Foolproof way to get off a ticket inside!

[XxKiTtiExX]

Yeah I know someone that this has happened to not only once, but twice. Who ever it was gave this guys name, physical address and even the address of where his mother worked. (It definately wasn't him, but obviously someone who knew him to be able to hand over that information).
If you were in Christchurch at the time maybe you could approach your bank for a statement from around that time? (If you used your eftpos card while you were down there).

EDIT: Just realized someone else mentioned statements also.

Goodluck

[Squiggles]

Have had it happen with estranged family members, bit of a bastard having to go about proving it aint you

[red mermaid]

And often the party giving the false details is very well known to the party whose details they are using.

And then police are hamstrung by only being allowed 15 minutes to satisfactorily ID a person.

And the opposite side of this thread would be getting held up by police while they photograph and fingerprint you on the side of the road, which they have legislative authority to do. I can hear the moans on KB about that one already.

[paddy]

Everyone seems to be missing the point. The POLICE case sounds very circumstantial. In New Zealand, the onus is on the prosecution (the "informant" in traffic court) to prove their case. In a non-criminal case, this does not need to be "beyond a reasonable doubt"; however, the onus is still with the Police. The officer should have recorded more than just your name when issuing the ticket. He should also have recorded details such as a license plate number and a Driver's License number. These elements in combination are generally considered sufficient to establish identity.

I am surprised that the Police are pursuing this and it makes me wonder if there is a significant element to the story that we have not been told; however, presuming that what we read is this thread is correct, then the defence is simple:

"Your Worship, the Police have failed to positively identify that I was the person who committed the alleged offence." - This is a statement of fact and should be adequate for dismissal.

Further evidence that you may enter, for example, bank statements demonstrating transactions in another city at the time, parking tickets, library book issues, speeding fines, affidavits from others who may have been with you at the time etcetera may contribute to the JP's perception of the case but in a strict legal sense they are not required as they are proof of innocence and the Police lack proof of guilt. Having said that, we live in the real world, not an academic one, so every little bit will help. As a point of note, be careful with affidavits. They carry the same weight in court as verbal evidence; however, they do not permit cross examination. This is not a problem if the prosecution accepts the affidavit as given; however, it is within their right to cross examine any witness giving evidence. This may result in your Christchurch mates being subpoenaed to Whangarei.

You should consult a lawyer, as I suspect there is probably a STACK of "common law" around this area (that is to say precedents set in court in the past that are now considered law - this is termed "case law" in the USA). You should also be aware that the informant is required to disclose to the defence any and all evidence that they intend to enter during the proceedings. You should write and request such.

Dress tidily, be on-time, and be extremely Polite to the Judges/JPs/Prosecution Counsel/Witnesses/etcetera.

That's my 2c worth. Please bear in mind I am not a lawyer (otherwise that would have been considerably more than 2c worth) so do your own due diligence.

[paddy]

. . .Took years to sort out, with WCC getting fined for wasting court time repeatedly over a $20 parking ticket wrongly attributed to us. . .

The frustrating thing with that is that "We" end up paying for it in the long run. (Not that I don't think you did the right thing - I would have done the same.)

[ynot slow]

Had a mate years ago,they were supposed to be working but decided to do a spot of trout fishing on their lunch/work time.A cop asked them for their licences which they didn't have,they gave a false name.Was going ok till the cop went into their work saw them both and asked the boss for their names,10 mins later a summons for giving false information etc,cost them about $200.

[red mermaid]

Listen to the advice below in peril, it is confused and wrong.

Identification evidence is not circumstantial. This is a criminal case, even if it is traffic, and the charge has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as for all traffic charges.

If the police officer identifies you in court as the person he spoke to then the statement you have been advised to make will be worth a tin of shit. "Your Worship, the Police have failed to positively identify that I was the person who committed the alleged offence."

You will have to go into the witness box, be sworn in, and then give evidence and the list detailed in the previous post would be very helpful.

