qualified lawyer please, can I beat this ticket?

**scumdog** · 11th December 2004, 13:01

Originally Posted by Dr Bob

Thank you Marty for your most eloquent contribution. I would add that I only said that half the laws actually included such phrases, and of course with common law it is prima facie interpretive. As law is a social objectivication I would contend that the issue is best dealt with by discussing the philosophy of objectivity and empiricism, rather than defecation.

Oooh marty!!

**Dr Bob** · 11th December 2004, 13:02

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Courts don't allow opinion evidence, isn't that common knowledge that any half decent bush lawyer would be aware of?

I guess the previous post re : philosophy went over your head then

Yamahamaman · 11th December 2004, 13:02

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Courts don't allow opinion evidence, isn't that common knowledge that any half decent bush lawyer would be aware of?

I thought that was the type of evidence that 'expert witnesses' provided all the time.

**inlinefour** · 11th December 2004, 13:10

Originally Posted by vifferman

When I was learning to drive, many years ago (around the start of the Cretaceous Period, if I remember correctly) I was taught that the speed limits applied from where the signs were, so if I was going from a 70 km/h zone to a 50, then I needed to make sure I was doing 50 by the time I passed the sign. And conversely, if I was going from a 50 to a 70, then I shouldn't start accelerating till I got to the 70 sign. So that's what I did.

Has this changed somewhere along the line? I guess it must have, because from the behaviour of other motorists, it appears that ALL signs (including stop signs, traffic lights, etc.) are a vague suggestion only, and that you need obey them only if you feel like it. And then only vaguely. Or not.

This is quite correct. Its that simple. Dont quite know if the thread starter thought he'd rack up simpathy or be able to get off the ticket, but. Mate you broke the law, how about owning up to it? I did not read this whole thread thru, but to the above. If you've got morals, pay the ticket and learn. If not

its the same for us all on the road, why should it be any different for you or anyone else for that matter?

**marty** · 11th December 2004, 15:12

expert witnesses give evidence based on the facts as they are aware of them. they are called expert witnesses as their knowledge is recognised and appropriate weight is given to it. their 'opinion' is based on their qualification, and has to be supported by something within the evidence presented.

**marty** · 11th December 2004, 15:15

Originally Posted by Dr Bob

Thank you Marty for your most eloquent contribution. I would add that I only said that half the laws actually included such phrases, and of course with common law it is prima facie interpretive. As law is a social objectivication I would contend that the issue is best dealt with by discussing the philosophy of objectivity and empiricism, rather than defecation.

hmm - didn't see that 'half' word before.

and i thought i had used crap so eloquently too.

Yamahamaman · 11th December 2004, 15:56

Originally Posted by marty

their 'opinion' is based on their qualification, and has to be supported by something within the evidence presented.

Opinion is opinion according to the dictionary.

It also must be noted that opinions may differ between expert witnesses depending on their analysis of the facts.

But then again, law doesn't really rely on facts does it. In the words of John Quincy Adams, US President - "Whoever tells the best story wins"

**Stinger** · 12th December 2004, 00:03

If you want two differing opinions you need only ask two different experts. This is almost invariably the case.

Yamahamaman · 12th December 2004, 00:11

Originally Posted by Stinger

If you want two differing opinions you need only ask two different experts. This is almost invariably the case.

Isn't that what I said?

**Bonez** · 12th December 2004, 06:14

Originally Posted by zooter

I'm sure there is meant to be some tolerance to the speed signs as to the proximity to the sign with allowance for acceleration/deceleration. What is it? I got pinged at 87 in a 60 zone maybe 200m before the 80 sign.
Also, do judges have any discretion with speeding tickets? I read of a court case once where a guilty defendant was discharged without conviction because the mandatory minimum punishment had other consequences which made the penalty too harsh to fit the crime. I don't recall what the crime was. In my case I think I can put up a sound argument along similar lines.
Please don't post on this thread unless it's the good legal oil. If you want to sound off start another thread. Cheers, Greg

You got caught. So pay up! Just like the rest of us.