Urgent bill validates speeding tickets

[Scuba_Steve]

?? explain please?

One of NZ's founding laws was "that all promises of fines & forfeitures of particular persons before conviction [in a court of law] be completely illegal & void" this was created in Englandland, brought over here & is still on the books. It was created as Govt officials would use fines to extort money out of people much like traffic fines are used today. They are in complete breach of both the letter & spirit of the law

[Mike.Gayner]

One of NZ's founding laws was "that all promises of fines & forfeitures of particular persons before conviction [in a court of law] be completely illegal & void" this was created in Englandland, brought over here & is still on the books. It was created as Govt officials would use fines to extort money out of people much like traffic fines are used today. They are in complete breach of both the letter & spirit of the law

Why don't you go ahead and point me to the statute you're quoting here.

[Scuba_Steve]

Why don't you go ahead and point me to the statute you're quoting here.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/i...LM4663810.html

[mashman]

One of NZ's founding laws was "that all promises of fines & forfeitures of particular persons before conviction [in a court of law] be completely illegal & void" this was created in Englandland, brought over here & is still on the books. It was created as Govt officials would use fines to extort money out of people much like traffic fines are used today. They are in complete breach of both the letter & spirit of the law

Aye, they are the law. Thing that gets me is... where do these laws come from? Who thinks them up? What "normal" human being, as TDL was saying so very correctly and from a position of win earlier on, thinks up such a thing? We know it's nought more than a revenue earner, but it's a slippery slope. A crime was committed, nothing should stand in the way of getting a conviction? WTF? caveat: unless there's $ involved (coz the PERSON may well best serve the community and country by making money and running free) to grease the wheels of ignorance. The best thing about it though, is that it's ALL obligation and obligation is not illegal, just a behavioural side effect of the involvement of money in the life equation thing... on the positive side, heh heh, it is behaviour driven by money and therefore changeable by removing money

[swbarnett]

One of NZ's founding laws was "that all promises of fines & forfeitures of particular persons before conviction [in a court of law] be completely illegal & void" this was created in Englandland, brought over here & is still on the books. It was created as Govt officials would use fines to extort money out of people much like traffic fines are used today. They are in complete breach of both the letter & spirit of the law

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: Is there a definition of conviction that requires a court of law? I wonder if the argument could be made that a speeding ticket is actually a conviction in a legal sense.

[Oscar]

One of NZ's founding laws was "that all promises of fines & forfeitures of particular persons before conviction [in a court of law] be completely illegal & void" this was created in Englandland, brought over here & is still on the books. It was created as Govt officials would use fines to extort money out of people much like traffic fines are used today. They are in complete breach of both the letter & spirit of the law

Er - you can defend the speeding ticket in a court of law, you know.
Also by paying the fine as levied you are pleading guilty, so you're kinda paying the fine after conviction.

[mashman]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: Is there a definition of conviction that requires a court of law? I wonder if the argument could be made that a speeding ticket is actually a conviction in a legal sense.

If driving is against the law and a license is nothing more than a permit that allows you to break the law, then weren't you a convict the moment you first drive? Just a thought

[Scuba_Steve]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: Is there a definition of conviction that requires a court of law? I wonder if the argument could be made that a speeding ticket is actually a conviction in a legal sense.

That's above the cops powers, they accuse NOT convict & would be in contradiction to the whole reason the law was established

Er - you can defend the speeding ticket in a court of law, you know.
Also by paying the fine as levied you are pleading guilty, so you're kinda paying the fine after conviction.

You can but legally the fine does not exist until you do & that's also a guilty until proven innocent system, again in breach of legislation of the land
Yes this is the argument; if you pay infringement notice, in exchange for admitting guilt (convicting yourself) & freeing up court time you get a lesser fee etc etc however if you don't pay the fine what happens then??? Yep that's right, they'll commit theft & illegally steal your money which is a criminal offence & for what? a mere civil offence affecting no one... I don't see how it can be alright for a criminal offence to be committed in pursuit of an illegally given civil one

[Oscar]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: Is there a definition of conviction that requires a court of law? I wonder if the argument could be made that a speeding ticket is actually a conviction in a legal sense.

No.

The Summary Proceedings Act 1957 makes it clear:

Section 78A stipulates that no conviction is to be recorded for an infringement offence, even if the offender is convicted in court (and whether or not an infringement notice was issued).

[Oscar]

That's above the cops powers, they accuse NOT convict & would be in contradiction to the whole reason the law was established


You can but legally the fine does not exist until you do & that's also a guilty until proven innocent system, again in breach of legislation of the land
Yes this is the argument; if you pay infringement notice, in exchange for admitting guilt (convicting yourself) & freeing up court time you get a lesser fee etc etc however if you don't pay the fine what happens then??? Yep that's right, they'll commit theft & illegally steal your money which is a criminal offence & for what? a mere civil offence affecting no one... I don't see how it can be alright for a criminal offence to be committed in pursuit of an illegally given civil one

You have 28 days in which to notify your intention to defend the charge and then a further 28 days to pay the fine.
Effectively that means you are admitting guilt by failing to defend the notice inside the period allowed, not by paying the fine.

[awayatc]

Parliament has passed a bill under urgency that validates speeding tickets issued since 2004 for breaking speed limits that councils might not have had legal authority to set.... only 10 years backdated lol.

At least they are consistent.........
consistent and predictable......

Sobering to be reminded it's the inmates running our asylum.....

[Scuba_Steve]

You have 28 days in which to notify your intention to defend the charge and then a further 28 days to pay the fine.
Effectively that means you are admitting guilt by failing to defend the notice inside the period allowed, not by paying the fine.

So guilty until proven innocent...
Also silence is not an admission of guilt, you do have the right to remain silent; the onus of proof is on the accuser NOT the accused & maybee you missed the part about it being illegal & void in the 1st place

Given this is civil would you be happy if I accused you of something & your options were
1) take time off work to defend yourself against said claim (which would probably cost more in lost wages than I'm taking you for) where you had to prove yourself innocent rather than me having to prove you guilty
2) Just be assumed guilty & have the courts steal your money to give to me

Sounds fair don't it

[mashman]

At least they are consistent.........
consistent and predictable......

Sobering to be reminded it's the inmates running our asylum.....

I guess it could be worse... at least we ended up with slowly slowly catchy monkey instead of bang bang shooty shoot splodey splodey and a hey nonny nonny.

Aye, reminds me of why I don't vote.

[Brett]

I genuinely lol'd last night when I heard about this. The two examples given by the government of why this bill had to change - 1) to remove the ability of people to challenge the fines and 2) BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE GOVERNMENT. I have never heard them directly admit that speeding enforcement is a genuine revenue gatherer. Imagine if everyone were to suddenly stop speeding - bet this would prove less popular than the "speed kills" campaign.

[FJRider]

Er - you can defend the speeding ticket in a court of law, you know.
Also by paying the fine as levied you are pleading guilty, so you're kinda paying the fine after conviction.

I am old enough to recall (if my aged memory is still working correctly) that a Traffic Infringement notice (Issued by the Ministry of Transport) resulted in an invitation to Court. Should you wish to fight the chasrge you had to appear IN court. If you failed to appear ... you were THEN deemed guilty by your non appearance ... and your fine was then .. IN THE MAIL.


They shortcutted the procedings to todays ... ticket issued with fine to pay if you accept you were guilty.



Would you prefer to go back to the old system ... ??? I personally ... would not.