Worth a look - Pissed but not in charge?
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Mr.T on 12 Jul 2010 22:13 "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. Magistrates aren't interested in facts. You need a higher court if you actually have case. MrT.
From: Sylvia Else on 12 Jul 2010 22:29 On 13/07/2010 12:11 PM, Mr.T wrote: > "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. I don't know how you justify the claim that you will rarely win with a magistrate. Put +acquitted +magistrate into Google. Sylia.
From: D Walford on 12 Jul 2010 22:34 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. True but it can also go in your favour, about 16yrs ago I was charged with assaulting someone but I was found to be not guilty because the magistrate believed me instead of the prick I hit. No argument that I hit him but because I was severely provoked the magistrate agreed the prick got what he deserved (he didn't actually say that but it was clear that was what he meant):-) Guilty or not it still cost me a lot of money with little or no chance of recovering my costs. Daryl
From: Noddy on 12 Jul 2010 23:22 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8a1vtnFm43U1(a)mid.individual.net... > 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. I'd agree, but then establishing "facts" in such cases involves little more than both parties telling their story and the magistrate deciding who's telling the truth and who's lying. Without any way of knowing who is and who isn't, the magistrate is most likely going to side with the copper regardless. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 12 Jul 2010 23:26
"D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4c3bd0bd$0$28669$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > True but it can also go in your favour, about 16yrs ago I was charged with > assaulting someone but I was found to be not guilty because the magistrate > believed me instead of the prick I hit. Nice :) > No argument that I hit him but because I was severely provoked the > magistrate agreed the prick got what he deserved (he didn't actually say > that but it was clear that was what he meant):-) > Guilty or not it still cost me a lot of money with little or no chance of > recovering my costs. Sucks, doesn't it? -- Regards, Noddy. |