Evidential contrast leading to frustration

[Murray]

No, my understanding is you are SOL. Had to sell you rhouse because you can't get leagal aid if you own any assets? Cash in the retirement fund? To bad.
THis is used to stop people contesting bad decisions, since as a taxpayer, you are paying for both sides...
e.g - a cases where a person was charged with killing a burgalr but case dismissed as self defence - the legal bill was over $30k. Think of it as a a $30k fine guilty or not...
Geoff

And if its say a non-prisonable offence and you have pretty well no money do you just plead guilty because you can't afford to fight the charges?

[Scuba_Steve]

And if its say a non-prisonable offence and you have pretty well no money do you just plead guilty because you can't afford to fight the charges?

no need to plead, you're guilty by default in NZ

[FJRider]

And if its say a non-prisonable offence and you have pretty well no money do you just plead guilty because you can't afford to fight the charges?

The Court option is there for those that believe they are innocent of the charges being laid against them. Or ... for those that wish to fight the charges for other (many and varied) reasons.

NOT fighting the charges IS (by Default) an admission of guilt that is alleged by the officer that issued the Traffic Infringement notice.

If Legal Aid is not allowed/provided ... the Duty Solicitor is available to provide legal assistance (at no charge) in court. Legal aid and Duty solicitors ... are NOT the same thing.

[Murray]

NOT fighting the charges IS (by Default) an admission of guilt that is alleged by the officer that issued the Traffic Infringement notice.

If Legal Aid is not allowed/provided ... the Duty Solicitor is available to provide legal assistance (at no charge) in court. Legal aid and Duty solicitors ... are NOT the same thing.

e.g - a cases where a person was charged with killing a burgler but case dismissed as self defence - the legal bill was over $30k. Think of it as a a $30k fine guilty or not...
Geoff

So in the example of geoffms, when you do not have any large sums of money you would a) be entitled to legal aid up tp $30k? or b) let the Duty solicitor handle it? Would you for such a serious charge?

Not talking traffic infringements here

[FJRider]

So in the example of geoffms, when you do not have any large sums of money you would a) be entitled to legal aid up tp $30k? or b) let the Duty solicitor handle it? Would you for such a serious charge?

Not talking traffic infringements here

As I understand ... your own financial status determines entitlement to Legal aid.

Option a) if you are entitled ... take it.

Option b) if you are too stingy to pay ... the duty solicitor is your next option.

[Madness]

As I understand ...

Option b) if you are too stingy to pay ... the duty solicitor is your next option.

Good luck getting a Duty Solicitor to act in a Defended Hearing, let alone effectively. Their primary function is to assist with those appearing on the list; pleas, remands, etc. Besides, some of the Duty Solicitors I've seen have been excellent justification for self-representation, in other words fucking hopeless.

[FJRider]

Good luck getting a Duty Solicitor to act in a Defended Hearing, let alone effectively. Their primary function is to assist with those appearing on the list; pleas, remands, etc. Besides, some of the Duty Solicitors I've seen have been excellent justification for self-representation, in other words fucking hopeless.

I concur ...

[swbarnett]

NOT fighting the charges IS (by Default) an admission of guilt that is alleged by the officer that issued the Traffic Infringement notice.

So an presumption of guilt then in the eyes of the law.

If we truly had an "innocent until proven guilty" system you could just ignore the charge until the cops take it to court and provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. And the opinion of one witness would not be sufficient. No matter how credible they are.

[FJRider]

So an presumption of guilt then in the eyes of the law.

An accusation of guilt in the eyes of the Law enforcement authorities ... actually.

Police are not the law. They enforce the law .. and being human (although some have contradictory opinions) ... they can/do get it wrong (understatement). There ARE legal options you have to remedy those wrongs prior to .. or in ... a Court of Law. If you choose.

If we truly had an "innocent until proven guilty" system you could just ignore the charge until the cops take it to court and provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. And the opinion of one witness would not be sufficient. No matter how credible they are.

You have the option to ignore the charge NOW ... many DO ..

The Judge is the one to convince you're innocent. Not just one (credible) witness ...

[swbarnett]

An accusation of guilt in the eyes of the Law enforcement authorities ... actually.

