Oops

**YellowDog** · 5th September 2016, 15:47

So surely the 167kph speeding allegation is no more than an offence on paper. There were no victims. There was no dangerous riding or riding without due care and attention, as if there was, there would have been a victim and resulting damage/injury. A discharge without conviction and a Police commendation for demonstarting skillful riding, is the only logical conclusion?

**Maha** · 5th September 2016, 15:56

Originally Posted by YellowDog

So surely the 167kph speeding allegation is no more than an offence on paper. There were no victims. There was no dangerous riding or riding without due care and attention, as if there was, there would have been a victim and resulting damage/injury. A discharge without conviction and a Police commendation for demonstarting skillful riding, is the only logical conclusion?

And there has been direction given to utilise an expensive Lawyer on this issue..... pfft!

**FJRider** · 5th September 2016, 16:05

Originally Posted by jonnyk5614

Yup.
I'm going to talk to the community law advice place this week and then probably have to get an actual lawyer.

Will plead guilty for sure but there is the possibility of a discharge without conviction.

Really don't want a criminal conviction.....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

60 km/hr over the speed limit will mean it unlikely for you to get discharged without conviction.

Traffic court convictions are NOT criminal ... unless you're looking at jail time. Then all bets are off.

Most likely (and usual) a big fine and six months loss of license on top of the 28 days. The 28 days is the automatic knee-jerk reaction to being 40 kms/hr over the posted limit. And is not regarded as any/full punishment for the offence.

http://www.police.govt.nz/faq/what-a...s-for-speeding

http://communitylaw.org.nz/community...th-chapter-33/

**Akzle** · 5th September 2016, 16:59

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Given Akzle's usual position - I take him to mean that it is a paper crime, a crime by definition alone. It is not a real crime ...

There is a difference .. I tend to see paper crimes as crimes defined by the Government. Real Crimes may be illegal but are also immoral ... and of course there are Real Crimes which are immoral but not illegal ... a lot of white collar actions fall into the latter category ..

given moohard's usual level of retardation, i ignore him.

i'm reasonably confident that "growing weed" is not even legislated against, as such.
so if cosmik wishes to continue this discourse, we'll go down the path...

**TheDemonLord** · 5th September 2016, 17:25

Originally Posted by Akzle

given moohard's usual level of retardation, i ignore him.

i'm reasonably confident that "growing weed" is not even legislated against, as such.
so if cosmik wishes to continue this discourse, we'll go down the path...

I'd tend to disagree:

cultivate includes sow or plant; and cultivation has a corresponding meaning

http://thelawdictionary.org/cultivated/

prohibited plant means—
(a)

any plant of the genus Cannabis:
(b)

any plant of the species Papaver somniferum:
(c)

Erythroxylon coca and Erythroxylon novagranatense (syn E truxillense) and every other species of the genus Erythroxylon from which a controlled drug can be produced:
(d)

any plant of the species Lophophora williamsii or Lophophora lewinii:
(e)

any fungus of the genera Conocybe, Panaeolus, or Psilocybe from which a controlled drug can be produced or which contains a controlled drug:
(f)

any other plant which is declared to be a prohibited plant by regulations made under this Act

9 Cultivation of prohibited plants

(1)

Except pursuant to a licence under this Act, or as otherwise permitted by regulations made under this Act, no person shall cultivate any prohibited plant.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...est/whole.html

**nzspokes** · 5th September 2016, 17:45

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

It didn't affect my insurance at all ..

One of my staff a while back got caught somewhat quicker than he should have been. Took him ages to find somebody that would cover him then when he did the premium was very high.

**Akzle** · 5th September 2016, 18:12

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

I'd tend to disagree:

http://thelawdictionary.org/cultivated/

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...est/whole.html

...

Subject to subsection (4), every person who contravenes sub-
section (1) commits an offence against this Act and is liable
on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 7 years.

not "comits a crime" nor "is a criminal"

commits an offense against an act. an infringement.

also be very difficult for a person to cultivate any shit.
(protip, look up the legal definition of person)

also, given that it can be sown or planted ("cultivated") without my intervention (ie, by god)..... then what?

but yae, i conceed that point, i did not believe the statute to be even that explicit. yay for "the crown".

**scumdog** · 5th September 2016, 18:28

Originally Posted by Akzle

...

not "comits a crime" nor "is a criminal"

commits an offense against an act. an infringement.

also be very difficult for a person to cultivate any shit.
(protip, look up the legal definition of person)

also, given that it can be sown or planted ("cultivated") without my intervention (ie, by god)..... then what?

but yae, i conceed that point, i did not believe the statute to be even that explicit. yay for "the crown".

Good luck with all that when you're next in court, bound to be a win.

**Maha** · 5th September 2016, 19:27

Originally Posted by scumdog

Good luck with all that when you're next in court, bound to be a win.

It's a wonder he doesn't choke on his own shit to be totally honest.
His little play pit buddies should be along soon to provide back up.

**Akzle** · 5th September 2016, 19:59

Originally Posted by scumdog

Good luck with all that when you're next in court, bound to be a win.

hahahahahaha.

why would I go to court??
that's where jews come from!

**Maha** · 5th September 2016, 21:35

Originally Posted by Akzle

...

also, given that it can be sown or planted ("cultivated") without my intervention (ie, by god)..... then what?

Does the collective 'we' now have to deal with the cute tingling sensation that you believe there is a God? A simple yes or no will be suffice, no need to advance too much further on that particular subject.

**R650R** · 6th September 2016, 10:24

Originally Posted by FJRider

Traffic court convictions are NOT criminal ...

•Dangerous driving has a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment or a $4,500.00 fine, and the court must disqualify the driver for a minimum of 6 months (unless very limited circumstances apply).

The court may impose a different sentence to those above under the Sentencing Act 2002. A conviction for dangerous or reckless driving is a criminal conviction. There may also be other legal and personal consequences.

Dangerous driving – the legal meaning

The test for dangerous driving is whether in all of the circumstances the driving is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person. This is also an objective test, requiring driver fault and a higher degree of negligence than careless driving such that the driving is dangerous.

Again it is not a standard of perfection and driver fault may not exist or may not be able to be proven.

Whether driving is objectively dangerous can also be a highly contestable issue. It should be assessed against the circumstances at the time, not through the use of hindsight. The focus of the inquiry is on the risks created by the motorist’s manner of driving, not the consequences, such as an accident. As one judge put it, “the court must not leap to its conclusion about the manner of driving based on the consequence”.

Above all copy and paste...

Then there is also that trickey question when flyinto US applying for jobs etc where it ask have you every been CHARGED with a criminal offence....