Unless you are experienced at court, you must engage a lawyer, and it will not be common law he will be looking for, but case law as this is also the term used in NZ.

Everyone seems to be missing the point. The POLICE case sounds very circumstantial. In New Zealand, the onus is on the prosecution (the "informant" in traffic court) to prove their case. In a non-criminal case, this does not need to be "beyond a reasonable doubt"; however, the onus is still with the Police. The officer should have recorded more than just your name when issuing the ticket. He should also have recorded details such as a license plate number and a Driver's License number. These elements in combination are generally considered sufficient to establish identity.

I am surprised that the Police are pursuing this and it makes me wonder if there is a significant element to the story that we have not been told; however, presuming that what we read is this thread is correct, then the defence is simple:

"Your Worship, the Police have failed to positively identify that I was the person who committed the alleged offence." - This is a statement of fact and should be adequate for dismissal.

Further evidence that you may enter, for example, bank statements demonstrating transactions in another city at the time, parking tickets, library book issues, speeding fines, affidavits from others who may have been with you at the time etcetera may contribute to the JP's perception of the case but in a strict legal sense they are not required as they are proof of innocence and the Police lack proof of guilt. Having said that, we live in the real world, not an academic one, so every little bit will help. As a point of note, be careful with affidavits. They carry the same weight in court as verbal evidence; however, they do not permit cross examination. This is not a problem if the prosecution accepts the affidavit as given; however, it is within their right to cross examine any witness giving evidence. This may result in your Christchurch mates being subpoenaed to Whangarei.

You should consult a lawyer, as I suspect there is probably a STACK of "common law" around this area (that is to say precedents set in court in the past that are now considered law - this is termed "case law" in the USA). You should also be aware that the informant is required to disclose to the defence any and all evidence that they intend to enter during the proceedings. You should write and request such.

Dress tidily, be on-time, and be extremely Polite to the Judges/JPs/Prosecution Counsel/Witnesses/etcetera.

That's my 2c worth. Please bear in mind I am not a lawyer (otherwise that would have been considerably more than 2c worth) so do your own due diligence.

[paddy]

Listen to the advice below in peril, it is confused and wrong.

Disagree with that.

Identification evidence is not circumstantial. This is a criminal case, even if it is traffic, and the charge has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as for all traffic charges.

Yes, okay, it's a criminal case in as much as it is not a civil case; however, the charge hasn't been stated and we don't know if it is an indictable offence or not (under the Summary Proceedings Act - if the charge is under the Crimes Act then this is different again).

What I was trying to get across is simply that the rules of evidence are more relaxed when dealing with charges under the Summary Proceedings Act. This can swing both ways.

If the police officer identifies you in court as the person he spoke to then the statement you have been advised to make will be worth a tin of shit. "Your Worship, the Police have failed to positively identify that I was the person who committed the alleged offence."

Yes - I agree with that. That is something that I hadn't considered.

You will have to go into the witness box, be sworn in, and then give evidence and the list detailed in the previous post would be very helpful.

You are never REQUIRED to enter the witness box. But I think that when you said "you will have to", you meant this would be the only way to refute the Officer's claim if he identifies you in court. I disagree with this. All of the evidence previously supplied can be entered without entering the witness box yourself and therefore being subject to cross examination.

Unless you are experienced at court, you must engage a lawyer

Definitely agree with this.

and it will not be common law he will be looking for, but case law as this is also the term used in NZ.

You statement is probably better written as "the term case law is also used in NZ". That is to say, the term case law is also understood and commonly used; however, in the New Zealand legal system "common law" is the pedantically correct term. Having said all of that, this is just semantics and it really doesn't matter which you call it as long as you understand what it is. Don't be a pedant red mermaid, you clearly knew what I meant when you expanded and agreed with the point I was making.

Meowmix, again I am not a lawyer, and I would suggest that Red Mermaid is not a lawyer either. You now have two slightly contradictory opinions - and I suspect many more before this thread dies. The most important thing you can take from my previous advice is to "do your own due diligence". Perform your own research, engage your own legal counsel if you are in a position to do so. A worthwhile book is "Trust Me, I'm a Lawyer" by Garth Cameron. Your local library will probably have it.

