Pulled over

[TLDV8]

And just to add to this thread, here is another thought..
Why is Drink/Driving one of the only "crimes" where you ARE expected to incriminate yourself (as not providing a sample sufficient for analysis (breath or blood) is actually an offence)... hmmmm

Drink driving is not a crime unless you are over the limit..there is no incrimination if under.

[Bulldog]

I always ask myself the question if the police speeding are more dangerous than the person speeding.

I know they're there to do a job but 9 times out of 10 I see the police doing absurd speeds only to catch up to someone going slower than they just did to catch up?! Always seems hypocrytical to me.

[SimJen]

I always ask myself the question if the police speeding are more dangerous than the person speeding.
I know they're there to do a job but 9 times out of 10 I see the police doing absurd speeds only to catch up to someone going slower than they just did to catch up?! Always seems hypocrytical to me.

Exactly I fail to see how a bike doing barely over the speed limit but capable of stopping quickly (and weighing 200kg) can be more dangerous than a shitty old Commodore station wagon (which can barely stop at the best of times and 1500kg) doing almost twice the speed limit.
I saw a cop do a U-Turn in front of oncoming traffic the other day in which a truck and a car had to take emergency avoidance to miss him, all so he could pull over a van doing barely more than the open road limit. Don't get me started about Hypocritical.

[spudchucka]

And just to add to this thread, here is another thought..
Why is Drink/Driving one of the only "crimes" where you ARE expected to incriminate yourself (as not providing a sample sufficient for analysis (breath or blood) is actually an offence)... hmmmm

You can refuse the officers request to supply a breath or blood sample, they can't physically force you to blow into the machine or hold you down while they draw blood.

You'll simply get arrested and charged with refusing the officers request, which carries the same penalty as drink driving and is the easiest defended hearing a cop will ever have.

[inlinefour]

take it on the chin and move on

[Lou Girardin]

And just to add to this thread, here is another thought..
Why is Drink/Driving one of the only "crimes" where you ARE expected to incriminate yourself (as not providing a sample sufficient for analysis (breath or blood) is actually an offence)... hmmmm

Another protection that was given away without serious debate of the issues.
The next ones will be the protection against double jeopardy and protection against state confiscation of property without a conviction.
The "if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" attitude has a lot to answer for.

[Lou Girardin]

I always ask myself the question if the police speeding are more dangerous than the person speeding.

I know they're there to do a job but 9 times out of 10 I see the police doing absurd speeds only to catch up to someone going slower than they just did to catch up?! Always seems hypocrytical to me.

In theory the Cops are safer because their lights and sirens warn other drivers of their presence. In practice, an extended pursuit becomes exponentially more dangerous as the offenders driving becomes more extreme.
Then there's the danger caused by over eager cops doing U turns in traffic to chase speeders (as mentioned in another post). there has been a least one serious accident (at Te Kauwhata) caused by a cop doing this. I think it was What who had another close call too.

[SimJen]

take it on the chin and move on

I will, I always see it as inevitable getting caught.
You just got to hope you don't get too many tickets at once.

[Psalm42]

You will find what I have attached to the bottom of this post in the crimes act.
You may wish to pay particular interest to a and b.
It would appear the crimes act makes it clear that contravention of a statute is a crime.... that seems to me to be pretty clear that if you are getting pulled over and are told its because you have breached some statute, with out having to say so you are also being told it is a crime.
Its just the penalty thats different.
Also why if it is not a crime, and you chose to argue it in court, does it go to District court?
Under section 9 of the courts act you will see the jurisdictions.
Every time I have been watching at court, when asked what jurisdiction they are in, people fighting traffic cases have been told CRIMINAL.
How can it be based in a criminal jurisdiction if it was not a crime in the first place?
And if it is a crime why are you not read your rights, I think it is because cops would never get there quota if they did...
The last cop I spent way to much money on by sharing my time with him, got so angry, and all I was asking was simple questions, he eventualy yelled, "A Judge will believe my word over yours any day mate" and thats when you say , "You do realise I am recording this dont you?"
He stormed off. Why... All I wanted to know is what jurisdiction he thinks Im in and can he provide any proof of it.

If I am wrong in my understanding please explain why....

