I'm Dangerous

[spudchucka]

Ok this is back on the agenda.
Revieved a summons yesterday.

I was told previously that the summons would set out what I had done, well guess what it too says that I drove dangerously. So it looks like they expect me to turn up at court, listen to the charge and defend my actions without any preparation or nothing.

Wow justice NZ style aye. You got to love it.

So coming back to my original post. Is there any lawyer etc around Auckland which people have had experience with and could recommend for this type of thing.

How does one go about requesting full disclosure so as I can find out what I am defending... or is that not allowed in this country?

This event happened in January 2006 and you received a summons in August 06, 7+ months after the event???

I'm pretty sure there is a 6 months statute of limitations for driving matters. I couldn't find it written in the Act when I had a quick skim through but I did find this;

136.Time for instituting proceedings—

(1)In proceedings for an offence punishable on summary conviction against this Act, the court may dismiss the information if satisfied that the person charged has been prejudiced in the person's defence by any unreasonable delay in instituting the proceedings or in notifying the person of the time, place, and nature of the offence.

(2)If a delay in instituting the proceedings has been caused by a change in the address of the defendant, the delay is not an unreasonable delay for the purposes of this section.

(3)Section 14 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 does not apply to a prosecution for—

(a)An offence against section 32 involving driving while disqualified or contrary to the conditions of a licence or limited licence; or

(b)An offence against this Act or the Transport Act 1962 concerning—

(i)Driving hours; or

(ii)The keeping of logbooks by certain drivers; or

(iii)The issue of installation certificates and inspection certificates for alternative fuel systems.

What date was the charge laid? Have you received any disclosure at all at this point?

[The_Dover]

136.Time for instituting proceedings—

(1)In proceedings for an offence punishable on summary conviction against this Act, the court may dismiss the information if satisfied that the person charged has been prejudiced in the person's defence by any unreasonable delay in instituting the proceedings or in notifying the person of the time, place, and nature of the offence.

(2)If a delay in instituting the proceedings has been caused by a change in the address of the defendant, the delay is not an unreasonable delay for the purposes of this section.

(3)Section 14 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 does not apply to a prosecution for—

(a)An offence against section 32 involving driving while disqualified or contrary to the conditions of a licence or limited licence; or

(b)An offence against this Act or the Transport Act 1962 concerning—

(i)Driving hours; or

(ii)The keeping of logbooks by certain drivers; or

(iii)The issue of installation certificates and inspection certificates for alternative fuel systems.

oh bollocks.

[Finn]

oh bollocks.

You'll just have to keep moving mate.

[spudchucka]

You'll just have to keep moving mate.

Moving him back to pommy land would be a good start.

[Finn]

Moving him back to pommy land would be a good start.

What, you want the entire beer industry in NZ to collapse?

[Lou Girardin]

(One-way street here - lawyers/clients never in turn reveal how they plan in defending the charge i.e. what line of defence they are going to pursue.)

Why should they? The facts are the facts. You're not saying the Police would 'alter' things to reduce the defence, are you?

[spudchucka]

What, you want the entire beer industry in NZ to collapse?

We'll just import another 20 Aussies to make up the difference.

[Finn]

We'll just import another 20 Aussies to make up the difference.

Think of the Woman for christ sake!

[spudchucka]

Why should they? The facts are the facts. You're not saying the Police would 'alter' things to reduce the defence, are you?

He isn't saying that at all but the defence do bring things up from out of left field, after the prosecution has closed its case, and the prosecution then have to ask, (beg) the court to be given time to prepare rebuttal evidence. This could require a remand, unnecessarily delaying proceedings.

For instance in court recently a lawyer wanted to dispute the integrity of a blood sample based soley on the possibility that the label "may" not have been intact when it arrived at the lab. There was no evidence that the label was faulty or had been tampered with or anything else. The lawyer was just fishing for reasonable doubt once the prosecution had closed their case.

The only person that could rebutt the suggestion was the lab tech that had handled the samples. The prosecution was granted a remand and some three months later when it was back in court the rebuttal evidence was given and the guy was convicted, as he should have been.

If the defence had to disclose to the prosecution what they intended to challenge they would have had the lab tech summonsed to give evidence on the day.

[spudchucka]

Think of the Woman for christ sake!

We could import some female Ockers, they drink just as much as the blokes. Better yet we could import some Irish girls, they really know how to drink!

[kickingzebra]

Give it heaps, we can't have our campaigners credibility impunged!!

Not that I can talk...

[Grahameeboy]

He isn't saying that at all but the defence do bring things up from out of left field, after the prosecution has closed its case, and the prosecution then have to ask, (beg) the court to be given time to prepare rebuttal evidence. This could require a remand, unnecessarily delaying proceedings.

For instance in court recently a lawyer wanted to dispute the integrity of a blood sample based soley on the possibility that the label "may" not have been intact when it arrived at the lab. There was no evidence that the label was faulty or had been tampered with or anything else. The lawyer was just fishing for reasonable doubt once the prosecution had closed their case.

The only person that could rebutt the suggestion was the lab tech that had handled the samples. The prosecution was granted a remand and some three months later when it was back in court the rebuttal evidence was given and the guy was convicted, as he should have been.

If the defence had to disclose to the prosecution what they intended to challenge they would have had the lab tech summonsed to give evidence on the day.

Geeze....the cheek of the Defendant eh...........should have just accepted his fate the dork..

[sAsLEX]

This event happened in January 2006 and you received a summons in August 06, 7+ months after the event???

I'm pretty sure there is a 6 months statute of limitations for driving matters. I couldn't find it written in the Act when I had a quick skim through but I did find this;

Sorry but I will think you will find the vast majority of cases on here extend past 6 months, I know ***** had to front up to court with his lawyer multiple times and each time the case got put off so he was left with a big lawyer bill and multiple days off work all cause our courts are overwhelmed.

[The Stranger:Me]

This event happened in January 2006 and you received a summons in August 06, 7+ months after the event???

I'm pretty sure there is a 6 months statute of limitations for driving matters. I couldn't find it written in the Act when I had a quick skim through but I did find this;


What date was the charge laid? Have you received any disclosure at all at this point?

I have recieved a Traffic Offence Notice and a letter on the 24/03/06.

The Traffic Offence Notice simply states that I drove a MV in a dangerous manner and setd out the date and location etc, but not what i did to make the situation dangerous

The letter states "As a result of a driving complaint lodged with the Police on 18/01/06 the Police have decided to charge you with driving a MV in a dangerous manner."

I was advised (admittedly by a lawyer) that the Summons would contain the information which I seek, so yeah, I didn't worry about it too much, thinking that a summons would soon appear.

Ok no summons for a while, hey maybe they forgot, got lazy whatever, best not wake sleeping dogs so I shut up until yesterday when the summons arrived. The date has been crossed out and a new date inserted by hand, so I don't know what's with that.

Taking on Patrick's advice I went into the Henderson Police Station and requested disclosure. They say they are prosecuting it but don't have the file and I got to get hold of the officer.

But anyway I shall do both, get hold of the officer and formally request disclosure in writing.

[sAsLEX]

Taking on Patrick's advice I went into the Henderson Police Station and requested disclosure. They say they are prosecuting it but don't have the file and I got to get hold of the officer.

But anyway I shall do both, get hold of the officer and formally request disclosure in writing.

Record somewhere the you went in and requested it verbally, as from what scum or someone said they have to act on that as well.

Oh and record everything you dont know where they might slip up....


EDIT guessing MV is motor vehicle no MV augusta styles..... and how can the police charge someone from another drivers statment? Might pay to get them to appear in court to give evidence