge is get a lawyer and ask him.

So does he need to turn up in 2009 or not?

[marty]

A summons shall not be invalid through want of form.

Yes he will. A warrant for his arrest may be issued if he doesn't.

[The Pastor]

i think the first one you can write a letter with your plea on it and you dont have to be there in person.

but what would i know.

[JMemonic]

So a mate (no, not me, I learned my lesson and only ride responsibaly now) has just got his summons for a court date in 24/03/3009.

He's wondering if he needs to turn up for court on 24/03/2009 or just ignore it.
My advice - given that it's a dangerous driving charge is get a lawyer and ask him.

So does he need to turn up in 2009 or not?

Well I would say no, if the date is for 3009, why tun up in 2009 :Pokey::lol:

[slofox]

Well I would say no, if the date is for 3009, why tun up in 2009 :Pokey::lol:

He should just wait the thousand years and then turn up...

[Mom]

Seems he will have already used up his non appearance lifelines. You get a couple. His last status hearing would have set down the court date. Tell your friend to appear or watch over his shoulder for plod to come and get him. Mind you, plod is really busy and may not get there for ages. Fact of the matter is a warrant for arrest will be sitting there if he comes to notice for anything.

[Winston001]

Dangerous Driving is imprisonable so he must appear at court. As for the date, he could try and insist, but the Court will amend the summons - and does he really want a Warrant To Arrest to be issued? Far more trouble than it's worth and doesn't go anywhere to defend the charge.

[Mole_C]

If he doesn't want to get WTA issued, get arrested, spend the whole night/weekend in the cells, go to court in the morning and then still have to go to court for his hearing then yes. yes he does.

[madbikeboy]

I'd confirm the appointment date - and then wait the 1,000 years... If he's still alive, then the court will judge him as being the new Jesus (the second coming would get mis-interpreted on this site...).

[varminter]

He could borrow my time machine if he promises to take care of it and return it by last Tuesday.

[Jantar]

He could have some fun with this one:

From the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (as ammended 2008):


Issue of summons to or warrant to arrest defendant(1) When an information has been laid,—

(a) .......

(b) .......

(c) In any case, a District Court Judge may, if he thinks fit, and whether or not a summons has been issued or served, issue a warrant, in the prescribed form, to arrest the defendant and bring him before a Court.

(2) Where service of a summons to a defendant is to be effected in accordance with paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 24 of this Act the day on which the defendant is summoned to appear shall not be less than 21 days after the day on which the registered letter is posted.

As the date is now within 21 days, have your friend write to the court confirming that he does intend to do his utmost to appear on the advised date. However he does have a medical condition (normal lifespan) that makes it unlikely he will be alive at that date, and could he possibly have a new date a bit closer than 1000 years time.

The court cannot simply ammend the date, they must send out a whole new summons, and the date on that summons must be at least 21 days from the date of postage. It is most likely that the new summons will not comply with that requirement, so a phone call to the court will be needed a day or two before the due date pointing out the error. A third summons will then be needed.

If your friend is lucky, like I was when i did this, the police will give up and drop the case, or possibly not turn up at the hearing. :msn-wink:

Just note the provision of paragraph (c) that the judge can issue a warrant of arrest, so its important that everything is done in accordance with the act, and that you deal directly with the registrar of the court and document everything (letters, phone calls etc).

[MotoGirl]

I wouldn't push it, aye.

Apparently, they don't need to send you a summons with the court date before they can arrest you. An aqaintance of mine got arrested only last week for failure to appear when they never even told him when his court date was.

[peasea]

He could have some fun with this one:

From the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (as ammended 2008):



As the date is now within 21 days, have your friend write to the court confirming that he does intend to do his utmost to appear on the advised date. However he does have a medical condition (normal lifespan) that makes it unlikely he will be alive at that date, and could he possibly have a new date a bit closer than 1000 years time.

The court cannot simply ammend the date, they must send out a whole new summons, and the date on that summons must be at least 21 days from the date of postage. It is most likely that the new summons will not comply with that requirement, so a phone call to the court will be needed a day or two before the due date pointing out the error. A third summons will then be needed.

If your friend is lucky, like I was when i did this, the police will give up and drop the case, or possibly not turn up at the hearing. :msn-wink:

Just note the provision of paragraph (c) that the judge can issue a warrant of arrest, so its important that everything is done in accordance with the act, and that you deal directly with the registrar of the court and document everything (letters, phone calls etc).