This of course also leads to ask the question, do any of the people who swear an oath actual understand it? Most cops I have as friends or have had the pleasure to meet have told me Common law, Well when you actualy understand that common law is based in "innocent until proven guilty". No one Ive met who has had a ticket thinks thats how it works. Its the opposite, as a number of people on this site have indicated, "prove your self innocent".

If a guy who has taken an oath thinks he is opperating in one law and is by his action opperating in another, whos the dumb-arse spudchucka.



107.Contravention of statute—

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year who, without lawful excuse, contravenes any enactment by wilfully doing any act which it forbids, or by wilfully omitting to do any act which it requires to be done, unless—

(a)Some penalty or punishment is expressly provided by law in respect of such contravention as aforesaid; or

(b)In the case of any such contravention in respect of which no penalty or punishment is so provided, the act forbidden or required to be done is solely of an administrative or a ministerial or procedural nature, or it is otherwise inconsistent with the intent and object of the enactment, or with its context, that the contravention should be regarded as an offence.

[(2)Nothing in subsection (1) of this section applies to any contravention of any Imperial enactment or Imperial subordinate legislation that is part of the laws of New Zealand, or to any omission to do any act which any such Imperial enactment or Imperial subordinate legislation requires to be done.]

[(3)In subsection (2) of this section, the terms ``Imperial enactment'' and ``Imperial subordinate legislation'' have the meanings given to them by section 2 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988.]

[Ixion]

Long long ago, before most of your mummys and daddys were even the proverbial glint in grandad's eye, there were no such things as Traffic Infringment Notices.

And if the police thought you were "scorching" , or committing some other offence agin the Law of The Land, they would proceed by way of a summons. A fearsome looking piece of paper wherein His Majesty King George VI summoned you , upon your peril, to attend at the next Session of the Crown Court to answer the various and several charges preferred against you by PC Plod, in that you did do various naughty things aginst the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King.

And you had to take time off work, and go to court, and plead guilty to speeding and get a criminal record . Which was not a Good Thing. As well as pay a honking fine and even more honking court costs.

And wise people said "This is a bit tough, getting a criminal record, with all it's problems, just for going a bit fast. Can't we have a simpler system where you just pay up the fine, like a parking ticket , don't get arrested, don't get a criminal record , and that's the end of it". Not to mention that King Georgie must have been getting a sore hand writing out all those summonses. And a wise and beneficient gubbernment agreed.

So now you don't get arrested for minor speeding ,and the Crimes Act is nothing to do with it.

But, if anyone wants to go back to the good old ways, power be to them, the way is easy. Just go a bit faster, and the cheery PC Plod will happily arrest you for dangerous driving. Which IS still a criminal offence, and WILL get you arrested, and cautioned.

[spudchucka]

.... that seems to me to be pretty clear that if you are getting pulled over and are told its because you have breached some statute, with out having to say so you are also being told it is a crime.

If you are being pulled over in relation to a criminal offence you have probably been stopped under section 314B of the Crimes Act not section 114 of the LTA. You will no doubt note the statutory obligations of any constable exercising this power.

Also why if it is not a crime, and you chose to argue it in court, does it go to District court?

Because its the lowest court, except perhaps for JP traffic court, which is presided over by JP's not a judge and deals with non-imprisonable offences, like speeding.

Under section 9 of the courts act you will see the jurisdictions.

You must mean the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. There is an Act titled the Courts Security Act 1999 and another titled Courts Marital Appeals Act 1953 but oddly enough there is no "Courts Act".

Anyway section 9 of the SPA 1957 states:

9.Jurisdiction of District Court Judges in respect of summary offences—

(1)A Court presided over by a District Court Judge has jurisdiction in respect of every summary offence.

(2)A Court presided over by a District Court Judge has summary jurisdiction in respect of every offence that by any Act is punishable by a fine, penalty, or forfeiture if no other form of procedure is prescribed by that Act for the recovery of the same.]

Whats your point?

This of course also leads to ask the question, do any of the people who swear an oath actual understand it? Most cops I have as friends or have had the pleasure to meet have told me Common law, Well when you actualy understand that common law is based in "innocent until proven guilty".

