Pulled over

[Ixion]

... 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

Incorrect. In law LATEST is time is best law. And there is only one ONE clause of the Great Charter that is incorporated in NZ law

29.Imprisonment, etc contrary to law. Administration of justice—

NO freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor [condemn him, * but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.

Source: New Zealand Parliamentary Library, International Documents Collection

That;s it. The only bit of Magna Charta that is New Zealand law. I'm not happy at that either. but direct your complaints to OberFuhreur Helen, not me.

[inlinefour]

no maths genius but 70 in a 60 is 10 over aint it?

Would like to think so, although I am told that the Police will lie in court just to make the ticket stick...

[spudchucka]

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.

Try using the "quote" button at the bottom right of the post you wish to quote. The rest should be self explanitory.

1. My point is according to 107 of the crimes act any breach of a statute is a crime.

If you get pulled over and issued a ticket for speeding, (as in the original scenario that started this thread) you have the option of paying an instant fine or defending the ticket in court. If you elect to go to court then an information will be laid and you will be summonsed to court. My question to you is under what section of what act is the carge of "speeding" laid?

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.

The Crimes Act defines "crime" as being an offence for which the offender may be proceeded against by indictment. Indictment means the High Court and jury trials, not the forum for trivial matters relating to minor breaches of traffic regulations. So despite what section 107 says for an offence to be a crime it must be able to be proceeded against by indictment. See the difference?

I meant the District Courts act 1947, section 9 (4) (a)

Section 9 of that act refers to the assignment and rostering of District Court Judges, it has nothing to do with the day to day operation of police.

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.

As someone else has already pointed out, many moons ago people were summoned to court for all manner of minor offences. A system of instant fines was devised to ease the burden. Any instant fine can still be defended in court if the alleged offender chooses to, that is their right. The police will have to prove all the ingredients of the offence, this is no different in any prosecution.

The police have a common law right to be able to speak to anyone they want to. The person being spoken to is under no obligation to answer any questions. In the case of most traffic offences, they have usually been witnessed by a cop, (eg: speed, not giving way, running a red light, dangerous lane change etc etc etc) all the ingredients of the offence are complete when the offending motorist is pulled over. The actions of a motorist that have been witnessed by a cop are totally admissable in court. Anything said by the offender subsequently may or may not be admissable as evidence, if a person begins to incriminate themselves verbally then they will be cautioned. However, words spoken by the offender are most often irrelevant in traffic prosecutions where the actions have been witnessed by a cop. If they want to make an explanation to the court they have that right also.

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.

Briefly, common law is law that is unwritten but is accepted by the courts as if it were written in a statute.

For instance, the police have a common law right to search prisoners pursuant to arrest. This power isn't written in a statute but is accepted by the courts as a common law right and any evidence of offending found as a result of a search pursuant to arrest is totally admissable in court.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a foundation concept of the adversarial justice system that NZ and virtually all other western democracies prescribe to. Minor breaches of traffic regulations can be dealt with by way of instant fine. The alleged offender can accpet the fine or defend it in court. If it is defended the police will still have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. If the defendant is successful in establishing reasonable doubt they will not be found guilty.

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.

Strangely enough cops are usually very credible witnesses.

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.

Believe it or not they don't always win.

However the ones where people defend themselves usually end with the defendant making a lame plea to the court that its not fair because blah blah blah. You watch the judge / JP listening to it and the whole time you can see them thinking "You poor shmuck, you've just hung yourself".

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.

Exculpate means to prove or state officially that somebody is not guilty of something. Why would you expect the police to provide you with evidence for your own defence? Request disclosure and you will be provide with copies of whatever evidence the police have against you but you can provide your own exculpatory evidence.

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

The Magna Carta is just one OLD imperial law that has some relevance to NZ law today.

