Requesting a court hearing?

[caseye]

Shit! that's twice Akz!
+ one for Akzles comments.
Pay up and move on.

[oldrider]

Suck it up man and chaulk it up to experience ... a successfull challenge is unlikely and probably very costly to boot! some of these guy's are OK! Some are

[FJRider]

Hi
Going to try and waste some taxpayer dollars.

Only one taxpayer will get their money wasted ... YOURS ...

I got a ticket for 113kph which I contested on the grounds I was "flowing" with everyone else doing 113ks. Didn't wash with Sergeant G. Keay (Adjudicator), after carefully considering my correspondence he has determined that 113ks is "in excess of the allowable tolerance and too great for a warning to be given."

Stating in your letter that you were "Flowing" with traffic exceeding the posted speed limit (and over the tolerance) ... is admission of guilt. "Everyone" else escaped a fine ... lucky them ... eh .. !!!

Here's my gripe, you get 2 months to pay before they send it to collections. I got the ticket on the 17th of December 2013 and today I got the letter dated 18th February. So, they've taken 2 months just to get back to me, not even giving me enough time to pay the notice before Baycorp get it.

You had 2 months to pay the fine ... for which you admitted guilt in your letter ...

The time limit to pay doesn't lengthen if you argue the point ....

You're fucked ... suck it up and pay the fine ... before the fine GROWS ...

Has anyone requested a court hearing before? If so, and you lose, do you have to pay any court costs or the like?

MANY have tried ... (and failed) ... and If found guilty ... YES ... (an extra $150) on top of the fine .. which WILL be bigger if it goes to court ...

If I'm going to have to pay $80, I feel like I need to get something for it.

Cheers
SJ

You DID get something with it ... 10 demerit points ...

[Kornholio]

You should have done a runner... make em work for it(unless they had your plate at the get go)

[haydes55]

Could you argue that the ticket violated the purpose of the land transport act, which states (paraphraisingly) the purpose of the act is to ensure safety of road users. And by going at the "alleged" speed was not actually unsafe, and didn't increase risk of accidents or harm?

Insert proof of your capabilities as a rider (crash records, rider training, common sense explained technically) and argue that whether you traveled at 113 or 100km/h a crash was equally unlikely. Therefore the ticket wasn't performing an act of enforcing the purpose of the act, but was more enforcing beaurocracy (how the fuck do you spell that?).

[Akzle]

an act of enforcing the purpose of the act, but was more enforcing beaurocracy (how the fuck do you spell that?).

irrelevant. Crown caughts uphold the letter of the law, not the vibe of it, man.
Ignorance is no excuse. After-the-fact claim of right has no standing.

[FJRider]

Could you argue that the ticket violated the purpose of the land transport act, which states (paraphraisingly) the purpose of the act is to ensure safety of road users. And by going at the "alleged" speed was not actually unsafe, and didn't increase risk of accidents or harm?

He was speeding and admitted it. He got caught by a Cop. Ticketed ... and he chose to ignore paying the fine.

The "Purpose of the Act" is to ensure due and proper process of law .... and effective prosecution of offenders ...

Insert proof of your capabilities as a rider (crash records, rider training, common sense explained technically) and argue that whether you traveled at 113 or 100km/h a crash was equally unlikely. Therefore the ticket wasn't performing an act of enforcing the purpose of the act, but was more enforcing beaurocracy (how the fuck do you spell that?).

After the officer "Inserts" His/Her proof/statement of the offending ... the proverbial goose is cooked ...

[FJRider]

irrelevant. Crown caughts uphold the letter of the law, not the vibe of it, man.
Ignorance is no excuse. After-the-fact claim of right has no standing.

Crown courts have no standing ... that's why they call them a "Sitting" ..

[Winston001]

You are facing a traffic infringement. The prosecuting authority has rejected your explanation. The next step is a traffic infringement notice which gives you the right to elect a Court hearing. If you do then you will be notified of a Court hearing date.








Or...pay the fine. $80 is less than the Court costs on a hearing. Its completely up to you.

[Brian d marge]

baaaaaaaaaaaa

[Akzle]

Crown courts have no standing ... that's why they call them a "Sitting" ..

bling blung!

[Banditbandit]

You're going to lose - pay the fine - don't waste money adding court costs ...