Common Law:

History of the common law

The common law originally developed under the auspices of the adversarial system in historical England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent. Such forms of legal institutions and culture bear resemblance to those which existed historically in continental Europe and other societies where precedent and custom have at times played a substantial role in the legal process, including Germanic law recorded in Roman historical chronicles. The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning. The common law, as applied in civil cases (as distinct from criminal cases), was devised as a means of compensating someone for wrongful acts known as torts, including both intentional torts and torts caused by negligence and as developing the body of law recognizing and regulating contracts. Today common law is generally thought of as applying only to civil disputes; originally it encompassed the criminal law before criminal codes were adopted in most common law jurisdictions in the late 19th century, although many criminal codes reflect legislative attempts to codify the common law. The type of procedure practiced in common law courts is known as the adversarial system; this is also a development of the common law.

Before the institutional stability imposed on England by William the Conqueror in 1066, English residents, like those of many other societies, particularly the Germanic cultures of continental Europe, were governed by unwritten local customs that varied from community to community and were enforced in often arbitrary fashion. For example, courts generally consisted of informal public assemblies that weighed conflicting claims in a case and, if unable to reach a decision, might require an accused to test guilt or innocence by carrying a red-hot iron or snatching a stone from a cauldron of boiling water or some other "test" of veracity (trial by ordeal). If the defendant's wound healed within a prescribed period, he was set free as innocent; if not, execution usually followed.

In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalized common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems.

Henry II's creation of a powerful and unified court system, which curbed somewhat the power of canonical (church) courts, brought him (and England) into conflict with the church, most famously, with Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Things were resolved eventually, at least for a time, in Henry's favor when a group of his henchmen murdered Becket. For its part, the Church soon canonized Becket as a saint.

As early as the 15th century, it became the practice that litigants who felt they had been cheated by the common-law system would petition the King in person. For example, they might argue that an award of damages (at common law) was not sufficient redress for a trespasser occupying their land, and instead request that the trespasser be evicted. From this developed the system of equity, administered by the Lord Chancellor, in the courts of chancery. By their nature, equity and law were frequently in conflict and litigation would frequently continue for years as one court countermanded the other, even though it was established by the 17th century that equity should prevail. A famous example is the fictional case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Bleak House, by Charles Dickens.

In England, courts of law and equity were combined by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, with equity being supreme in case of conflict. In the United States, parallel systems of law (providing money damages) and equity (fashioning a remedy to fit the situation) survived well into the 20th century in most jurisdictions. In the federal courts there is no separation between law and equity; Delaware still has separate courts of law and equity, and in many states there are separate divisions for law and equity within one court.

Basic principles of common law

Statutes which reflect English common law are understood always to be interpreted in light of the common law tradition, and so may leave a number of things unsaid because they are already understood from the point of view of pre-existing case law and custom. This can readily be seen in the area of criminal law, which while remaining largely governed by the common law in England, has been entirely codified in many US states. Codification is the process where a statute is passed with the intention of restating the common law position in a single document rather than creating new offences, so the common law remains relevant to their interpretation. This is why even today American law schools teach the common law of crime as practiced in England in 1750, since the colonies (and subsequently the states) deviated from the common law as practiced in England only after that date.

By contrast to the statutory codifications of common law, some laws are purely statutory, and may create a new cause of action beyond the common law. An example is the tort of wrongful death, which allows certain persons, usually a spouse, child or estate, to sue for damages on behalf of the deceased. There is no such tort in English common law; thus, any jurisdiction that lacks a wrongful death statute will not allow a lawsuit for the wrongful death of a loved one. Where a wrongful death statute exists, the damages or compensation available are limited to those outlined in the statute (typically, an upper limit on the amount of damages). Courts generally interpret statutes that create new causes of action narrowly -- that is, limited to their precise terms -- because the courts generally recognize the legislature as being supreme in deciding the reach of judge made law unless such statute should violate some "second order" constitutional law provision (compare judicial activism).

Where a tort is rooted in common law, then all damages traditionally recognized historically for that tort may be sued for, whether or not there is mention of those damages in the current statutory law. For instance, a person who sustains bodily injury through the negligence of another may sue for medical costs, pain, suffering, loss of earnings or earning capacity, mental and/or emotional distress, loss of quality of life, disfigurement, and more. These damages need not be set forth in statute as they already exist in the tradition of common law. However, without a wrongful death statute, most of them are extinguished upon death.

What exactly did you say common law was based on?

[Psalm42]

Firstly, how is it you get the quotes in there? I am new to this whole chat forum thing.
And as such it is taking a bit of getting used to. So I have yet to figure out how to put your quote before my comment. So have put them in " " for now.

