Wrong fine?

I love you too Nev. As a matter of principle, I happened to be innocent.

 

infra73@(nospam)optusnet.com.au wrote in

Yup, and it's worth every cent.

I never said you were. Quite the opposite in fact.

Fool for a client, etc, etc.

Ever tried their advice? There's a reason it's free.

Significantly more than you've put into this 'advice', obviously.

You're really not very good at this, are you.

WTF? <shakes head>. You're right of course, the chances of a
s10 are about the same as a <picks a random number> s18. Do
try to at least pick the right Act, even if you can't manage
the right page.

Bullshit. Pure unmitigated bullshit. (Likely very expensive
bullshit too).

Yeahbut, as a broad rule, Australian Magistrates generally have
at a minimum some degree of basic legal training . Have you
considered maybe getting some of that? Perhaps you shouldn't,
given the level of 'dangerous' you've reached with *no* knowledge,
the proverbial "little bit" would, in your case, probably cause
cancer in rats.



GB, intolerant of fools.

 

com.au:

So the truth hurts. Nev's not wrong though.

GB

 

What da **** you doing on ausmoto then ?

JL

 

I like that one ...

-----sharks

 

~
Bloody traitors if they're Council assisting!!

 

So what is your advice of wise one? Or is just easier to criticise
others?

Is easier to condemn than to think a little and offer some advice
based off real life experience.

 

infra73@(nospam)optusnet.com.au wrote in

Is there an echo in here?


GB

 

[rereads post]
No; I think Nev's calling him a dickhead!

 

I probably am but not for sticking up for myself. To say I'm a dickhead
when I argued against a wrongful fine because it was only a small one
doesn't make sense. And it was some time ago so the amount was
comparatively larger.

 

I'm sure you'll be very surprised, but I agree with you Stephen about
the principle at stake, it is very important for people to fight unfair
fines (or any other inappropriate activities by authority figures(1)).

Hence you're not a dickhead for sticking up for yourself over a
perceived injustice however your inability to distinguish between
injustice and an appropriate fine shows you to be one(2).

JL
(1) I have however been accused of being Quixotic many times
(2) "I didn't see him" for fucks sake ? You shouldn't be driving if you
can't watch whats going on around you. No wonder you claim to come to a
screaming halt every time you see a pedestrian, you never bloody see
them in the first place, it's just a theoretical statement.

 

You're right about that. I was in thick traffic and I don't believe that
the cop two lanes away from me on the side of the road gave a clear
enough signal. I saw the cop but not the signal.

No wonder you claim to come to a

Well it's not quite what I said.

If I'm riding in town and a pedestrian steps up to the curb I'm gonna
stop every time. **** taking the risk of having them step in front of me
and getting the blame for their stupidity.

But I do live in a fairly small town.

 

com.au:

You seem to be having a bit of difficulty with the doctrine
of strict liability too. It doesn't matter that you didn't
see the signal, doesn't matter that you would have stopped
had you seen it, doesn't matter what your intent was, the fact
that you failed to obey the signal is all that is required
for the conviction. You were not innocent, the fine was not
wrongful, and the court was right to apply Nev's dickhead
penalty to the matter. Had you taken the services of a solicitor
(the costs of which, in matters like this, are their own form
of dickhead penalty), you would have been advised to pay the
fine and not proceed with your challenge. It's a bloody sixty
dollar fine FFS, , not a public proclamation of sex offender
status.

The doctrine of strict liability applies in a range of
matters, in particular some of the more serious offences where
lack of knowledge or intent shouldn't be enough to mount a
defence (but see "He Kaw Teh v R (1985)" for case law that
complicates that a bit. It also applies at the bottom end of
the scale, for offences of no great consequence. Many motor
traffic offences are offences of strict liability for convenience
as much as for any other reason. If it were possible to go
searching for evidence of intent/knowledge in every exceed-
speed matter, then the courts would be packed to the gunnals
overnight with thousands of teary-eyed peasants claiming
"But, Your Worship, I didn't *mean* to do it, please let
me off, just this once".

It's far easier from a procedural point of view to apply
the strict liability - "you done dun it even if you didn't
know you dun it, now pay your fine and piss off" than it
is to allow each and every petty matter to be heard.


In this instance, Nev's dickhead penalty was likely applied
because you failed to understand the law you were trying to
challenge. Think of it as a small fee for wasting the
Court's time.

It shows.


GB, your turn JL!

 

There must be some obligation to make a clear signal or any old
moevement of the hand would do.

Nice. I love you too.

 

Of course there is. The problem with that is that cops lie
even harder than journalists do. The guy wrote the ticket on the
day because he believed that you 'did the crime'. Drag him in
to court, and he's got face to save. Even if he doesn't remember
the details, he remembers the details perfectly Your Worship.

Right about here it gets pretty complicated. If you could be
arsed, read up on some of the academic literature surrounding,
for example, the inner workings of the NSW Criminal Investigation
Branch before (and even after) the Independant Commission Against
Corruption went through them. That branch had developed an
operating culture that had rationalised the 'necessity' of
planting evidence and lying on the stand to make convictions stick
in situations where they believed the (as yet unconvicted) 'criminal'
might otherwise 'get away with it'. They weren't bad people, in
fact they believed that what they were doing was necessary to
do their jobs properly, for the good of society, etc, etc. It
became very much "the way things are done around here".

Now it's a long stretch to take that and say that "all police"
are like the NSW CIB was, but I don't think it's out of line to
suggest that elements of the same mindset would manifest in any
individual in an enforcement role. There are times when I'm sure
the seperation of powers thing seems like a terrible impediment
to getting the job done, and it must be very tempting to use a
little white lie here and there to help ensure that 'justice'
is served!


So yeah, a defence to an offence of strict liability is to
demonstrate that the offence didn't occur at all. That might
be a bit tricky in the instance you describe however.

Awwwww! Noice! C'm'ere and giz a kiss!


GB

 

I noticed this.

It's one of the reasons I suggested the original poster cop it sweet; I
might have got a dickhead fine but he doesn't have to.

Way too late now anyway.

Mate I just want you to know how much I appreciate all the time you put in.

 

It's funny how we love a bloke who puts in...
and a girl who puts out!

 

It's the way of the world Clem, there's no point fighting it!


GB, "You and me baby, we're nothing but mammals, lets do it
like they do on discovery channel"!

 

What about when they shake it all about...

paulh

 

Dogs do that.