I'm Dangerous

[Jantar]

I'd still like to know the date of the alleged offence and the date that the charge was laid, I'm pretty damn sure there is a 6 month limitation for a charge to be laid.

30 years ago, when traffic offences were dealt with under the summary proceedings act, the declaration that is sworn by the prosecutor for offences used to contain wording similar to : "I, ........., have just cause to believe, and do believe that within the six months past....".

However, as traffic offences are now dealt with under the traffic regulations, I'm not sure that it still applies.

[spudchucka]

30 years ago, when traffic offences were dealt with under the summary proceedings act, the declaration that is sworn by the prosecutor for offences used to contain wording similar to : "I, ........., have just cause to believe, and do believe that within the six months past....".

However, as traffic offences are now dealt with under the traffic regulations, I'm not sure that it still applies.

"Within the last six months past" or "within the six months last past" is the wording and it still exists.

I recall a recent converstaion in the meal room at my station with one of our local serious crash investigators in which it was discussed finalising his report quickly in order to have a dangerous causing death charge laid before the six months was up.

Its worth looking into in my opinion.

[spudchucka]

Here it is, the important bits are in bold.

Section 136, land Transport Act 1998:

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.

Section 14 Summary Proceedings Act 1957:

14.Time for laying information—

Except where some other period of limitation is provided by the Act creating the offence or by any other Act, every information for an offence (other than an offence which may be dealt with summarily under section 6 of this Act) shall be laid within 6 months from the time when the matter of the information arose.

An "Information" is the piece of paper that is produced when a charge is laid, (also known as an SP1), so in the context of what is written the "Information" is the "charge".

With reference to the LTA 1998, the summary proceedings act determines that there is a six month statute of limitation for driving offences except for disqualified driving, breaching a limited licence, log book offences and offences relating to alternative fuel systems, (WTF?).

Therefore dangerous driving has a six month limitation between the date of the offence and the laying of the charge. If the charge was laid outside the six months then there may be a strong chance that it will not proceed.

Look into it!

[The Stranger:Me]

I'd still like to know the date of the alleged offence and the date that the charge was laid, I'm pretty damn sure there is a 6 month limitation for a charge to be laid.

Sorry spud, the offence occurred on 18/1/06, but TON was recieved on 24/03/06 and the summons was recieved on 03/08/06 saying that I am required to attend court on 01/09/06.

[jim.cox]

I have found that trying to keep the public happy is a job in itself.

Man, now that's a Mission - Impossible if ever there was.

[ManDownUnder]

Isn't there a full disclosure requirement? If you don't know why you're being charged how can you prepare any defense in a manner satifactory to the court?

That being said - you did get the bit of paper 5 months ago...

edit - I take it back - I see you do know... sorry mate. Good luckw ith it - sounds like "he said" "she said" stuff to me...

[Lou Girardin]

I'd still like to know the date of the alleged offence and the date that the charge was laid, I'm pretty damn sure there is a 6 month limitation for a charge to be laid.

There was when I was a snake/pig/cop (pick one)

[Swoop]

CaN.
Have you been back to the location/s where these events took place and taken photographs of the areas concerned? These will be important in court.
I believe digital photographs are not permitted in court??? (Clarification anybody?)

[Lou Girardin]

Sorry spud, the offence occurred on 18/1/06, but TON was recieved on 24/03/06 and the summons was recieved on 03/08/06 saying that I am required to attend court on 01/09/06.

I'd say you have defence based on the delay. You can't properly defend a charge after a lapse of so long.
I hope you have a brief.

[spudchucka]

Sorry spud, the offence occurred on 18/1/06, but TON was recieved on 24/03/06 and the summons was recieved on 03/08/06 saying that I am required to attend court on 01/09/06.

Thanks for that but I'd still like to know when the actual charge was laid, as in when the information was produced. Its possible that the cops copy of the TON sat in his work tray for months before he actually went and had the charge entered.

It might be clutching at straws but still worthwhile investigating.

Its over six months between the offence date and the date you were summonsed and five months between receiving the TON receiving the summons. In my experience it is highly unusual for a summons to take that long to be served.

[spudchucka]

I believe digital photographs are not permitted in court??? (Clarification anybody?)

They can be allowed but their validity can easily be challenged. Unless you are a photographer with specialist training in digital photography I'd suggest you stick to film and take the negatives to court with you as well as the prints.

[sAsLEX]

CaN.
Have you been back to the location/s where these events took place and taken photographs of the areas concerned? These will be important in court.
I believe digital photographs are not permitted in court??? (Clarification anybody?)

When the camera saves the pic it save information in the format so that any fiddling in photoshop say can easily be picked up, could be wrong though, so it should be able to prove that they are unaltered pics so cant see why they would not be allowed in court

[John Banks]

Anything digital can be modified very easily, and removing evidence that it has been modified should be just as easy.

[sAsLEX]

Anything digital can be modified very easily, and removing evidence that it has been modified should be just as easy.

http://www.abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/tch06061.shtml

think that proves it can be done from reading the first little bit so there

[Patrick]

What was the date the information was sworn (bottom left hand corner).

The offence occurred on the 18/01/06 then it had to be "sworn" before the 18/07/06. Doesn't matter when the summons was served, the charge had to be laid and sworn within 6 months of the offence date.

If it isn't, bye bye charge....