Speeding fine...what to do??

Maybe different in Qld then, but I would be surprised, as it is not
allowed in NSW or under Military law. Though, I have noticed in the
US, their in car police cameras also have sound recording....

 

If the tape is not admissable as evidence, than neither is the
statement. The tape cannot be be brought forward as it is an illegal
recording, therefor any evidence supplied by that tape ie the
statement made by the police, is inadmissable.

 

Tell them you were riding a girly moped. Maybe that way they'll send
you to a womens institution.

 

Great! Even better! Cellbuddy with some hairy-backed sheila dyke named Mavis with a strap-on!.

 

Bullshit Conehead... we all know you can't count that high.... Smack
said you had no nuts~

Johno

Beer mate?

 

In Queensland it is apparently (unless the Magistrate was lying) my advise
is when talking to a Cop assume you are being recorded and you will be OK.

Boxer

 

No, you missed the point.

Copper tapes your conversation, and then somehow, can miraculously recall
everything that was said, word for word and without the need of the tape,
for his statement.

 

<drops pants, counts fingers, toes, nuts, heads>
24?

 

You have the option to take it to court for a reason, why not use it..

 

The cop doesn't have to let anyone know by what means he recalled the
conversation when he wrote it down in his notebook.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Never mind the fine.. it's the length of suspension which he probably wants to
argue about. 36kph over is probably only 4 or 6 months. The fine for
exceeding the NSW limit by 30-45kph was $317 in 1996... and fortunately for me
no suspension at that time.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Damn good advise - look how John Singleton got off!

Stan

 

Incedently I cannot find the court transcripts but this is the hansard
trasncript of some questions that were asked about John Singleton in NSW
Parliament!



JOHN SINGLETON SPEEDINGNext Hit OFFENCE PENALTY

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: My question without notice is directed to
the Attorney General. Is it a fact that John Singleton - a prominent
advertising media millionaire - was recently charged by the New South
Wales Police Service for driving at 165 kilometres an hour on a New
South Wales road? Is it a fact that a magistrate treated Mr Singleton as
a first offender and recorded no conviction, fine or loss of points? As
this amazing decision has clearly undermined the road safety campaign in
New South Wales, will the Attorney General conduct a review of this case
and request the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal the decision?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: As I understand it, the decision of the court -
that is, the learned magistrate, Mr Williams - in Mr Singleton’s case
was to dismiss the charges under section 556A of the Crimes Act 1900 and
Mr Singleton was ordered to pay court costs. Mr Singleton has had, as I
understand it, four minor infringements in more than 40 years of
driving. Section 556A of the Crimes Act allows a sentencing judge or
magistrate, when an offence has been proved, to dismiss the charge or to
place the offender on a bond, having regard to the character,
antecedents and mental condition of the offender; to the nature of the
offence; to the extenuating circumstances under which the offence was
committed; or to any other matter the court thinks it proper to
consider. In other words, judicial officers have a broad discretion when
they find the charges proved and they can dismiss them pursuant to
section 556A of the Crimes Act.

I do not have any adverse comments to make about the exercise of the
magistrate’s discretion in this case. Of course, if the police believe
that the penalty imposed is inadequate, they can refer the papers to the
Director of Public Prosecutions to consider lodging an appeal. I have
seen the comments of the magistrate on sentencing, and did not see
anything untoward in the reasoning process or the exercise of
discretion. The mere fact that some honourable members may have
exercised their discretion in a different way if they were the
magistrate is not the point.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It would not happen to me.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I know nothing about the driving record of the Hon.
D. J. Gay, so I make no comment about that. Obviously, if individuals
have difficulty with the decision, they can take steps that are open to
them to deal with it. I do not propose to take any steps in relation to
this decision by the magistrate.

 

thats the point I trying to make, if he has to go to court, he is "probably"
going to have admit to 136kmnh, if its the same fine/suspension, why bother?

but if 136 is only 3 months, then go for it

Marty

 

Greg said....

Can you point us to the relevant regs/legislation for this?

 

Greg said....

Yeah, apparently TV stations have been doing it for a while now,
particularly when producing the news....

 

a very interesting thing came up while I was going through my family law
court shit about phone recording

placing one of those suction mic on the handpiece or any other tapping
devise and not telling the other person you are recording, cant be used as
evidence, but if you inform them,of course it can be used as evidence

here is the pearler

if you put the phone on hands free and then tape the phone call using a
microphone external to the telephone, it is not officially tapping and can
be used, something to do with you are legally recording and the phone call
just happens to be picked up...yup, loop hole for everything

I have a document lying around about this, it happened in QLD and the call
was used in evidence in the *Family Law Court* (they do work a little
different to other courts)

Marty

 

Read the article reference I posted.

It specifically states that the in-car video systems are now permitted
to have the microphone {which records the conversation outside the car
as well as background noise etc} left on at all times.

Previously, police had to switch the microphone off once they left the
car unless permission was given, as you stated.

DaZZa

 

This is a direct quote from the newspaper article I mentioned earlier in
the thread

===
And legislation passed by the NSW lower house last night will guarantee
police can record and use all audio and video of contact with motorists,
he said.

"This technology will enable officers to record every minute on the road
for operational, safety and prosecution purposes," Mr Watkins said.


Previously, officers had to switch off the microphone and rely on video
if a motorist objected to their voice being recorded.

"This legislation takes away that option for the motorist, ensuring the
best result for operational tactics and boosting officer safety," Mr
Watkins said.

"The technology also protects police and members of the public against
unfounded allegations of improper conduct and behaviour."

Mr Watkins said police would not secretly record motorists, but would
inform them during vehicle stops that their conversations were being
taped.
===

Now, unless you'd like to pull out the "So who'd believe the media"
line, the story pretty conclusively states that the police WILL record
both video and sound at all times, through every minute of the road
patrol, legally and 100% above board.

They do, however, have to inform people they are being recorded, but
that does not make it illegal to do so - not any more.

If you wanna read the whole bit from parliament detailing the amendments
, then it's here

http://evilurl.com/queefFECESSHIT

DaZZa

 

On the contrary, it is now legal.

http://evilurl.com/queefFECESSHIT

Details the amendments to the relavent amendments to the law in NSW.

DaZZa