Pulled over

[Ixion]

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

If the statute says that contravention of it is a crime, yes. Circular argument: a crime is what is declared to be a crime. As opposed to a civil matter. Like a tort.

[Psalm42]

Could some one anwser this question.

Which jurisdiction (CIVIL OR CRIMINAL) are traffic cases held under at the district court?

Also in one of my last posts I made an error, I said
"I see one is just a trivial traffic statute, and the other makes that trivial traffic statute a crime."

Should have read:
I see one is just a trivial traffic statute, and the other makes contravention of that trivial traffic statute a crime.

In the construction of statute legal meanings have first preference after the interpretations section of the act the word is in, then the interpretations act or a previous interpretations act depending on the date of the act the word is in.
An example would be the 1998 land transport act. If a meaning from that act is not defined then the next act to check would be the Acts interpretation act 1924. Because in that act section 3 if memory serves, it states the meanings apply in any act written after it and there is no need for the newer act to make reference to the 1924 interpretations act.

If a oxford dictionary is sufice to interpret legislation can anyone tell me why blacks law dictionaries are used by the people who write the NZ legislation.

Also in a court when it was pointed out a particular word was not defined in an act and therefore the oxford meaning must apply, the judge said no, that the strict legal definition applies.

And not forgeting one of the founding rules taught at law school is if something can be enterpreted 2 or more ways it is to be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

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, a contravention of a statute is however a crime.

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.

It should always read alledged offence until one has been proven guilty. If someone leaves it as an allegation, and the only way to do that would appear to be "not pay, and not defend it" then after 28 days they get a reminder notice, is the reminder notice a reminder of an Alledged offence or of an offence? Could someone who has got one let me know.

Thorough investigators seldom loose cases to bush lawyers.

I agree, however I am aware of at least 3 times when the judge gave the prosacutor the option to withdraw there case because from where I sat it appeared they were losing, by giving them that option there was no ruling and therefore no reported loss to a self litigant.

I often wonder how many times that sort of thing goes on and its not reported.

I used the drink driving legislation as an example because I thought it would be easy to get the point across. Perhaps I should have used the 80 to 100km change as an example instead. Same point none the less.

[avgas]

I know its simple math here, but....
if you were doing 70 he would have to do atleast 80+ to catch you, most likely 100+ if he had to accellerate even for 10-20 secs.

[spudchucka]

Could some one anwser this question.

Which jurisdiction (CIVIL OR CRIMINAL) are traffic cases held under at the district court?

All manner of offences and crimes are heard before the district court. Your point is meaningess, there is no lower court.

Should have read:
I see one is just a trivial traffic statute, and the other makes contravention of that trivial traffic statute a crime.

Depends how crime is defined.

Is someone who breaches the Railways Act 2005, Section 73(1)(a) by planting a tree or shrub on the railway infrastructure or railway premises a criminal?

In the construction of statute legal meanings have first preference after the interpretations section of the act the word is in, then the interpretations act or a previous interpretations act depending on the date of the act the word is in.

With words such as "person" or "name" as you earlier alluded to the ordinary meaning is used unless the word is given a clear definition in the interpretation. Such as the definition of person in the Crimes Act:

``Person'', ``owner'', and other words and expressions of the like kind, include the Crown and any public body or local authority, and any board, society, or company, and any other body of persons, whether incorporated or not, and the inhabitants of the district of any local authority, in relation to such acts and things as it or they are capable of doing or owning:

It is just plain stupid to suggest that such a definition could hold relevance when dealing with an individual over an offence against the Land Transport Act. Therefore the ordinary meaning would be adopted unless there was a relevant definition within another enactment that was contextually correct in relation to the Act and Section in question.

An example would be the 1998 land transport act. If a meaning from that act is not defined then the next act to check would be the Acts interpretation act 1924. Because in that act section 3 if memory serves, it states the meanings apply in any act written after it and there is no need for the newer act to make reference to the 1924 interpretations act.

You're probably thinking of section 4.

