Speeding ticket defended

[Headbanger]

Sort of. The 'buffer zone' is not law. But it's more than just a personal discretion thing, because it's publicly stated policy. This policy statement is still on the police website .

States in part




(My emphasis).

Interesting. It obviously carries no weight with the bastards parked just past the speed limit sign on the Wanganui side of Bulls.

[Ixion]

If you have a 100 to 50 zone change, one vehicle a little inside the 50 zone, one vehicle a little way out of it,and, given that radar will pick up a signal from the fastest moving vehicle, but be unable to identify which vehicle it is,then it is just simple logic to assume that the vehicle in the 50 km zone is moving more slowly (slowing down) than the vehicle in the 100 zone (still belting along). Why would you assume (in the absence of clear visual evidence) that the vehicle in the slower zone was moving faster than the vehicle in the faster zone

I would think the pertinent question would be "Office, can you please tell the court what speed the truck was doing, since it was also in the detection zone of the radar ?"

[Ixion]

Interesting. It obviously carries no weight with the bastards parked just past the speed limit sign up on the Wanganui side of Bulls.

Remember, it only works one way. BTW I have encountered MANY zone changes where it would not be safely practical to reduce speed form 100 to 50 within the distance between the sign first being visible and the sign itself. A notorious one (which may have been partly instrumental in the policy adoption) was on Waipuna road, where you came round a bend and saw the sign less than 20 metres ahead. 100 to 50 on a wet road in heavy traffic. Fun.

[CookMySock]

However the radar does not indentify its target, it does not know its range, and it does not know its size.

That description on its own makes the device sound so inept.

Stalker DOES record both fastest and strongest targets

Yes yes! but it does not tell you whether the strongest target WAS the fastest target or NOT - a critical piece of missing information in this case, and a poor assumption on the part of the enforcing officer. Here we have the larger primary target (was it the truck or the motorbike - impossible to tell) and the faster target (was it the closer motorbike inside the speed-limited area or the truck outside the speed-limited area.) A little more than a moments' thought and the judge will agree. It is at the very least, quite ambiguous.

I understand that police are not supposed to issue tickets when there are multiple targets "the so called clear tone" principle.

If I were the enforcement officer, I would. But I understand where and when radio waves bend, and what they do when they DO bend, I would be prepared to sign my name when I was sure of myself.

Anyway, I suspect the officer concerned has realised by now the slippery slope he is on, and I really doubt he will pursue it. If not, a subtle reminder will help here. Maybe a talk to his supervisor.

Steve

[Winston001]

I would think the pertinent question would be "Officer, can you please tell the court what speed the truck was doing, since it was also in the detection zone of the radar ?"

To which the officer replies "What truck....?" at which point it becomes a case of his word against yours......

However if you are calm and simply suggest he is mistaken, that he wasn't in a position to clearly see all traffic, and then later you give evidence about the truck, that can be enough for a reasonable doubt. For goodness sake don't accuse the officer of lying - all that will achieve is lack of your own credibility.

Incidentally, this talk of a judge is misleading. There is every chance the case will be heard by JPs who tend to side with the prosecution.

[CookMySock]

Doesn't perjury only apply when someone is sworn in and gives evidence in court and it can be proven that they knowingly lied? I would think that most of the time the defence would be arguing that the cop was mistaken. How often does someone go out to PROVE that the cop knowingly lied?

Usually "proving" someone lied is as easy as catching them out with a loophole in their own logic.

If the cop DID lie in court, and it was NOT against the law for him to do so - it is still a VERY bad look for them in front of the judge. In court, the police really are just an informant with an allegation - it is important to them to maintain credibility or they lose the respect of the court and the whole system fails.

Steve

[CookMySock]

To which the officer replies "What truck....?" at which point it becomes a case of his word against yours......

Or else ask if he was the primary target or the secondary target - a trick question.

Also, if you present the truck as evidence yourself, then they have to accuse you of lying, and prove that it was not there.

Steve

[Ixion]

To which the officer replies "What truck....?" at which point it becomes a case of his word against yours......

...

The truck that he mentioned when asked "What other traffic was on the road at the time?" (Bear in mind that he cannot be sure that you have not tracked down the truck)

[PirateJafa]

Remember, it only works one way. BTW I have encountered MANY zone changes where it would not be safely practical to reduce speed form 100 to 50 within the distance between the sign first being visible and the sign itself. A notorious one (which may have been partly instrumental in the policy adoption) was on Waipuna road, where you came round a bend and saw the sign less than 20 metres ahead. 100 to 50 on a wet road in heavy traffic. Fun.

You're meant to be able to come to a complete stop within the visible distance ahead, you hoon, you.

[Winston001]

Usually "proving" someone lied is as easy as catching them out with a loophole in their own logic.

If the cop DID lie in court, and it was NOT against the law for him to do so - it is still a VERY bad look for them in front of the judge. In court, the police really are just an informant with an allegation - it is important to them to maintain credibility or they lose the respect of the court and the whole system fails.

Steve

Unfortunately proving a witness has lied is rare. Happens on TV but not in real life. Witnesses hardly ever admit a lie and certainly not law enforcement officers.

The general view by judges and the community is officers are experienced professional people who don't need to lie to get a conviction. If this was wrong, and the prosecution couldn't be trusted, then our criminal law system would collapse.

Where the difference in opinion occurs is when an officer makes a mistake. That happens. It's acceptable and may be sufficient for a not guilty decision.

Also, if you present the truck as evidence yourself, then they have to accuse you of lying, and prove that it was not there.

Steve

Not really. The only way Dpex can prove this is to call the truck driver to give evidence, or another witness who saw the truck - unless the officer agrees it was there. He could do so but also say the truck was out of range.

And there's no need for the court to decide Dpex is lying - indeed such a finding would be unusual. All the judge has to do is decide the evidence of one person is more accurate than the evidence of another.

[Ixion]

You're meant to be able to come to a complete stop within the visible distance ahead, you hoon, you.

Visible distance of road. Not visible distance of 'beside road, hidden by trees and fence'

[ICE180]

if it was a NZ post truck they have GPS Systems hooked up to an office I think you could ask for a print out of the trucks at the same time who were traveling down the same piece of road at that time where you were

Also How can the cop prove it was you as he could not read your number plate there was another Larger vechiles right behind you travelling at speed as will
ask them how can the radar work out what vechile it had picked up ?????? all a radar does is take a reflection off something and work out the speed buy the time it takes to come back

[Katman]

How often does someone go out to PROVE that the cop knowingly lied?

I'll be doing exactly that at my appeal hearing in June.

[peasea]

I'll be doing exactly that at my appeal hearing in June.

Good on ya, I wish you all the best with that and please keep us informed.

[Renegade]

Sort of. The 'buffer zone' is not law. But it's more than just a personal discretion thing, because it's publicly stated policy. This policy statement is still on the police website .

States in part

(My emphasis).

thats the bastard i was talking about...