Worth a look - Pissed but not in charge?
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 12 Jul 2010 20:54 On 13/07/2010 10:11 AM, Noddy wrote: > "Sylvia Else"<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message > news:8a1ot2FkouU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >> It's not necessary to employ a solicitor for such a trivial matter. All >> the person has to do is front up to court, establish the facts, and allow >> the magistrate to reach the proper conclusion which is that the facts do >> not prove the offence. > > Which is how it's supposed to work in theory, anyway. > > In reality it comes down to your word against the copper who charged you, > and 99 times out of 100 the beak will support the copper simply because > he/she's a "copper" and has taken an oath to uphold the law. If there's a conflict over the facts, then that's probably true. But the magistrate will form their own view about whether the facts amount to an offence. The important thing here is not to give the police advance warning of the defence you intend to use. Some (and only some) police might be tempted to change their evidence so as to defeat the defence. > And that, for most people, is more than enough reason not to contest. If a person takes a purely pragmatic stance, then they've no reason to winge. Some of us stand up on principle, despite the time cost. Sylvia.
From: Noddy on 12 Jul 2010 21:13 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8a1rqkF36pU1(a)mid.individual.net... > If there's a conflict over the facts, then that's probably true. Which I would think would be most of the time. > But the magistrate will form their own view about whether the facts amount > to an offence. My experience with magistrates is pretty limited, but it would seem they can form their view based on whatever mood they're in on the day just like anyone else. If they don't like the cut of your jib they'll rule against you regardless of how accurate your story may be. > The important thing here is not to give the police advance warning of the > defence you intend to use. Some (and only some) police might be tempted to > change their evidence so as to defeat the defence. No doubt. > If a person takes a purely pragmatic stance, then they've no reason to > winge. Well, yeah, they do. There'd no doubt be some people who get unfairly pinched and who can't afford to take time off to defend the charge even if they know they're right, leaving them little choice other than to suck it up as the cheapest way out. In my opinion, such people have every right to whinge. > Some of us stand up on principle, despite the time cost. I agree with the principal, but then some people can't see the forest through the trees out of sheer bloody mindedness. Like the guy around here who spent a hundred grand fiting the local council and his neighbour over a fence that was 18 inches on the wrong side of a boundary. It would have cost 2000 bucks to just move the fence and get on with his life, and in the end he *had* to move it anyway. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Sylvia Else on 12 Jul 2010 22:04 On 13/07/2010 11:13 AM, Noddy wrote: > "Sylvia Else"<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message > news:8a1rqkF36pU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >> If there's a conflict over the facts, then that's probably true. > > Which I would think would be most of the time. > >> But the magistrate will form their own view about whether the facts amount >> to an offence. > > My experience with magistrates is pretty limited, but it would seem they can > form their view based on whatever mood they're in on the day just like > anyone else. If they don't like the cut of your jib they'll rule against you > regardless of how accurate your story may be. I doubt that magistrates would willfully ignore the legal situation. If they find a particular set of facts to be proved, but then convict the defendant even though those facts do not amount to an offence, then they risk being overturned on appeal. I'm sure no magistrate likes being told by a higher court that they didn't know what they were doing. Sylvia.
From: D Walford on 12 Jul 2010 22:08 On 13/07/2010 12:24 AM, Noddy wrote: > "D Walford"<dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message > news:4c3b0f8b$0$11108$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >> Exactly and no one can prove one way or the other what someone's "intent" >> is unless they admit it, suggesting that a person intends to drive a car >> just because they are sitting in the drivers seat is nothing more than a >> wild assumption. > > They don't have to prove it, they just have to have a belief that it's > probable. > > You can be charged with being equipped to steal just by walking down the > street with a screwdriver in your pocket and not having a reasonable excuse > as to why you're doing so. You don't have to be caught doing anything > illegal with it. Another example of Govt and police using Gestapo like behaviour to control us. Daryl
From: Mr.T on 12 Jul 2010 22:11
"D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4c3b1268$0$11111$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > What "some cops" think is neither here nor there. It a cop hands out a > > fine in such a situation, the driver should defend it in court. > > Should but they don't often do it because most people believe its > difficult and still costly even if they do win. A reasonable belief since you will rarely win with a magistrate no matter how stupid the charge, and will have to appeal as well to have ANY hope. MrT. |