I think you're right. Years ago I was summosed to appear to nail an old geezer who'd turned into my path and I nearly t-boned him. He paid for all bike repairs, I was ok and thought that it was over. Not according to the cops who wanted to charge the old guy. I felt a bit sorry for him but...a summons is a summons. So, I rocked down to the court, listened to some guys' assault case and went home when it all wrapped up.

Sure enough, the cops come to my work wanting to know why I wasn't at the hearing. I aksed for a copy of the summons, which was duly produced. "Wrong court room number copper, fuck off."

They need to get the i's dotted and the t's crossed. 3009 is the date, go on that date, if you can, Methuselah.

[peasea]

I wouldn't push it, aye.

Apparently, they don't need to send you a summons with the court date before they can arrest you. An aqaintance of mine got arrested only last week for failure to appear when they never even told him when his court date was.

That's dirty, but that's how they play sometimes. I'd be screaming blue bloody murder if I was your mate.

[ManDownUnder]

What Marty said. If they're not there they're unable to comment on proceedings or charges laid against them so they will carry full weight unopposed, and if the judge decides he needed to be in court and is having a bad day the arrest warrant will be issued - and that's bad...


Looks bad for the original charge and there's an extra issue to deal with.

Take the time, front up, do the preparation ahead of the case and get some defense.

[Skyryder]

You ignore a summons at your own peril. It is an instruction from the Court.

Judges do not like to be ignored.


Skyyrder

[Jantar]

You ignore a summons at your own peril. It is an instruction from the Court.

Judges do not like to be ignored.


Skyyrder

True. But the summons is for 24/03/3009. Maybe the date is wrong and its actually for 13/04/2010? To comply with the summons he MUST turn up in court on 24/03/3009. I do believe that the sensible action is to advise the registrar of the court that the date is obviously wrong, and to ask for a new summons.

[Skyryder]

True. But the summons is for 24/03/3009. Maybe the date is wrong and its actually for 13/04/2010? To comply with the summons he MUST turn up in court on 24/03/3009. I do believe that the sensible action is to advise the registrar of the court that the date is obviously wrong, and to ask for a new summons.

Yep it's a common sense thing.

24/03 is the kicker Seems obvious that 3 should be 2 for the 2009. Ya might be able to argue differently but I doubt it. I'd just turn up on the day and point out to the judge that the date was wrong. Might just put the someone in a good light.

[Boob Johnson]

So a mate (no, not me, I learned my lesson and only ride responsibly now) has just got his summons for a court date in 24/03/3009.

He's wondering if he needs to turn up for court on 24/03/2009 or just ignore it.
My advice - given that it's a dangerous driving charge is get a lawyer and ask him.

So does he need to turn up in 2009 or not?
What's a thousand years between friends? :rolleyes:

[Rotorwarrior]

My 5c worth. My nipper got done for careless use because he rear ended a lady driver who inadvertently went for a parking spot from the outside lane across the inside lane that he was travelling in and when she realised it wasn't a parking spot shot straight out again into the moving column of traffic (Auckland, corner of Ponsonby and Pollen heading West). he stayed, went by the book, reported the matter even offered the lady driver a lift home (her car had a mudguard touching wheel and needed towing). When he asked for disclosure without seeing a lawyer (BIG MISTAKE!!) He wrote to the courts (JP's) , submitted witness statements, videos and even statistics showing his case and suggested there was an element of doubt in their charge, he had never had an infringement or fine, had a full clean drivers licence from UK and NZ and he had voluntarily just done a AA defensive drivers course and accepted the leniency of the courts without appearing - They fined him $400 and court costs and also filed a conviction against him that he was unaware of - the letter he got was headed Fine & reparation and nowhere on any document did it refer to any conviction. When he applied for citizenship - turned down - because of a bumper bashing..........

A lawyer (Melanie Coxon www.lawyerhelp.co.nz ) subsequently vacated the plea, had the case heard again and he was discharged without conviction - the gravity and resulting effects of the original conviction was hugely disproportionate to the offence. Discharged without conviction under S106 of the act.

Hugely distressing in a family.

If I had gone to her in the first place, it would have been simple Much Cheaper!!! and achieved the result in the first place......

When you're in the (legal) jungle - get yourself a good guide !!!!!

What I can tell you is the best advice I have come across for dealing with the Police in New Zealand, I found on Youtube as follows:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE3nZV-nmQo

And having had a few dealings with them now - thats about the truth of it.

