Pulled over

[Psalm42]

You're starting to sound really dense.

Read back through the thread and you will find a post where I said that a defended traffic ticket will be heard in the district court, (usually JP traffic court) clearly under the criminal jurisdiction. It is retarded to suggest in any way that it is or could be a civil matter. If you have a point hurry up and make it because you are becoming painfully repetative.

Wellington CC v McCready
The Bill of Rights was concerned with the criminal process, and the infringement process was civil in character rather than criminal.

Keep in mind a judge said that.

And then this case,

"The appellant had not disputed the offence infringement notice, relying on the serving officer's (incorrect) assurance that payment of the infringement fee would not result in the addition of further demerit points. It was argued that there had been a breach of s 24(a)(BORA), in that the plaintiff had not been correctly informed of the nature and cause of the charge.

Baragwanath J(judge) was not convinced that there had been a prima facie breach of s 24(a) (p 3):

“Information ‘of the nature and cause of the charge’ is not necessarily synonymous with information as to the consequences of conviction upon it, although it may be arguable that a wider purposive approach to the section is appropriate.”

I find it note worthy Honorable Judge Baragwanath, did not dismiss the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge, just not being informed of the consiquences.

So if asked the nature and cause of the reason one is being stopped, it would be:
Civil in nature, and the cause would be speeding and the power to make the stop under section 114 of Lta 1998?

[marty]

that is not how i interpret it. the infringment PROCESS (that is, the collection of any penalty) was civil, not the cause or reason for being stopped. that was for commiting an offence, which is a criminal matter, as both the requirement to obey the rules, and the power to stop vehicles or persons breaking those rules, are both contained within the LT Act

[Stevo]

You were obviously not doing anywhere near 100. Maths says that if he had to do 100 to catch you he wouldn't have caught you if you were doing 100.

[marty]

so simon - what has happened - have you been posted the ticket yet?

[spudchucka]

Psalm42, you are so far from reality on this issue that the discussion isn't worth continuing.

[SimJen]

so simon - what has happened - have you been posted the ticket yet?

Yeah Marty, got it in the post
Have written a letter explaining it all with the help of a lawyer friend. At the least it will keep them amused in Wellington