Imperial Enactments which are still part of New Zealand Law include:


Magna Carta 1297
Heralded as the beginning of English constitutional law the Magna Carta arose from a revolution by the baronage in 1215, which compelled King John to agree to a comprehensive schedule of liberties, predominantly dealing with the relationship between the Crown and the Church and the Crown and the common people. The Charter also referred to certain matters of individual liberty such as freedom of movement while identifying the concept of "majority rule" in decision making;

Bill of Rights 1688
The passing of the Bill of Rights 1688 was motivated by the desire to settle the succession to the throne. The Bill was founded on the Declaration of Rights and was passed during the reign of William the Orange. The Bill went further than setting out the relationship of the Crown to Parliament in that, in part, it identified the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The Bill established the rights of citizens to petition the Crown; declared that the election of members of Parliament should be free and identified the notion of Parliamentary privilege, that freedom of speech in Parliament should not be questioned in any place out of parliament, effectively protecting Member's of Parliament from defamation proceedings

Petition of Right 1628
Petition of Right ensured that the Crown could not levy taxes without the consent of Parliament

Habeas Corpus Acts of 1640, 1679 and 1816
The right to bring a writ of habeas corpus to prevent arbitrary or unlawful detention is still alive today. go to top of page
Statute of Westminster 1931(Imp)

* A law passed after the commencement of the Act, by a Dominion (A "Dominion" referred to those English colonies who were taking steps to establish independence) was not to be invalid on the basis it was repugnant to an Imperial statute or the common law
* Power to pass extra-territorial legislation given to Dominion Parliaments
* Imperial legislation would not extend to a Dominion without the explicit request and consent of that Dominion.

Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 in conjunction with the New Zealand Constitution Amendment (Request and Consent) Act 1947

* Adoption of Statute of Westminster 1931
* Request and consent to Imperial Parliament passing legislation which would enable the New Zealand Parliament to amend and repeal it own constitution
* New Zealand achieving legal autonomy as now having the power to amend, suspend and repeal its own constitution

Legislative Council Abolition Act 1950

* Legislative Council abolished so that New Zealand became a unicameral (one-house) legislature

New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1973

However, the most relevant law today is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1995. So I can't agree with the absurd assumption that a enactment of 1297 could have more relevance in law than one written in 1995.

I don't have a copy of Blacks Law and can't be arsed finding one so please enlighten me.

[Ixion]

The Imperial Statutes that form part of NZ law are those that are specified in IMPERIAL LAWS APPLICATION ACT 1988. The schedules in that Act lits the "old" laws that still form part on NZ law. But, in many cases only PARTS of the old laws are incorporated.

As regards 25 Edw 1 , called Magna Carta , only c 29 is included.

The Act also explicitly incorporates thye English Common law into NZ law.


More importantly , for the police, we also inherit part of the Statutes of Westminster 1275

1.For the maintaining of Peace and Justice—





First the King willeth and commandeth, that the peace of Holy Church and of the land, be well kept and maintained in all points, and that common right be done to all, as well poor as rich, without respect of persons.

Which is actually the foundation stone of all police authority. To keep and maintain the Queen's Peace.

[number33]

Sorry boys, but all this complicated fairyland bullshit is - BOOOORRIIIING!!!

[Psalm42]

Incorrect. In law LATEST is time is best law. And there is only one ONE clause of the Great Charter that is incorporated in NZ law

If you are correct, why do high court judges make such a big fuss when bringing in the magna carta. In police vs storey for instance, the magna carta and a case relating to it where brought in and used to over rule newer laws.
And why do high court judges accept maxiums of law, quote them, and in latin sometimes. If newer law in better why? In one case the police protested that there was no need to use magna carta, and the judge told them it was there duty to have provided the defence with the appropriate law if it existed. Also a note worth makeing, when the magan carta was used in the storey case, it was not for this section of the MAGNA CARTA 1297 "29.Imprisonment, etc "

Which is why I say know your rights.

[Psalm42]

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?