Your quote. "Whats your point?"

1. My point is according to 107 of the crimes act any breach of a statute is a crime.
2. That makes all stops that you make as a cop pulling someone up because you have the right because they have breached some statute, a criminal jurisdiction.
3. I meant the District Courts act 1947, section 9 (4) (a)
(4) The reference in subsection (2) of this section to jurisdictions means—
(a) The ordinary civil and criminal jurisdiction of District Courts, including common law and equitable jurisdiction and admiralty jurisdiction:
4. Because everyone is under the impression that it is common law and equitable jurisdiction and not admiralty jurisdiction, it should be a matter of the cops having to prove you are guilty not the other way around. If it is the other way around it would be admiralty law.
5. Because you are required to prove your case, any information a cop gets with out your concent is under duress and not admissable as evidence. If as a cop you where required to provide evidence of every element of a claim. You would not be able to meet the quota system and central government would have to consider droping the quota system, and in my opinion let police get back to more policeing and less taxing.

Your quote "What exactly did you say common law was based on?"
What I said it was based on was inocent until proven guilty, perhaps I should have been a little more specific, The magna carta, was what I meant sorry to have been so vague.
With particular focus on points about not taking anyone to court with out credible witnesses, plural. 2 or more. Yet every ticket issued is normaly based on one witness the cop. The other witness is the guy whos getting the ticket.
What most people miss is if it is taken to court and you have consented to the ticket, not provide a affadavit in response to the ticket, not asked for evidence of every element of the crime, then the only person who has showed up at the court with sworn evidence is the cop, thats why they win.

No one ever seems to ask for exculpatory evidence, or question wether there was jurisdiction in the first place, people make it easy for the police to win. So all in all what I am saying is know what your rights are or smile and pay the ticket.

And spudchucka, thanks for the extensive common law history. I just use the magna carta. And as you probably know, first in time is best in law.
Would be interested to know if you know what the definition(s) of "name" is from blacks law.
Cheers

[HenryDorsetCase]

I find it amazing, that for some reason NZers try to argue there way out of tickets. You were clearly a danger to the world in general, and need to be taxed to remind you. And if the 65% of money you already part with in taxes was not enough, when you calculate it out the price of the ticket tax you may or may not get will probably be no more than another 1%. While I'm ranting, can anyone explain why when you have been accused of the crime of speeding you never get your rights read to you? Im sure one of them is the right not to self incriminate... and not to make a statement... Thoughts.

no criminal is "read their rights" in New Zealand: you have watched too much US TV: they are called Miranda rights over there after the name of the US Supreme Court case that let some scumbag off cos the crim didnt know what his rights were (remember they HAVE rights guaranteed to them in their constitution, in stark contrast to NZ: we have very few... in fact the NZBORA is the best thing Geoff Palmer did for this country.... but I digress).

From memory all a pleecemin has to say to you is "You're under arrest motherfucker" or words to that effect..... anyone care to elaborate?

[HenryDorsetCase]

"Remain stopped" ? Is this not a form of detention? Also people make the assumption that jurisdiction has been proven. Ask the question, under what jurisdiciton are you being stopped. There is a difference between being a soft target and being aware of your rights. Same again though, for conveniance sake be polite and pay the money. If you do not rebut the assumption that you have no rights then you have no rights.

yeah you have rights (cue the Clash song, and... go), but the pleece also have powers granted them by statute, which has been quoted ad nauseam:

presumably you learned all this stuff during your last lag, but my question for you is:


How many tickets have you gotten off by standing up to the man, and telling him he has no right to detain you: in fact if you are so certain of that, why would you even stop: according to you the plod dont have any more right than I do to make you stop, so why would you.

YOu are, quoting the Clash again "wrong em boyo"

[HenryDorsetCase]

while I am on this, here is a link to the text of the magna Carta:

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/magna-carta.html

I agree with you its incorporated into NZ law by virtue of the Act that says we got British law as at 1840, it was part of british law then, so its part of our law now:

another question:

How does this justify your belief that you do not have to comply with various later in time statutes?

also, will you travel to christchurch to defend my next speeding fine. If you win I will pay your flights and accommodation, and buy dinner. If I lose, you buy your own plane ticket and buy me dinner.

deal?

PS I particularly like this passage:

No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.