Police lose Duff case

[davereid]

I'm for the police being armed, as long as it doesn't see a corresponding softening in the arms laws.

Huh ?

In case you hadn't noticed the crims are ALREADY armed. Doing about 1.5 armed robberies a day on average.

The pat them on the head, put their benefit up a bit approach has failed.

Time to allow the good guys to be armed surely !

[scumdog]

I'm for the police being armed.

Nah, I couldn't be trusted not to shoot those I thought needed shooting.

Would even bring my own bullets.

[davereid]

Nah, I couldn't be trusted not to shoot those I thought needed shooting.Would even bring my own bullets.

I'll mail you some if you run out.

[The Pastor]

So to clairfy.

You speed (lets say under 140 so no instant loss of licence)

You get caught.

You give the cop the licnce

He dose his QP

You are now legally allowed to drive away (before ticket has been issued ) leaving the coppa with ur licence.

[Patrick]

What a thread... some say ALL cops are wankers, a cop replies that someone is a dickhead and someone else gets uppity about that... farken funny.

DUFF shook a woman around. Tough prick.

Bad mistake on her part laying the restisting charge months later, which is why it got pulled. It looked like sour grapes. Charge him at the time.

Judge seemd to forget about the fact that his licence may be invalid, he might be disqualified from driving, suspended, wanted for demerit suspension whatever.... all necessary checks by QP to be made to show he is actually permitted to drive on the roads, a core business requirement that Police need to do....

Watch for the appeal by the Police....

[Fatjim]

Huh ?

In case you hadn't noticed the crims are ALREADY armed. Doing about 1.5 armed robberies a day on average.

The pat them on the head, put their benefit up a bit approach has failed.

Time to allow the good guys to be armed surely !

I'm really trying to figure out what your statement has to do with mine?

[imdying]

How can you drive off without your license anyway? Isn't it a legal requirement these days to carry a license when driving? Like to see the uppity nigger try that in the states

[Jantar]

....Judge seemd to forget about the fact that his licence may be invalid, he might be disqualified from driving, suspended, wanted for demerit suspension whatever.... all necessary checks by QP to be made to show he is actually permitted to drive on the roads, a core business requirement that Police need to do....

Watch for the appeal by the Police....

My understanding is that "the fact that his licence may be invalid, he might be disqualified from driving, suspended, wanted for demerit suspension whatever" is the part that constituted the fishing. He was only required to remain long enough to establish his identity, and he did that by producing a drivers licence with his photo on it. The fact the licence may not have been valid was irrellevant as to his identity. A QP could have been carried out after he had left, and if anything else was found, then he could have been stopped again if he was arrestable, or for any other irregularity a new ticket could have been posted out.

Remember the furore when photo lincences were introduced? They were sold on the basis that they would enable police to establish identity quickly and accurately with having to go through a QP.

[scumdog]

My understanding is that "the fact that his licence may be invalid, he might be disqualified from driving, suspended, wanted for demerit suspension whatever" is the part that constituted the fishing. He was only required to remain long enough to establish his identity, and he did that by producing a drivers licence with his photo on it. The fact the licence may not have been valid was irrellevant as to his identity. A QP could have been carried out after he had left, and if anything else was found, then he could have been stopped again if he was arrestable, or for any other irregularity a new ticket could have been posted out.

Remember the furore when photo lincences were introduced? They were sold on the basis that they would enable police to establish identity quickly and accurately with having to go through a QP.

I'll wait to see what the appeal turns up
If the judgement sticks it will make my job easier.

"OK, I've seen your licence, now piss-off real quick before I find out you're suspended/disqualified/have a WTA/recalled to prison/wanted for service of suspension letter as I don't need the agro and paperwork" etc.

[Ixion]

What a thread... some say ALL cops are wankers, a cop replies that someone is a dickhead and someone else gets uppity about that... farken funny.

DUFF shook a woman around. Tough prick.

Bad mistake on her part laying the restisting charge months later, which is why it got pulled. It looked like sour grapes. Charge him at the time.

Judge seemd to forget about the fact that his licence may be invalid, he might be disqualified from driving, suspended, wanted for demerit suspension whatever.... all necessary checks by QP to be made to show he is actually permitted to drive on the roads, a core business requirement that Police need to do....

Watch for the appeal by the Police....

Judge did not forget. Judge in fact made a specific poin tof mentioning it. But also mentioned a fundamental principle of our law, one which dates back well over 1000 years.

That , in short, we are a free people. We are at liberty to go about our lawful business. We cannot be arbitrarily stopped or detained, just because someone does not like the look of us.

That liberty is no small matter. It was not just handed down on a plate : it was won, and preserved at a terrible cost in blood, on the battlefield and the scaffold. And it should not be lightly surrendered, no matter how convenient such a surrender might be to the police. Indeed, the principle that the Crown (ie the Police) do NOT possess an arbitrary right of detention is the whole point.

As the judge carefully noted, so fundamental to our law is this principle, that it can only be overridden by an explicit statement by parliament.

And Parliament has made no such statement. they have said "You, oh Officer Bumblebee, may require a person driving a vehicle to prove their identity, and you may detain them for up to 15 minutes while you check that out". That's it. Parliament has never said that the Police may detain people for an arbitrary time (as long as they like) while they do what ever they like. No matter how convenient the polcie might find it.