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

21 Unreasonable search and seizure
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.
Status Compendium
22 Liberty of the person
Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.
Status Compendium
23 Rights of persons arrested or detained
(1) Everyone who is arrested or who is detained under any enactment—
(a) Shall be informed at the time of the arrest or detention of the reason for it; and
(b) Shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) Shall have the right to have the validity of the arrest or detention determined without delay by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the arrest or detention is not lawful.
(2) Everyone who is arrested for an offence has the right to be charged promptly or to be released.
(3) Everyone who is arrested for an offence and is not released shall be brought as soon as possible before a court or competent tribunal.
(4) Everyone who is—
(a) Arrested; or
(b) Detained under any enactment—
for any offence or suspected offence shall have the right to refrain from making any statement and to be informed of that right.

With particular interest to the last part.

[SPman]

Sorry boys, but all this complicated fairyland bullshit is - BOOOORRIIIING!!!

No its not!

[Psalm42]

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

Only ever had jet lag. I have learned to question peoples presumptions though.

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.

7 times, and I stop because I dont want to have a simple traffic stop blow up into me getting shot/run over/beaten etc. I have not said that one should not be curtious, or polite, what am saying is know your rights and be willing to stand up for them or smile and pay. Asking a few simple and harmless questions of the man detaining you is all, and given you have the right to be informed, whats the harm in that. When a cop reacts by getting angry, just ask why someone is getting angry over some simple questions, it not like your accusing him of beating his wife.

[Psalm42]

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?

I do not believe I said do not comply with a statute that applies to you, what I am trying to point out is do not make the presumption that it does. Make anyone who accuses you of breaching a statute prove it, every point of it.

Now, if you are genuinely interested, I am happy to forward you a line of questions to ask at your next traffic case. I will not represent anyone in court, if people are not willing to learn what they need to do to defend themselves then they should smile and pay the tickets. If the questions help with your ticket, I am happy to have you buy me dinner next time Im in chch, if they dont help, I will buy you dinner next time Im in chch.

[Jackrat]

No its not!

Fan of Monty Python too huh ??

[Psalm42]

My question to you is under what section of what act is the carge of "speeding" laid?

Clearly a traffic act, What my question to you is "As the crimes act under 107 makes any contrivention of a statute a crime, why do you not get your rights read to you?

The Crimes Act defines "crime" as being an offence for which the offender may be proceeded against by indictment. Indictment means the High Court and jury trials, not the forum for trivial matters relating to minor breaches of traffic regulations. So despite what section 107 says for an offence to be a crime it must be able to be proceeded against by indictment. See the difference?

I see a difference, I see one is just a trivial traffic statute, and the other makes that trivial traffic statute a crime. I agree the trivial traffic statute would not be indictable if 107 did not exist. After all statute is what creates alot of the crimes, take the blood alcohol limit as a prime example, 600 to 400 wasnt it. Write a piece of statute and magicly there are new taxable class of criminals.

Section 9 of that act refers to the assignment and rostering of District Court Judges, it has nothing to do with the day to day operation of police.

It refers to the jurisdiction of the judge, and therefor the courts, and any other subserviants. My point about section 9 was what jurisdiction are traffic cases held under at the district court?

As someone else has already pointed out, many moons ago people were summoned to court for all manner of minor offences. A system of instant fines was devised to ease the burden. Any instant fine can still be defended in court if the alleged offender chooses to, that is their right. The police will have to prove all the ingredients of the offence, this is no different in any prosecution.

If you recall, part of the common law was there had to be a victim, some form of damage. When the police write a guy a ticket for 10 over the limit, or lane spliting, or passing on the inside, or worse passing on the inside in a traffic jam, whos the victim ? Can a guy writing a ticket be considered non bias when his employer is getting the profits from the ticket he is issuing.

Anything said by the offender subsequently may or may not be admissable as evidence, if a person begins to incriminate themselves verbally then they will be cautioned.