P.

[HenryDorsetCase]

This happened to a mate of mine. It turned out that his no good (in jail now) step brother kept telling the cops that he was my mate. My mate kept getting infringement notices in the mail and going 'WTF?!' It's a pretty shit system and needs fixing. How do they deal with all the John Smiths of the world?

I have three words of advice for you. They are:

Get

a

lawyer.



I'm guessing you are relatively young and inexperienced, but at least (and remember my brain is turned off for the holidays) you will want to front the officer in court so he can say "Er. no that isnt the person I stopped who told me his name was Mr Whatever". You will also want AT LEAST signed affidavits (and the procedural requirements are relatively strict) from you witnesses who will say "Uh, he was here all along your honour". Best is if they attend Court with you so they can be cross examined.

Be careful of time limits in these sorts of cases. And what the other poster said about getting copy documents is good advice. I dont know any lawyers in Whangarei but ask around for a recommendation. Talk with friends and family.

Most lawyers are away till at least 11 January but some will be starting back tomorrow.

Be prepared to pay.

Do you in fact know who the person was who gave your name? Most of the time these persons are not rocket scientists, and as in the post above, will give the name (and date of birth) of someone they know.

[meowmix]

Righto, now I'm over my rant (but thankful it got some attention) I will relay all relevant information regarding this issue in chronological order.

On two dates, May the 9th and 28th of 2008, a White 1988 Toyota Trueno with the registration UB3532 and owner Ethan Kennedy was pulled over. On both occasions, the respective officers requested the driver to produce his licence, and the driver failed to do so. The driver then gave my full name, albeit with the surname incorrectly spelled. The address given was not one I have ever lived in. The Driver's licence number and Date of Birth were correct, I assume it was after radioing in and requesting the details.

In November 2009 a notice was left by the Whangarei District Court at my father's residence. I advised the court of my address, and another note was left at my address. I then went to the courts and asked what it was regarding. I was briefly questioned over the counter before requesting a means to counter the fine they were attempting to issue. I was given two forms, one per offence, and a printout of basic details regarding the offences. I filled out the forms, "Application to correct irregularities in Court proceedings" and attached a letter from my residence in Christchurch at the time stating I was in fact a resident. The Court then approved my application, and granted the Police permission to re-issue the fine or drop the case.

The Police re-issued the fines, I recieved the Reminders on the 30th of November 2009, and responded with letters requesting a hearing in regards to the matter.

I was then posted two 'packs', contining a Notice of Hearing, an explanatory letter from the Police, a copy of the respective Infringement notice issued at the time, a copy of the letter sent by the Ministry of Justice saying my application to correct irregularities was accepted, copies of the application forms, and the evidence I provided with the application.

That is it thus far.

I intend to lodge a complaint with the Police of their handling of the issue.
I intend to get a detailed Bank statement for the month of May 2008.
I hope to recieve two written and signed (by the individual and a JP or other such member) statements from two individuals.
I intend to ring the CAB and see if they know of the best way to get a suitable lawyer for this situation and location.
Please add to this list.


The driver may have been Ethan James Kennedy, or possibly Ricky Johnson. If it is Ricky, the police officer may mistake him for me, as we have very similar features, often being thought as brothers. Both are the same age as me. Both have the same eye colour.

[FROSTY:Me]

Woa there Meeeow. You have got the COURTS in essence to retry the case. That is what you have acheived so far. This is good.
Basicly because of lack of response from you (go figure-wrong address not you in the first place) the police have had the case automaticly taken to court after you have failed to pay the fines. The courts have fined you and added court costs.
Pretty reasonable from the POV of the police --ie you diddn't respond.
Now you are back to it being the need for a retrial.

So NOW I'd suggest you have two paths to follow.
1) gather all your evidence and wait for the court date.
2)Gather your information,contact the issueing station commander and explain to him exactly what you have to us.
it might go back to 1) but more likely the tickets will be cancelled.