If you reread what I said you may find that I was talking about a presumption of guilt on the part of the court simply because you decide not to fight the charges. Even though the charge is not proven.

The Judge is the one to convince you're innocent. Not just one (credible) witness ...

Sorry if I wasn't clear but this is essentially what I meant. And also that one witness would be insufficient to satisfy legal proof if we truly had an automatic repsumption of innocence.

[Gremlin]

And if its say a non-prisonable offence and you have pretty well no money do you just plead guilty because you can't afford to fight the charges?

You do have to consider the ramifications of doing so, insurance, record disclosure for employment etc...

I don't mind judges though, on the whole, Ive found them fair and bollocked whomever deserved it. The JPs are awful. Rubber stamp pretty much anything the cops say, a mate even had a solid case for one charge (and he wasn't responsible) gave a whole presentation pointing out all the mistakes etc. JPs went away and discussed and came back and said sorry, it stands.

[FJRider]

If you reread what I said you may find that I was talking about a presumption of guilt on the part of the court simply because you decide not to fight the charges. Even though the charge is not proven.

I re-read your post ... no mention (said or implied) of the above. BUT ...

If you decide NOT to fight the charges ... it is Admission of guilt. NOT presumption of guilt.

Sorry if I wasn't clear but this is essentially what I meant. And also that one witness would be insufficient to satisfy legal proof if we truly had an automatic repsumption of innocence.

Tell that to the judge ...when/if YOU were the only person that saw somebody stealing your car. By YOUR rules ... that person walks free.

The onus is on the witness to prove they are a credible witness. (To the satisfaction of the Judge)

[swbarnett]

I re-read your post ... no mention (said or implied) of the above.

Never mind. That's what I meant.

If you decide NOT to fight the charges ... it is Admission of guilt. NOT presumption of guilt.

A decision not to fight doesn't say anything. It is the judicial system that is presuming that because you didn't fight the charge you are admitting to it.

Deciding not to punch out a driver that ran you of the road doesn't make you guilty of whatever they're accusing you of. It just means that they're bigger than you. The same goes for the courts.

Tell that to the judge

Not the words "would be". I'm talking about what would happen under a true presumption of innocence, not the guilty first system we currently have.

...when/if YOU were the only person that saw somebody stealing your car. By YOUR rules ... that person walks free.

Yes, they would. If I am ever in a jury I will never convict on the testimony of one eye witness, no matter how credible. There must be other corroborating evidence. Which, of course, can be other credible witnesses.

I would rather have a murderer on the street than have one innocent person in jail.

[Big Dog]

I would rather have a murderer on the street than have one innocent person in jail.

Easier to say when it is not your child, sibling or parent.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[FJRider]

A decision not to fight doesn't say anything. It is the judicial system that is presuming that because you didn't fight the charge you are admitting to it.

Given the fact that the infringement fees are a penalty administered by the Executive branch of Government ... the Judicial system only gets involved when you don't pay the fee .... you assume the Judicial system has more involvement in the Infringement notice issuing system ... than it actually has.

Pay the fee and no court conviction will result. Don't pay the fee and a court conviction may result. With a heavier penalty than the original fee ..

Interesting reading here ..

http://www.justice.govt.nz/publicati...gement-schemes

Deciding not to puch out a driver that ran you of the road doesn't make you guilty of whatever they're accusing you of. It just means that they're bigger than you. The same goes for the courts.

Deciding not to (I assume you mean) punch out that driver ... doesn't make you guilty of assault either.

Not the words "would be". I'm talking about what would happen under a true presumption of innocence, not the guilty first system we currently have.

If innocence is found in a court of law ... following failure to pay the infringement fee ... your actions in taking the matter to court would be justified.

Remember ... some countries require any court convictions declared .. as do many Companies prior to possible employment.

The payment of infringement fees does not make you a criminal .. as they are not resulting from criminal activities.

Yes, they would. If I am ever in a jury I will never convict on the testimony of one eye witness, no matter how credible. There must be other corroborating evidence. Which, of course, can be other credible witnesses.

I would rather have a murderer on the street than have one innocent person in jail.

good for you.

But ...

Guilt is not determined on one witness in any criminal (requiring a Jury) court case. Sufficient evidence is required.