I wonder if the guy that started this thread got warned about this incriminating issue when the cop asked him how fast he was going?
If the cop had enough evidence why ask, or was he fishing.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a foundation concept of the adversarial justice system that NZ and virtually all other western democracies prescribe to. Minor breaches of traffic regulations can be dealt with by way of instant fine. The alleged offender can accpet the fine or defend it in court. If it is defended the police will still have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. If the defendant is successful in establishing reasonable doubt they will not be found guilty.

Would you or anyone else on this forum be able to explain why on the ticket it is an alleged offence, but if you choose to pay or argue it in court, you find on the back of the ticket it is an offence. Please take notice the word alleged is no longer there. It would appear that you by paying or argueing accept it was not an allegation but a fact.

Strangely enough cops are usually very credible witnesses.

The opposite of that is why I started studying law, should have done something about my spelling to now that I think about it.

Believe it or not they don't always win.

They win even less often if the right questions are asked.

However the ones where people defend themselves usually end with the defendant making a lame plea to the court that its not fair because blah blah blah. You watch the judge / JP listening to it and the whole time you can see them thinking "You poor shmuck, you've just hung yourself".

Your right, yet if they knew there rights and understand the jurisdiction of the court they have a better chance. The worst part is how often a judge starts asking questions of the defendant for the prosicution. And he is meant to be imparcial.

Exculpate means to prove or state officially that somebody is not guilty of something. Why would you expect the police to provide you with evidence for your own defence? Request disclosure and you will be provide with copies of whatever evidence the police have against you but you can provide your own exculpatory evidence.

By law if the lawyers for the police have anything in there possetion that will benefit a self litigant they are obliged to supply it.

However, the most relevant law today is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1995. So I can't agree with the absurd assumption that a enactment of 1297 could have more relevance in law than one written in 1995.

I think the NZBOR act was 1990, I could be wrong. I like the fact that you are not willing to agree with an assumption, however absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, after all everyone is someone elses weirdo. If someone feels that a police officers absurd assumption that a statute applies with out the office having provided the factual evidence to back his assumption, would that make the officer wrong?

I don't have a copy of Blacks Law and can't be arsed finding one so please enlighten me.

I asked this question for two reasons, as "name" nor "person" is not defined in the traffic act you quoted, I thought you may be able to tell me which act is used as reference for it. Name in the blacks law dictionary has 11 different meanings. Person however is found in a number of different acts, Im guessing you know which act prevails if a definition of Person is not found in the traffic statutes. Crimes act perhaps.

Thanks for telling me how to do the quotes, Makes things much easyer.

[spudchucka]

What my question to you is "As the crimes act under 107 makes any contrivention of a statute a crime, why do you not get your rights read to you?

Has an offence punishable by imprisonment been committed?

I see a difference, I see one is just a trivial traffic statute, and the other makes that trivial traffic statute a crime.

A statute isn't a crime, it is an act of parliament. A crime is an offence punishable by imprisonment that can be proceeded against by indictment.

I agree the trivial traffic statute would not be indictable if 107 did not exist.

Certain traffic offences are indictable, speeding is not.

take the blood alcohol limit as a prime example, 600 to 400 wasnt it. Write a piece of statute and magicly there are new taxable class of criminals.

The limit has always been 400. Until a few years ago a breath reading of 600+ was considered a conclusive test and the option of the defendant requesting a blood test was not available. Parliament changed this by removing the 600+ conclusive test, now any drunken fool can request a blood test even when they can barely stand up.

It refers to the jurisdiction of the judge, and therefor the courts, and any other subserviants. My point about section 9 was what jurisdiction are traffic cases held under at the district court?

The purpose of that act is written as follows:

An Act to consolidate and amend certain enactments of the [Parliament of New Zealand] relating to [District Courts] and the jurisdiction of [District Court Judges] in civil proceedings, and to make provision for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction under the [Summary Proceedings Act 1957] in [District Courts]

Section 9 is titled as follows:

Assignment and rostering of District Court Judges—

The district court is the lowest court. Most minor traffic matters that are defended are heard in the district court before JP's.