[Ixion]

Identification evidence is not circumstantial. This is a criminal case, even if it is traffic, and the charge has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt as for all traffic charges.

..

Traffic charge - beyond reasonable doubt ?

Good luck with getting off this - but it may not be easy. Or cheap. As far as the courts and the police are concerned you are gulity. Because the police say you are and the police are always right. Regardless of the theory, the reality is that if charged with a traffic offence you are guilty until proven innocent.

Be prepared for the police involved to lie through their teeth. About everything . They will quite certainly get up on the stand and say "Yes, that's the fellow, not a shadow of doubt".

You will need a lawyer, and it won't be cheap. False accusation flourishes in NZ because the system is geared such that guilt or innocence is irrelevant - what counts is accusation.

How did Mr Kennedy know your birthday and DL number? This is why I pack a volcanic shitty when people other than cops demand to see my drivers licence. All they have to do is write down the number and DoB and they've got a permanent get out gaol free card.

No it's not the way it's supposed to be, and it's not the way the text bookds say. but it is the reality of policing in NZ.

As for the argument that it is so hard for the cops to establish identity, what's wrong with taking a photo of the person? Or, since the vehicle in question is registered to Mr Kennedy, just having the officer in question pop along and see Mr Kennedy and see if he happens to be the driver. Easy enough, but it won't happen. You've been accused, so you are guilty. End of story.

[scissorhands]

So if I find someone who looks like me, (preferably a right bastard who deserves some grief) record his full name, address, date of birth, height, weight, place of birth, drivers license number...any more?

Then find a vehicle that is not registered to me, or cannot be linked to me, cause I never park it anywhere near my home.....has to be a bomb with no insurance....

Aaaahh bollocks.

Lying is so hard and stressful trying to be consistent, like most lying is. 3 small fines in 31 years so I'll keep being me.

Doctors Certificates or tell the missus to jump in the backseat with a pillow up her jersey pretending to give birth

I'm all for photographing the driver or even moving to the front of the police cruiser to video. That way any impairment testing anomalies can be video referable, which for NZ 500,000 cannabis smokers, irons out any unfair discrimination

[red mermaid]

You have definitely got issues.

I think you should go to court and assist meowmix, and start the defence by accusing the police officers of lying. Go on, bet you won't.

Traffic charge - beyond reasonable doubt ?

Good luck with getting off this - but it may not be easy. Or cheap. As far as the courts and the police are concerned you are gulity. Because the police say you are and the police are always right. Regardless of the theory, the reality is that if charged with a traffic offence you are guilty until proven innocent.

Be prepared for the police involved to lie through their teeth. About everything . They will quite certainly get up on the stand and say "Yes, that's the fellow, not a shadow of doubt".

You will need a lawyer, and it won't be cheap. False accusation flourishes in NZ because the system is geared such that guilt or innocence is irrelevant - what counts is accusation.

How did Mr Kennedy know your birthday and DL number? This is why I pack a volcanic shitty when people other than cops demand to see my drivers licence. All they have to do is write down the number and DoB and they've got a permanent get out gaol free card.

No it's not the way it's supposed to be, and it's not the way the text bookds say. but it is the reality of policing in NZ.

As for the argument that it is so hard for the cops to establish identity, what's wrong with taking a photo of the person? Or, since the vehicle in question is registered to Mr Kennedy, just having the officer in question pop along and see Mr Kennedy and see if he happens to be the driver. Easy enough, but it won't happen. You've been accused, so you are guilty. End of story.

[Winston001]

Sod it. Just wrote a reply and lost it. So - I cannot comprehend why you blame the police for anything. You haven't contacted them with your evidence. If we honestly expected the police to believe every "it wasn't me" nobody would ever be convicted.

The District Court staff granted the re-hearing because they almost always do. No effect on them.

Read Brian and Red Mermaids posts - sound advice. Paddy has made thoughtful posts but regrettably not accurate.