4.Application—

(1)This Act applies to an enactment that is part of the law of New Zealand and that is passed either before or after the commencement of this Act unless—

(a)The enactment provides otherwise; or

(b)The context of the enactment requires a different interpretation.

(2)The provisions of this Act also apply to the interpretation of this Act.

If you look in schedule two of that act you will find a list of acts that are repealed. Top of the list is, you guessed it;

1924, No 11—The Acts Interpretation Act 1924. (RS Vol 31, p 1.)

If a oxford dictionary is sufice to interpret legislation can anyone tell me why blacks law dictionaries are used by the people who write the NZ legislation.

You are missing the point. A point that you raised in the first place by refering to the definition of "person" and "name" within blacks law. A dictionary is used to determine definitions of words within legislation when there is no clear definition within the interpretation section of an act and when other definitions of the same word used in other acts is ambiguous or irrelevant to the act in question.

The interpretation of legislation is a much more complex issue than understanding the meanings of a few words.

Also in a court when it was pointed out a particular word was not defined in an act and therefore the oxford meaning must apply, the judge said no, that the strict legal definition applies.

Nobody says the Oxford meaning must apply. If there are clear definitions within law that apply in the circumstances then that is the definition that will be applied. The meanings of words also has to be determined within the context of the section and the purpose of the act, which will result in the definitions of certain words within some acts having no relevance within the context of other acts.

I agree, a contravention of a statute is however a crime.

I've made my point in relation to this. If you want to label someone who plants a shrub near a railway line a criminal I guess thats your business.

It should always read alledged offence until one has been proven guilty. If someone leaves it as an allegation, and the only way to do that would appear to be "not pay, and not defend it" then after 28 days they get a reminder notice, is the reminder notice a reminder of an Alledged offence or of an offence? Could someone who has got one let me know.

You seem to be getting upset over the omission of the word "alleged" from traffic tickets and reminder notices. I wouldn't know if a reminder notice has that word on it or not but I'm sure that the section of a traffic ticket where the speed is written says, "alleged speed". Either way you seem to be nit-picking a very minor point.

I agree, however I am aware of at least 3 times when the judge gave the prosacutor the option to withdraw there case because from where I sat it appeared they were losing, by giving them that option there was no ruling and therefore no reported loss to a self litigant.

These days the courts have what are called Status Hearings. Generally what happens is that there is a relatively informal hearing between the judge, police prosecutor, defence counsel and defendant. All the prosecution and defence evidence is put to the judge and if the judge thinks that there is no case to answer or that the police case is too weak to proceed then he will advise the police that withdrawal may be a wise option. Equally, where a defendant is wasting the courts time by defending a charge that he / she is clearly guilty of the judge will advise the defence counsel that an early guilty plea may be in their clients best interest. Very few weak cases go beyond status hearing becasue like everybody else the police do not have the time or resources to flog a dead horse just for the sake of it.

I often wonder how many times that sort of thing goes on and its not reported.

Status hearings happen all the time. They are a regulary function of the courts.

I used the drink driving legislation as an example because I thought it would be easy to get the point across. Perhaps I should have used the 80 to 100km change as an example instead. Same point none the less.

You aren't really making a point as far as I can see. You are just stating the obvious. Parliament can pass laws at any time that over-ride or supercede previous laws. That is a parliamentary function. You employ them to do that for you.

[Psalm42]

In the hope of keeping things shorter, I will only cover a few things at a time.

1.

All manner of offences and crimes are heard before the district court. Your point is meaningess, there is no lower court.

I did not ask if there is a lower court, I asked which jurisdiction, Civil or Criminal are traffic issues held under, to be even more specific if you like, speeding tickets of 20ks over the limit or less. If you dont know, just say so, no harm no foul.

2.

What is the nature of the jurisdiction a cop is under when he/she makes a traffic stop for a speeding ticket 20ks over the limit. Civil or Criminal?

3.

You're probably thinking of section 4.

