Court - What to expect

[YellowDog]

"Mixed Opinions"?

A definitive opinion would be - "You're screwed".

Talk about picking the wrong battle.

Pay the fine and forget court. It's going to cost you the fine, court costs, and at least 4 random days off work.

There is no principle to fight. You broke a long standing, well-understood law, now man up.

Sheesh.

Unfortunately this is indeed correct.

Reading a statement is a good idea, rather than trying to deal with what is actually going on. Also, if you send it in before hand the judge may ask you to clarify some points or issues; which could be good for you.

I'd give you a 15-20% chance of success.

Goood luck.

[Patrick]

Could make submissions to be considered before sentencing? This can include the dangerous nature of having to do 70, holing up faster impatient moving traffic etc etc, and the claims by basic handling/license testing instructors and Police, that that particular law is a poor one......

[Matt_TG]

I have this vision of a person asking himself a question, then running to the other side of the courtroom, fighting with himself to not stand in the witness box, finally be overcome and pushed in there, by himself, then not answering his own question, only to run out and ask another question of himself that will be answered, by himself again, this time though the SPB way, calling himself lying scum!

A one man stand gig really. Will someone video tape the whole thing?

[SixPackBack]

Paddy if its not already apparent patrick is a cop....THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE.

[Swoop]

Paddy if its not already apparent patrick is a cop....THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE.

Patrick's post #32 is a good one.

[ital916]

Paddy if its not already apparent patrick is a cop....THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE.

What do you have against police?

Most of the time (note I said most not all) when ya get done by the police we (as in we -the gen pub) were probably doing something wrong.

Seems like you got an itch to scratch with everyone....that or you just got an attitude.

[ital916]

Could make submissions to be considered before sentencing? This can include the dangerous nature of having to do 70, holing up faster impatient moving traffic etc etc, and the claims by basic handling/license testing instructors and Police, that that particular law is a poor one......

Is that a valid argument though, that someone broke a law as they considered it would be annoying/hazardous to others around them? If so can other laws broken be argued using the same logic

[Ixion]

It's not a valid argument as regards guilty or not guilty. But it *may* be valid as regards sentence. Breaking a law when there is a good and sensible reason you broke it, you still broke the law. But the judge can take *why* you broke it into account when sentencing.

Don't like your chances with JPs though. Their average IQ is about 50 and the only training they get is two days receiting "The police are are always right".

And the 70kph law is pretty straight forward. You either were or weren't over 70kph.

If someone REALLY wanted to make a point about this law they could organise a ride by a LOT of learners (or people with L plates anyway), all going down the motorway (at a suitable inconvenient time) at 70kph. Get news media to get pcitures showing the irate motorists behind etc.

[SixPackBack]

What do you have against police?

Most of the time (note I said most not all) when ya get done by the police we (as in we -the gen pub) were probably doing something wrong.

Seems like you got an itch to scratch with everyone....that or you just got an attitude.

When you have a few more miles under your belt young grasshopper, you will understand, given enough time that pubescent glossy optimism will be replaced by dour the dour realism that minor traffic infringements are tax and the police are NOT your friends.

[Patrick]

Paddy if its not already apparent patrick is a cop....THEY ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE.

Ask around. You are wrong.

I only know of cops calling it as they see it.

Right or wrong.

Blind, deluded and corrupt? Shove ya red up yer arse. Wrong on all three counts there too.

[Patrick]

Patrick's post #32 is a good one.

Apparently not....

One eyed SPB can't find his marbles again. I think he is a Canterbury Rugby supporter.

It's not a valid argument as regards guilty or not guilty. But it *may* be valid as regards sentence. Breaking a law when there is a good and sensible reason you broke it, you still broke the law. But the judge can take *why* you broke it into account when sentencing.

Well said..... my point exactly.

Don't like your chances with JPs though. Their average IQ is about 50 and the only training they get is two days receiting "The police are are always right".

Not so well said. If that was the case, JP's wouldn't toss out ANY cases......

And the 70kph law is pretty straight forward. You either were or weren't over 70kph.

If someone REALLY wanted to make a point about this law they could organise a ride by a LOT of learners (or people with L plates anyway), all going down the motorway (at a suitable inconvenient time) at 70kph. Get news media to get pcitures showing the irate motorists behind etc.

Now THAT is worth doing.

[SixPackBack]

Ask around. You are wrong.

I only know of cops calling it as they see it.

Right or wrong.

Blind, deluded and corrupt? Shove ya red up yer arse. Wrong on all three counts there too.

I rest my case. Dare to disagree and they become angry and abusive.

[Patrick]

I rest my case. Dare to disagree and they become angry and abusive.

Nah. Abusive? You are the one labelling......

Disagree all you like. Getting red for speaking the truth is confusing to me, that's all.

[Madness]

A few points missed about the actual court hearing.

For the actual hearing itself (not the first one for a plea) the prosecution MUST disclose all the evidence they intend to use at the hearing well before the due date so you have time to prepare your defence. This must include all the evidence that the policeman will be stating in the witness box. If this evidence isn't in your hands at least a week before the hearing you can ask for an adjournment, (insufficient time to prepare your defence).

This is true, although the prosecution don't send out the disclosure automatically without a request from the defence in writing. Also, as the case in question here is (as I understand it) an infringement offence being taken to a court hearing under the Summary Proceedings act, there may not be a callover. The court date in front of J.P's is possibly the date the case will be heard, also subject to the actual Court and the size of the day's list. Why would a hearing be granted for such an (infringement) offence if the plea wasn't already not guilty?

Paddy; if you haven't already requested disclosure, request it now. Be very specific of the information you require. For example, a Statement of Facts (probably full of lies), Officer's notes made at the time and even recordings from the Police Comms radio, if it's relevant.

[ital916]

When you have a few more miles under your belt young grasshopper, you will understand, given enough time that pubescent glossy optimism will be replaced by dour the dour realism that minor traffic infringements are tax and the police are NOT your friends.

You know, there is a green rep button.....

You know, this is good because now I have an example of what I shouldn't be like when im older....I shouldnt be like you. You're a hater dude, I would say be happy but you seem like a person well past their used by date when it comes to cracking a smile or happiness.