This is a pointless point, if you get my point.

If you recall, part of the common law was there had to be a victim, some form of damage.

Right, just like breaches of the public peace, disorderly behaviour, drug abuse and drink driving. By your version of the common law none of these are offences untill there is a victim.

Can a guy writing a ticket be considered non bias when his employer is getting the profits from the ticket he is issuing.

Utter crap that isn't worthy of a response.

I wonder if the guy that started this thread got warned about this incriminating issue when the cop asked him how fast he was going?
If the cop had enough evidence why ask, or was he fishing.

Maybe he was fisshing, we'll never know but that won't stop people from making their own assumptions.

The only time I ask someone what their speed was is when I either have no idea but know they were hoofing it and I'm just going to chew their ear; or, when I have tailed someone over a certain distance and am quite satisfied what their speed was but ask them for their version, there-upon entering into a negotiation as to what might be a reasonable speed to go on the ticket. If they don't want to negotiate then the ticket is for the speed I had assessed in the first place.

Would you or anyone else on this forum be able to explain why on the ticket it is an alleged offence, but if you choose to pay or argue it in court, you find on the back of the ticket it is an offence. Please take notice the word alleged is no longer there. It would appear that you by paying or argueing accept it was not an allegation but a fact.

You answered your own question. When a cop gives you a traffic ticket they allege you have committed that offence. You as the defendant have the option of accepting liability for that offence by paying the fine or denying the offence and defend it in court. Until you the defendant take up one of those options the offence is simply an alleged offence.

They win even less often if the right questions are asked.

Only if the cop doesn't do their job properly. Thorough investigators seldom loose cases to bush lawyers.

By law if the lawyers for the police have anything in there possetion that will benefit a self litigant they are obliged to supply it.

They disclose everything relative to the case. Police know that if they fail to disclose all relevant information they will likley lose the case so it is done routinely.

I think the NZBOR act was 1990, I could be wrong.

My mistake.

I like the fact that you are not willing to agree with an assumption, however absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, after all everyone is someone elses weirdo. If someone feels that a police officers absurd assumption that a statute applies with out the office having provided the factual evidence to back his assumption, would that make the officer wrong?

You're not making much sense?? If the cop is wrong then he's wrong. A weirdo is a weirdo and I've seen more than my share so can spot them pretty easily most of the time.

I asked this question for two reasons, as "name" nor "person" is not defined in the traffic act you quoted, I thought you may be able to tell me which act is used as reference for it. Name in the blacks law dictionary has 11 different meanings. Person however is found in a number of different acts, Im guessing you know which act prevails if a definition of Person is not found in the traffic statutes. Crimes act perhaps.

No!

If a specific word does not feature in the interpretation section of an act then the common or ordinary meaning is taken as being the correct definition. This is usually found in a "Dictionary". Oxford seems to be the most widely used version, I'd recommend obtaining a copy.

Other acts are also referenced for interpretation and definitions of words if the common meaning is ambiguous.

Thanks for telling me how to do the quotes, Makes things much easyer.

No problem. It certainly does make things EASIER. As stated above, Oxford is a fine volume.

[Ixion]

Originally Posted by Psalm42
If you recall, part of the common law was there had to be a victim, some form of damage.

Right, just like breaches of the public peace, disorderly behaviour, drug abuse and drink driving. By your version of the common law none of these are offences untill there is a victim.

Victim (wronged party) is only in civil law - a tort. Criminal law needs no victim, the breach of the Queen's Peace, or contravention of the statute is enough.

[Psalm42]

Victim (wronged party) is only in civil law - a tort. Criminal law needs no victim, the breach of the Queen's Peace, or contravention of the statute is enough.

Your not sugesting contravention of a statute is a crime are you???