Court - What to expect

[Usarka]

Fuck the non-wavers.

[Mully]

Or even better - "How about we have a special KB wave?"

Now, that's a good idea. Why hasn't anyone ever done a thread about that?

Back to the OP - I'd be keen to know (once the case is over) what your defense was?

To my mind, the law in question is an ass, but it is the law. Short of pleading guilty and claiming extenuating circumstances it seems that you're spending a lot of time on a minor issue.

[MSTRS:Me]

I think this case is a long shot, but may I present the following information for your consideration:

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, Section 1.8

A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that—
(a) the act or omission complained of took place in response to a situation on a road; and
(b) the situation was not of the person's own making; and
(c) the act or omission was taken—
(i) to avoid the death or injury of a person; or
(ii) if the act or omission did not create a risk of death or injury or greater damage to any property, to avoid damage to any property.

And these are the precise reasons why the 70kph law is a bad one.
There is (almost) always a car driver about who will threaten your general safety and well-being, should you be significantly slower than s/he wants to travel at. And the only defence against this (apart from not being there) is to travel at a speed that is in keeping with the general flow of traffic.

[p.dath]

And these are the precise reasons why the 70kph law is a bad one.
There is (almost) always a car driver about who will threaten your general safety and well-being, should you be significantly slower than s/he wants to travel at. And the only defence against this (apart from not being there) is to travel at a speed that is in keeping with the general flow of traffic.

I didn't mention it because I thought it was obvious, but in the affidavit to the court I would find the quotes from the minster of transport (or was it the former minster) and the LTSA saying they thought the 70km/h limit posed a danger.

Then say that under section 1.8 that the 70km/h learners restriction does not apply. Hence, no law has been broken.


BUT this is a JP, not a Judge. And although there may be a point of law which is arguable, I'm betting the case will lost, and you would have to appeal.

So enjoy the day in court, but unless you prepared to dump $30k on it, and that's assuming you won the appeal, and the Police did not appeal it to the high court (which I bet they would if they lost to stop a precedent being established), I think the chances are pretty slim.

The Police have a lot of supporting cases in their favour.


EDIT: Remember, always aim for the best outcome - not the "just" outcome.

[boostin]

Actually the 'rule' specifically excludes any cover relating to driver licencing.

[paddy]

Actually the 'rule' specifically excludes any cover relating to driver licencing.

There are also some important "ands" in there as well...

[Patrick]

This is true, although the prosecution don't send out the disclosure automatically without a request from the defence in writing. Also, as the case in question here is (as I understand it) an infringement offence being taken to a court hearing under the Summary Proceedings act, there may not be a callover. The court date in front of J.P's is possibly the date the case will be heard, also subject to the actual Court and the size of the day's list. Why would a hearing be granted for such an (infringement) offence if the plea wasn't already not guilty?

Paddy; if you haven't already requested disclosure, request it now. Be very specific of the information you require. For example, a Statement of Facts (probably full of lies), Officer's notes made at the time and even recordings from the Police Comms radio, if it's relevant.

Blardy hell.....

It's a ticket. Unlikely to be any notebook entries, but ask all the same.... There is the ticket, and the officers notes on the rear of his copy. You're entitled to these. As for radio comms, statements etc, jesus... get a grip. It's a ticket!!!!! The radio will be, QVR on xxx12 at whatever road. You already know who owns the bike... Then they will check the riders details, and you know this too.... Then there will be the call that the rider has a 1L licence. Most cops know the tickets available for license breaches, as do ALL bike riders....... There may have been discussions with a supervisor, but this really is a simple ticket.

Disclosure: Write in and request the case the prosecution wishes to use against you. The address is on the ticket.

Hearing: If you want to defend the matter, write in and advise them of this. The address is on the ticket. They will let you know when the date will be for the hearing. There is no early hearing to enter a plea (coz it's just a blardy ticket....). You write in, saying you are pleading not guilty (as in you have entered a plea) and a date will be given. If the cop fails to front on the day (unlikely) it will get tossed. But hey, he might forget, he might be on night shift and can't be arsed for a poxy ticket, might go on holiday, whatever...... but don't hold your breath. Expect him/her to front. If you don't front, expect it to go ahead as a formal proof matter, that is, the case as it is, and the court will convict as expected, as there are no submissions from you.

lets face it, all police are constables.....

Yes they are. It is the rank that they hold that makes a difference. Even the Commissioner is a Constable. Hope this answers your question.........

..........To my mind, the law in question is an ass, but it is the law. Short of pleading guilty and claiming extenuating circumstances it seems that you're spending a lot of time on a minor issue.

But it could have a major positive result for all learners/restricteds....?