:yes:


Tell your mate to get a lawyer, fix the date error voluntarily and defend as best he can through the lawyer.

[peasea]

My 5c worth. My nipper got done for careless use because he rear ended a lady driver who inadvertently went for a parking spot from the outside lane across the inside lane that he was travelling in and when she realised it wasn't a parking spot shot straight out again into the moving column of traffic (Auckland, corner of Ponsonby and Pollen heading West). he stayed, went by the book, reported the matter even offered the lady driver a lift home (her car had a mudguard touching wheel and needed towing). When he asked for disclosure without seeing a lawyer (BIG MISTAKE!!) He wrote to the courts (JP's) , submitted witness statements, videos and even statistics showing his case and suggested there was an element of doubt in their charge, he had never had an infringement or fine, had a full clean drivers licence from UK and NZ and he had voluntarily just done a AA defensive drivers course and accepted the leniency of the courts without appearing - They fined him $400 and court costs and also filed a conviction against him that he was unaware of - the letter he got was headed Fine & reparation and nowhere on any document did it refer to any conviction. When he applied for citizenship - turned down - because of a bumper bashing..........

A lawyer (Melanie Coxon www.lawyerhelp.co.nz ) subsequently vacated the plea, had the case heard again and he was discharged without conviction - the gravity and resulting effects of the original conviction was hugely disproportionate to the offence. Discharged without conviction under S106 of the act.

Hugely distressing in a family.

If I had gone to her in the first place, it would have been simple Much Cheaper!!! and achieved the result in the first place......

When you're in the (legal) jungle - get yourself a good guide !!!!!

What I can tell you is the best advice I have come across for dealing with the Police in New Zealand, I found on Youtube as follows:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE3nZV-nmQo

And having had a few dealings with them now - thats about the truth of it.

:yes:


Tell your mate to get a lawyer, fix the date error voluntarily and defend as best he can through the lawyer.

I find it curious that we (members of the public) have to pass the cops' "attitude test" but the reverse doesn't apply.

[Finn]

How about jury service? I was sent a letter and threw it in the bin. I'm the last person you want on a jury.

[Morcs]

So a mate (no, not me, I learned my lesson and only ride responsibly now) has just got his summons for a court date in 24/03/3009.

He's wondering if he needs to turn up for court on 24/03/2009 or just ignore it.
My advice - given that it's a dangerous driving charge is get a lawyer and ask him.

So does he need to turn up in 2009 or not?

Anyone I know?

For dangerous, you MUST appear before the court as its an actual conviction.

For things like exceeding 100, you can plead guilty by post, and not have to go to court - however, if you plead guilty with mitigation, then you still go to court.

[CookMySock]

I find it curious that we (members of the public) have to pass the cops' "attitude test" but the reverse doesn't apply.The reverse does apply. You can have all the attitude you like, provided you are fair and square legal. Make sure you are fully legal, and then tell the fuzz to get bent - thats not against the law either.

Last time I was on the phone to the fuzz, they hung up on ME!

I went to pass today where I shouldna. I see the cops up the road so I pull back in. It's not against the law to ALMOST pass where you shouldn't. :2thumbsup

Steve

[peasea]

The reverse does apply. You can have all the attitude you like, provided you are fair and square legal.

To a degree I disagree. In some, perhaps even in most cases where you are approached by the cops and you're sober, legal and done nothing (ie; a 'routine check' aka fishing expedition) you might get away with verbal murder but believe me (coz I've been there) you can get locked up on a trumped up charge and then the fuckers withdraw it the next morning.

Tell that to the PCA and you've just wasted another tree. Some cops do what the fuck they want and get away with it, thanks in no small part to their whatewashing machine.:argh:

[peasea]

How about jury service? I was sent a letter and threw it in the bin. I'm the last person you want on a jury.

Naughty naughty, they don't like that. I was excused recently (key position etc, funnneeeee) but to ignore it is a no-no. There'll be a lynchin'.

I don't think I'd make a good jurer either being racist redneck cop hater. Not a good look if you're an Asian cop on a charge of kiddie fiddling.:whistle:

[Max Preload]

Guaranteed "get out of jury service for life" letter, as submitted by a mate of mine. :lol:

[Rotorwarrior]

See this letter sent in by an Australian to the Prime Minister.That is really funny!!!!:chase: