You have a right to a court hearing

T3man · 02-10-2009, 12:01 PM

Regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty. Regradless of whether you are going to plead guilty or not guilty. The fact is that you always have the right to a hearing in court. Even if you are going to plead guilty you will nearly always receive a reduced fine just by going before a magistrate and giving an explanation.

Fixed speed camera based infringements can be issued at an enormous rate - the automatic processing can be done at an enormous rate. If people just pay it and grumble then nothing will ever change - the respective state bodies will continue to rake in billions and a good percentage of it is not deserved. Many people caught by speed cameras are not chronic speeders - just a momentary lapse and you are 3km/h over and you are gone.

If you are fed up with this situation there is only one way to deal with it. No good saying we'll vote them out - the next govt will still do the same because it is a huge proportion of their income. The only way is to elect for a court hearing. Courts cannot process the fines at the rate they are being issued. Simple as that. The backlog would be insurmountable within even a week. It would force the govt to turn off the fixed speed cameras because the resources to deal with the infringements is simply not in place - they rely on 98% of people just paying up and moving on.

If you want to protest against the use of fixed speed cameras don't be one of the 98% crowd - exercise your right to a hearing.

**cs123** · 02-10-2009, 12:37 PM

While I agree with your sentiment I can't help but feel that if this approach was used then the courts/government would quickly tire of it and increase the penalty for people appearing before a court to plead their case.

I may work though, give it a whirl.

My approach would be to send a letter to your local state pollie and tell them you plan to vote against them while they support this policy; and cc the transport minister too.

Franco Cozzo · 02-10-2009, 12:51 PM

People don't like standing up for themselves in this country, forget it.

EFPWR · 02-10-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

People don't like standing up for themselves in this country, forget it.

So true, hence alot of dodgy things happening and it not being stopped (in regard to the government). People in this country are weak.

LTDHO · 02-10-2009, 12:56 PM

It's not free, so not worth the risk IMO.

RG · 02-10-2009, 01:16 PM

Exactly right LTDHO, the costs involved are the main reason many choose just to cop the fine.

Even the day off work makes it unjustifiable to most.

Joe5619 · 02-10-2009, 01:26 PM

If you got caught speeding pay the bloody fine.Do the crime, pay the fine, it is simiple!! I'm sick of this kind of thinking from people.. Why waste everyones time if you know you where speeding? Just pay the fine & move on with life!! Or even better, stop speeding & you won't get a fine to start with!!

iCat · 02-10-2009, 01:29 PM

if you contest anything in court and the finding goes against you, although the magistrate may reduce the initial fine, costs incurred by the other party will be awarded against you which can be very substantially more than what your initial fine was.

redauxr8 · 02-10-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

If you got caught speeding pay the bloody fine.Do the crime, pay the fine, it is simiple!! I'm sick of this kind of thinking from people.. Why waste everyones time if you know you where speeding? Just pay the fine & move on with life!! Or even better, stop speeding & you won't get a fine to start with!!

LOL... Someones got issues

**Bundy** · 02-10-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

If you got caught speeding pay the bloody fine.Do the crime, pay the fine, it is simiple!! I'm sick of this kind of thinking from people.. Why waste everyones time if you know you where speeding? Just pay the fine & move on with life!! Or even better, stop speeding & you won't get a fine to start with!!

You may be right there Joe, but on the other side of the coin, if you've copped an infrigment notice and you belive that you are in the right, the odds are still stacked against you. It all comes down to money, a day off work if your still lucky to have one with the GFC atm, court costs if you do lose, want a represented ie a lawyer, because you not comfortable of standing up in front of a judge and a courtroom to make your own case, the time it takes to prepare your argument, the list goes on.

If you've got plenty of spare cash though easy, pay up and move on, or stand on you prinicples, bugger the cost I'm right and at the end of the day I'll have the win, until next time.

Fines, Courts, Politians aren't really always about the who's right, who's not, its about money and more often then not, greed

Yellow Fire · 02-10-2009, 02:16 PM

As said above taking the day off work is the problem. I would think the majority of fines are less than the average daily wage. Factor in a lawyer for those so inclined and there's no way people will pay more money to be found guilty.

auxr · 02-10-2009, 04:57 PM

Every one has a democratic right to a court hearing - everyone also has the right to not exercise this option - as previously stated the cost, energy & time to quibble about 5kph over the limit in the end is not practical.

I can see this thread greying very quickly iinto another rant against speed cameras etc etc.

mrbaxr6t · 02-10-2009, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow Fire

As said above taking the day off work is the problem. I would think the majority of fines are less than the average daily wage. Factor in a lawyer for those so inclined and there's no way people will pay more money to be found guilty.

sorry but most fines I see issued are not based on daily wage which for most is about $100 (most fines are well over that)

the fine amount if you look into it is a little lower than the cost of taking it to court - court costs, so if one is inclined to fight it, it will cost them more in court costs (marginally) than to just pay the fine.

And as for if you speed and get caught just pay the fine, pfft come on I would love to be a fly on your windscreen the day you get caught doing a whole 3 kmh over the limit, because of one of many many reasons.

gtfpv · 02-10-2009, 05:46 PM

hahahaha . if this was thread about employment rights , or even worse workers rights people would be jumping over fire to ridicule people trying to dispute the fine .

POELWYK · 02-10-2009, 05:55 PM

oh Dont get my started on speed cam's im so over them its not funny

new years morning my car was done going to geelong at like 3AM 3 times i reseved 3 fines in the mail I had to take the 9 points and the $700odd in fines i cant finght them because im a p plater and ill get raped sideways i just put them on a playment plan and iv been playing them off

SUCH AS LIFE take the good with the bad

kircher · 02-10-2009, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T3man

Regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty. Regradless of whether you are going to plead guilty or not guilty. The fact is that you always have the right to a hearing in court. Even if you are going to plead guilty you will nearly always receive a reduced fine just by going before a magistrate and giving an explanation.

Fixed speed camera based infringements can be issued at an enormous rate - the automatic processing can be done at an enormous rate. If people just pay it and grumble then nothing will ever change - the respective state bodies will continue to rake in billions and a good percentage of it is not deserved. Many people caught by speed cameras are not chronic speeders - just a momentary lapse and you are 3km/h over and you are gone.

If you are fed up with this situation there is only one way to deal with it. No good saying we'll vote them out - the next govt will still do the same because it is a huge proportion of their income. The only way is to elect for a court hearing. Courts cannot process the fines at the rate they are being issued. Simple as that. The backlog would be insurmountable within even a week. It would force the govt to turn off the fixed speed cameras because the resources to deal with the infringements is simply not in place - they rely on 98% of people just paying up and moving on.

If you want to protest against the use of fixed speed cameras don't be one of the 98% crowd - exercise your right to a hearing.

I agree that more people should have their story heard in court.

I get pretty sick of hearing the cliché 'do the crime do the time', 'do the crime pay the fine'. The fact is that the time or the fine for road based offences are often excessive, and you have a right to have your situation heard in a court. What are courts for? They're not just for the state to try citizens, it can be used the other way around too. That's what a separation of powers is. If you believe you were doing the right thing, or made an educated assessment of the situation and were doing what you as an adult human believed was right or safe, should you be treated like a criminal? Paying the fine is akin to pleading guilty with no defence. Why would it be irresponsible to use the system to defend yourself? That's what it's there for. At least your story would be heard, and a decision could be made based on you circumstances,

I also get sick of the anti-Speeding campaign that the government goes on and on about, and many others would agree. "There's no such thing as safe speeding" is the phrase that comes to mind. What is speeding anyway? Going over an arbitrary number set by some faceless group of bureaucrats? If there was no such thing as safe speeding, Germany wouldn't have a practically immaculate death rate on their Autobahn network compared to highways here. So there's proof there that speeding in itself doesn't kill, it's excessive speed for the conditions that does. So a person caught doing 120 - 130km/h on a freeway/dual carriageway shouldn't be lumped into the same category as someone who does 70 - 80km/h in a 50km/h residential area. The latter is clearly and obviously more dangerous. It's debatable whether the former is that much more dangerous at all if the conditions allow it. The US also has 75MPH speed limits on a lot of highways, and the majority of drivers are doing 80+. I know, I've driven there, and after conversing with people that live there, the police generally don't hassle you unless you're driving like a maniac, because they realise speeding on a highway is not dangerous unless it's excessive. This is why more people need to challenge the illogical decisions that the state makes on our behalf. Cameras can't make an assessment of the situation. They aren't a person with reasoning capabilities. Just because it's illegal to do something doesn't make it wrong. This is why we need to challenge such things.

I will go to court next time I get a speeding fine from a camera, just to get a fair trial. Even if I lose, it will be worth the effort. Cameras aren't judge, jury and executioner.