........There is (almost) always a car driver about who will threaten your general safety and well-being, should you be significantly slower than s/he wants to travel at. And the only defence against this (apart from not being there) is to travel at a speed that is in keeping with the general flow of traffic.

And this is the point......

Not guilty means you didn't break a law. He did.

Guilty but here is why I did what I did (submissions to be considered) is what is going on now........ If these submiisions are not accepted by the bureau, then try to see of the court will accept them as reasonable.

[MSTRS:Me]

And this is the point......

Not guilty means you didn't break a law. He did.

Guilty but here is why I did what I did (submissions to be considered) is what is going on now........ If these submiisions are not accepted by the bureau, then try to see of the court will accept them as reasonable.

But did he really break the law? He has a legal defence of Not Guilty, due to the 'fact' that he was not breaking the law 'in the circumstances'

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, Section 1.8

A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that—
(a) the act or omission complained of took place in response to a situation on a road; and
(b) the situation was not of the person's own making; and
(c) the act or omission was taken—
(i) to avoid the death or injury of a person; or
(ii) if the act or omission did not create a risk of death or injury or greater damage to any property, to avoid damage to any property.

I read that to cover what I said earlier. Ergo...he avoided etc, so was not in breach etc...

[Patrick]

But did he really break the law? He has a legal defence of Not Guilty, due to the 'fact' that he was not breaking the law 'in the circumstances'

I read that to cover what I said earlier. Ergo...he avoided etc, so was not in breach etc...

I thought this below referred.......

...Then say that under section 1.8 that the 70km/h learners restriction does not apply.

Perhaps I misread what was being said. It looks useful for the argument, but is expressly excluded?

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Based on what data?.........Perception is not reality......

Ask around. You are wrong. It is not a perception. It is a fact. I won't name names, as they might not want it be known they were perhaps a little naughty, once upon a time.....

I have individuals contacting me on a frequent basis asking for advice.

Jesus. Heaven forbid. With your one eyed slant, I guess they have all been hung, drawn and quartered then.....

[Mikkel]

I haven't read all of the thread, but just tell them to grow a brain and you should be fine. If it goes otherwise, I am sure we can find a place for you within the ranks of "The Armed Rebellion Against the Robotic-minded Overlordshipness of the Establisment"...

[MSTRS:Me]

Actually the 'rule' specifically excludes any cover relating to driver licencing.

Can you show us the precise wording?

Perhaps I misread what was being said. It looks useful for the argument, but is expressly excluded?

Unless the above post by Boostin turns out to be right, and licence conditions are exclusive of the Transport Act, then P.Dath's post is the legal 'Not Guilty'. IF Paddy can prove his case under those terms.

[Madness]

Blardy hell.....

It's a ticket. Unlikely to be any notebook entries, but ask all the same.... There is the ticket, and the officers notes on the rear of his copy. You're entitled to these. As for radio comms, statements etc, jesus... get a grip. It's a ticket!!!!! The radio will be, QVR on xxx12 at whatever road. You already know who owns the bike... Then they will check the riders details, and you know this too.... Then there will be the call that the rider has a 1L licence. Most cops know the tickets available for license breaches, as do ALL bike riders....... There may have been discussions with a supervisor, but this really is a simple ticket.

Isn't that a simple assumption on your part?

Paddy; if you haven't already requested disclosure, request it now. Be very specific of the information you require. For example, a Statement of Facts (probably full of lies), Officer's notes made at the time and even recordings from the Police Comms radio, if it's relevant.

I wasn't giving specific advice, you would have noticed that if you had been paying attention to detail. But, hey, who gives a fuck about the details, so long as the days quota has been filled?

[Patrick]

Isn't that a simple assumption on your part?

Ummm... no.... ??? It was direct from the source, as in "I got a ticket for exceeding the 70k restriction on me learners...." or words to that effect???

I wasn't giving specific advice, you would have noticed that if you had been paying attention to detail. But, hey, who gives a fuck about the details, so long as the days quota has been filled?

Pot/kettle????

[paddy]

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, Section 1.8

A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that—
(a) the act or omission complained of took place in response to a situation on a road; and
(b) the situation was not of the person's own making; and
(c) the act or omission was taken—
(i) to avoid the death or injury of a person; or
(ii) if the act or omission did not create a risk of death or injury or greater damage to any property, to avoid damage to any property.

Can you show us the precise wording?


Unless the above post by Boostin turns out to be right, and licence conditions are exclusive of the Transport Act, then P.Dath's post is the legal 'Not Guilty'. IF Paddy can prove his case under those terms.

I'm not so sure. It would be difficult to argue point (b).

[Madness]

Pot/kettle????

Pig/Lies??