If the present ability to detain motorists until their identity is proven, up until a maximum of 15 minutes is not sufficient for you, how long do you want the right to lock people up who are stopped at the roadside (who may, bear in mind, have committed no offence whatsoever)? An hour? A day ? a week? Indefinately? Perhaps the Yanks could sublease us partt of Guatamala Bay to lock them up in ?

Take the matter out of the context of motoring. Your argument would necessarily also justify putting up blockades , say at sports events, and detaining every person leaving (on foot) until they could prove they were not wanted for something. And anyone who could not prove their identity could be locked up for as long as you chose.

The requirement to carry the driver's licence at all times was resisted strongly by those who valued liberty on the grounds that it would become a de-facto identity card system. This case (and others) clearly show that those fears were justified.

What you demand MUST be resisted, because that way lies tyranny.

[98tls]

Judge did not forget. Judge in fact made a specific poin tof mentioning it. But also mentioned a fundamental principle of our law, one which dates back well over 1000 years.

That , in short, we are a free people. We are at liberty to go about our lawful business. We cannot be arbitrarily stopped or detained, just because someone does not like the look of us.

That liberty is no small matter. It was not just handed down on a plate : it was won, and preserved at a terrible cost in blood, on the battlefield and the scaffold. And it should not be lightly surrendered, no matter how convenient such a surrender might be to the police. Indeed, the principle that the Crown (ie the Police) do NOT possess an arbitrary right of detention is the whole point.

As the judge carefully noted, so fundamental to our law is this principle, that it can only be overridden by an explicit statement by parliament.

And Parliament has made no such statement. they have said "You, oh Officer Bumblebee, may require a person driving a vehicle to prove their identity, and you may detain them for up to 15 minutes while you check that out". That's it. Parliament has never said that the Police may detain people for an arbitrary time (as long as they like) while they do what ever they like. No matter how convenient the polcie might find it.

If the present ability to detain motorists until their identity is proven, up until a maximum of 15 minutes is not sufficient for you, how long do you want the right to lock people up who are stopped at the roadside (who may, bear in mind, have committed no offence whatsoever)? An hour? A day ? a week? Indefinately? Perhaps the Yanks could sublease us partt of Guatamala Bay to lock them up in ?

Take the matter out of the context of motoring. Your argument would necessarily also justify putting up blockades , say at sports events, and detaining every person leaving (on foot) until they could prove they were not wanted for something. And anyone who could not prove their identity could be locked up for as long as you chose.

The requirement to carry the driver's licence at all times was resisted strongly by those who valued liberty on the grounds that it would become a de-facto identity card system. This case (and others) clearly show that those fears were justified.

What you demand MUST be resisted, because that way lies tyranny.

Tree hugging shite.If the people that spilt the blood you talk of could read such rubbish and see the NZ of today they would condone much more than detaining people for as long as they like.Parliament

[Horse]

Judge did not forget. Judge in fact made a specific poin tof mentioning it. But also mentioned a fundamental principle of our law, one which dates back well over 1000 years.

That , in short, we are a free people. We are at liberty to go about our lawful business. We cannot be arbitrarily stopped or detained, just because someone does not like the look of us.

That liberty is no small matter. It was not just handed down on a plate : it was won, and preserved at a terrible cost in blood, on the battlefield and the scaffold. And it should not be lightly surrendered, no matter how convenient such a surrender might be to the police. Indeed, the principle that the Crown (ie the Police) do NOT possess an arbitrary right of detention is the whole point.

As the judge carefully noted, so fundamental to our law is this principle, that it can only be overridden by an explicit statement by parliament.

And Parliament has made no such statement. they have said "You, oh Officer Bumblebee, may require a person driving a vehicle to prove their identity, and you may detain them for up to 15 minutes while you check that out". That's it. Parliament has never said that the Police may detain people for an arbitrary time (as long as they like) while they do what ever they like. No matter how convenient the polcie might find it.

If the present ability to detain motorists until their identity is proven, up until a maximum of 15 minutes is not sufficient for you, how long do you want the right to lock people up who are stopped at the roadside (who may, bear in mind, have committed no offence whatsoever)? An hour? A day ? a week? Indefinately? Perhaps the Yanks could sublease us partt of Guatamala Bay to lock them up in ?

Take the matter out of the context of motoring. Your argument would necessarily also justify putting up blockades , say at sports events, and detaining every person leaving (on foot) until they could prove they were not wanted for something. And anyone who could not prove their identity could be locked up for as long as you chose.

The requirement to carry the driver's licence at all times was resisted strongly by those who valued liberty on the grounds that it would become a de-facto identity card system. This case (and others) clearly show that those fears were justified.

What you demand MUST be resisted, because that way lies tyranny.

QFT: Quoted For Truth.

Thunderous applause from this end.

[Patch]

Question for our resident law upholders:

Upon being asked for our license, what part of the law states that we (the public) must handover the license??
I was under the assumption (my bad, for assuming) that we only had to produce it, to prove identity etc.

Just a question.

[jrandom]

Tree hugging shite.If the people that spilt the blood you talk of could read such rubbish and see the NZ of today...

You really have no idea, do you?

[Grahameeboy]

This is disturbing...why should a cop not check someone out...if you watch the UK cop documentaries, this is common practice so a simple motoring stop can establish whether the offender has any o/s warrants etc...you know protecting the free people etc

If you have nothing to hide, why run and hide.

Maybe the cop messed up under the Law, however, I don't really see what she did wrong...it takes 2 to tango