Originally Posted by
dinosaur
Today I went to court – to defend myself against the word of a Police Officer – actually a Police Sargent, who stopped me and issued me with an infringement notice (fine) for failing to stop at a rail crossing.
He claimed I didn’t come to a complete stop, I claim I did
His assumption was because I didn’t put my foot down then I didn’t come to a complete stop
It came down to his word against mine – and as many would tell you; the New Zealand Courts always find in favour of the Police – this needs to be challenged, the police need to present evidence beyond just a testimony from them
My case summary was a bit OTT but won the day for me – earning a commendation from the Magistrate, and charges dismissed.
My rant:
I should be Presumed innocent until proved guilty:
What proof has the crown presented? The testimony of the Officer only
What the prosecution is asking you to accept is; when a Police Officer stands before the court accusing a free citizen, his testimony alone amounts to enough evidence to presume guilt, that they need not present any further evidence in this case
Yet under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure, it reads; “Everyone who is charged with an offence has: the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:
The presumption of innocence means the burden of proof rests with the Crown, not with the accused. If you are accused of a crime, you do not need to prove that you are innocent – your innocence is the starting assumption, the Crown must prove that you are guilty.
If the police wish to sit at a compulsory stop, run a campaign of awareness and know this is what they are doing on this particular day – why have your camera on the vehicle pointing away from the railway crossing? Why not employ the camera that is on every police issued cell phone, or set up a camera at the crossing?
Why is this important to me, why don’t I just pay the fine; I want to talk about …. the rule of law
The free citizens of New Zealand cannot go about our business if we are subject to the arbitrary will of others – be it other private citizens or government officials. If a thug can beat you up and take your stuff, you are not free.
Nor are you free if a government official can accuse you of breaking the law without evidence, fine you or take your money at their discretion. Free people live under the rule of law, not the rule of men.
If an officer can simply fine you, and is not called on to prove guilt, and they are left to actively go about their business in that arrogant manner – then where is our freedom
This shows little or no respect for fundamental principles of justice
Shifting the burden of proof from state agencies to the people does not merely expose citizens to injustice, but it reduces government agencies’ incentive to conduct their inquiries to a high standard. It is a licence for incompetence
As evidenced in this case where; the Police run a campaign – not just a routine Police stop – a campaign they have planned; they selected the rail crossing in advance – and yet no one gives any thought to setting up a camera or a radar, or even setting up with a clear view of the crossing, or any means of proving if a vehicle came to a stop! why have your camera on the vehicle pointing away from the railway crossing? why not use the camera on your phone?
Another principal of Law in a free society is:
You are permitted to do anything that is not expressly illegal.
The officer sore fit to note that I had a ‘Radar’ on board – why? They are legal
I wasn’t breaking or being accused of breaking any speed limits, it adds nothing to the Crowns case alleging I failed to stop? Yet it influenced the officers decision, and I have no doubt it influenced the decision of the prosecutor to bring this case to court
In a free society you do not need to seek permission from the authorities to do something that is lawful. This principle is a close relative of the presumption of innocence. You should not be treated any differently by those charged with upholding and enforcing the law as a result
Not only did this officer wrongly apply the law – believing I am required to put my foot down to stop, but he further erodes my rights as a free citizen by effectively fining me for having a radar detector – even though it is a completely lawful thing to have and use
This may seem a trivial case to most – however I remind you all that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. In a democracy, we are free only so long as citizens are willing to stand up for freedom.
Bookmarks