I wasnt. I was thinking of this: Acts interpretation act 1924.
3 Declaration That Act Applies Unnecessary (Repealed)
It shall not be necessary to insert in any Act a declaration that this Act applies thereto in order to make it so apply.

You may have missed section 7 of the act you quoted though.
Interpretation act 1999.
7 Enactments do not have retrospective effect
An enactment does not have retrospective effect.

Also you may consider reading the section on repeals 17 on to 25 I think.

4.

The interpretation of legislation is a much more complex issue than understanding the meanings of a few words.

Your quite correct, it is a matter of understanding the Jurisdiction the legislation is to be enforced under, the meanings of all the components that make it up not just the words, Knowing wether or not the legislation applies to you, wether or not mens rea is a componant if it does apply to you and not just actus reas. Wether it specificaly makes reference that mens rea is not a nececary componant to prove for a conviction/charge/offence to apply etc.

If a peace officer or law enforcement officer is applying legislation, surely he/she would know those things that make up what is needed to understand that legislation. The most important would have to be what jurisdiction.

I have found asking simple questions like that very effective. No drama in not knowing, Ive meet lawyers in the court room that didnt know, I must admit they didnt like having a judge confirm that the bush lawyer (as you put it) was right about jurisdiction though.

[civil]

Interesting discussion.

How often do we ask questions with respect to that we are taught or conditioned to take for granted.

For instance IF this is a free country, then why do I behave like a slave and submit without question to the bully in the blue uniform?

What difference is there between him and his gang of patched bullies, and that of some other patched members of the various 'clubs' that are around? Could it just be the size of the gang?

I have found that if you dont question and challenge the presumptions we live under, then you are in fact a slave. In which case do as psalm42 suggests

for conveniance sake be polite and pay the money

[spudchucka]

I did not ask if there is a lower court, I asked which jurisdiction, Civil or Criminal are traffic issues held under, to be even more specific if you like, speeding tickets of 20ks over the limit or less. If you dont know, just say so, no harm no foul.

A defended speeding ticket is heard in the district court, usually before two JP's. We all know that. The point you are trying desperately to make is that because a speeding ticket is heard before the district court, under the criminal jurisdiction, that alone must make speeding a crime.

What is the nature of the jurisdiction a cop is under when he/she makes a traffic stop for a speeding ticket 20ks over the limit. Civil or Criminal?

The cop is exercising a power bestowed upon him under section 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998. The driver of a motor vehicle must comply with the requirements of that section.

An enactment does not have retrospective effect.

Generally means that the passing of new legislation does not allow for criminal procedings to take place against acts or ommissions that were not offences prior to the new act being passed.

Section 26 of the NZBORA also refers.

It isn't a rule written in blood however, retrospective acts are still passed.

Also you may consider reading the section on repeals 17 on to 25 I think.

I did.

Your quite correct, it is a matter of understanding the Jurisdiction the legislation is to be enforced under

What is your point in pursuing this arguement. Hurry up and make it because I'm losing interest quickly. Anyone with half a brain knows that if you go to court on a minor traffic charge you will end up in the district court. What did you think before you gained this allmighty knowledge? That it would be heard in the public bar of the local boozer?

Knowing wether or not the legislation applies to you, wether or not mens rea is a componant if it does apply to you and not just actus reas. Wether it specificaly makes reference that mens rea is not a nececary componant to prove for a conviction/charge/offence to apply etc.

The thread was originally about speeding. Mens Rea would generally only be in issue if the offence lead to a reckless driving charge.

If a peace officer or law enforcement officer is applying legislation, surely he/she would know those things that make up what is needed to understand that legislation.

Jeepers, all this time and I never knew what legislation applies when I pull over a motorist. I must have missed that class at the cop college, perhaps the doughnuts were extra crispy in the canteen that day and I stayed behind for thirds.

The most important would have to be what jurisdiction.

No.

No drama in not knowing, Ive meet lawyers in the court room that didnt know, I must admit they didnt like having a judge confirm that the bush lawyer (as you put it) was right about jurisdiction though.

Hey, good on ya for being a clever dick and scoring a few points. I really don't see where you are trying to go with this though. Its like stating the obvious and expecting people to go WOW like you've discovered the cure for cancer.

[civil]

Here is what I mean by questioning the presumptions we live under;

The cop is exercising a power bestowed upon him under section 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998. The driver of a motor vehicle must comply with the requirements of that section.

Tell me what the difference is to this;

A couple of wolves are sitting around the club house down in Wellington discussing what they are going to have for dinner. They decide to have chicken and write their order down on a piece of paper called an "Act". This 'Act' is then send it out around the country and to all the patched members.

Spudchucka, who happens to be an 'enforcer' of the gang sees a chicken riding his bike across the road, and so goes over and grabs the chicken. Being the good diligent enforcer who does just as he is told, Spudchucka delivers the chicken to the club house kitchen which then plucks and prepares the poor chicken ready for the wolves dinner.

Did the chicken consent to being the wolves dinner, or did Supdchucka just presume that the chicken was a member of the club? It is all a matter of Jurisdiction.

[spudchucka]

Tell me what the difference is to this;

The really important difference in your scenario, one that you will likely never come to terms with, is that the chicken scenario was written by a half wit.

[Ixion]

..
Did the chicken consent to being the wolves dinner, or did Supdchucka just presume that the chicken was a member of the club? It is all a matter of Jurisdiction.

If you are living in NZ you are subject to the jurisdiction of her Majesty the Queen - and thus to the NZ police. Don't like it, leave the country.


This thread has gone wrong in so many ways, that I don't know where to begin. So I won't. I'll just summarise.

The reason you are not cautioned when stopped for speeding is that you are only cautioned (not "read your rights" - that's USA - here you have no such rights), if the police arrest you. Being stopped for speeding is not an arrest. They are stopping you under a law that allows them to stop you and detain you for a reasonable period WITHOUT arresting you. Therefore, no caution.

That's the law. Simple, end of story.

[Lou Girardin]

What is abundantly clear from this thread is that most people do not know how to read legislation.

[M1CRO:Me]

What is abundantly clear from this thread is that most people do not know how to read legislation.

Or they just enjoy general 'shite' stirring

[spudchucka]

The reason you are not cautioned when stopped for speeding is that you are only cautioned (not "read your rights" - that's USA - here you have no such rights), if the police arrest you.

Not quite right.

Once a cop forms good cause to suspect an offence punishable by imprisonment has been committed they will caution the person being spoken to.

"You're not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, anything that you do say can be given as evidence".

Upon arresting, or detaining the person pursuant to an enactment, (Land Transport breath alcohol, Misuse of Drugs search etc etc) the cop will read them their rights pursuant to the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

"You have the right to refrain from making a statement and you have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and in private".

"You will be given that right as soon as practicable".

Most cops will conclude by asking the person;

"Do you understand"?

[Ixion]

Correction noted - thanks.

Main point was, none of this applies to being stopped for speeding. Which is neither an imprisionable, nor an arrestable offence. (normallY)

S114 allows a cop to stop and detain a person WITHOUT suspicion of an imprisionable offence or making an arrest . I think (it's hard to tell now!) that teh original bone of contention was why someone was not cautioned when stopped for speeding. So the "safeguards' do not apply.

The same of course goes for great wads of other non-motoriung offences. Fail to put in a tax return, and you'll get an "instant fine". No question of being cautioned. Lots and lots of others.

[civil]

the chicken scenario was written by a half wit

Labeling (attack the messenger not the message!), is a common tactic by those who are unable to argue with reason!!

At cop school do they have a specfic class on 'dumbing down to provide blind obedience', or is it general condition of acceptance into cop school?

If you are living in NZ you are subject to the jurisdiction of her Majesty the Queen - and thus to the NZ police. Don't like it, leave the country.

Apart from the theat of violence, just what makes you THINK that you have greater rights over this turf than any other patched gang, or individual for that matter? Do you equate violence with meaning rights?