End Rant.

POELWYK · 02-10-2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kircher

I agree that more people should have their story heard in court.

I get pretty sick of hearing the cliché 'do the crime do the time', 'do the crime pay the fine'. The fact is that the time or the fine for road based offences are often excessive, and you have a right to have your situation heard in a court. What are courts for? They're not just for the state to try citizens, it can be used the other way around too. That's what a separation of powers is. If you believe you were doing the right thing, or made an educated assessment of the situation and were doing what you as an adult human believed was right or safe, should you be treated like a criminal? Paying the fine is akin to pleading guilty with no defence. Why would it be irresponsible to use the system to defend yourself? That's what it's there for. At least your story would be heard, and a decision could be made based on you circumstances,

I also get sick of the anti-Speeding campaign that the government goes on and on about, and many others would agree. "There's no such thing as safe speeding" is the phrase that comes to mind. What is speeding anyway? Going over an arbitrary number set by some faceless group of bureaucrats? If there was no such thing as safe speeding, Germany wouldn't have a practically immaculate death rate on their Autobahn network compared to highways here. So there's proof there that speeding in itself doesn't kill, it's excessive speed for the conditions that does. So a person caught doing 120 - 130km/h on a freeway/dual carriageway shouldn't be lumped into the same category as someone who does 70 - 80km/h in a 50km/h residential area. The latter is clearly and obviously more dangerous. It's debatable whether the former is that much more dangerous at all if the conditions allow it. The US also has 75MPH speed limits on a lot of highways, and the majority of drivers are doing 80+. I know, I've driven there, and after conversing with people that live there, the police generally don't hassle you unless you're driving like a maniac, because they realise speeding on a highway is not dangerous unless it's excessive. This is why more people need to challenge the illogical decisions that the state makes on our behalf. Cameras can't make an assessment of the situation. They aren't a person with reasoning capabilities. Just because it's illegal to do something doesn't make it wrong. This is why we need to challenge such things.

I will go to court next time I get a speeding fine from a camera, just to get a fair trial. Even if I lose, it will be worth the effort. Cameras aren't judge, jury and executioner.

End Rant.

i have to agree with this

**GasoLane** · 02-10-2009, 08:21 PM

We (Truck Drivers) used to do this 20+ years ago when 'on the spot fines' were first thought of.

The idea was that, yes it would cost you more if you took the fine to court. But if enough people did it it would clog up the court system and had the added bonus of keeping a HP officer off the road for a few hours

XR8GRL · 02-10-2009, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe5619

If you got caught speeding pay the bloody fine.Do the crime, pay the fine, it is simiple!! I'm sick of this kind of thinking from people.. Why waste everyones time if you know you where speeding? Just pay the fine & move on with life!! Or even better, stop speeding & you won't get a fine to start with!!

Yes of course Joe, every fine issued is 100% driver at fault, guilty of speeding.

MO · 02-10-2009, 08:40 PM

Or you didn't pay them and after you had quite a few stacked up hand yourself in at 10 to midnight and be out not long after. If I remember correctly that was one way out of it before demerit points.

**GasoLane** · 02-10-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO

Or you didn't pay them and after you had quite a few stacked up hand yourself in at 10 to midnight and be out not long after. If I remember correctly that was one way out of it before demerit points.

Thanks Mo...Another one from the old school....

MO · 02-10-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Thanks Mo...Another one from the old school....

No worries mate....damn I do miss those days of the old school.
You knew where you stood with cops and there was a respect between them and us that just isn't there anymore.

kircher · 02-10-2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO

No worries mate....damn I do miss those days of the old school.
You knew where you stood with cops and there was a respect between them and us that just isn't there anymore.

There you go, I'm a 'young fella', I've only been driving 6 years. I would love it if police were police, and would give out warnings and cautions more often, rather than jumping straight for that little book. I've heard that they have quotas to meet. That's BS. I have met some really awesome cops who did give warnings and treated me like a human, and not like criminal scum. It seems that's become the exception these days.

MO · 02-10-2009, 09:17 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble kircher,but there is a quota system and thats from some retired cops I know and two still serving in QLD and NSW.

vztrt · 02-10-2009, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

We (Truck Drivers) used to do this 20+ years ago when 'on the spot fines' were first thought of.

The idea was that, yes it would cost you more if you took the fine to court. But if enough people did it it would clog up the court system and had the added bonus of keeping a HP officer off the road for a few hours

There was an article in the paper a little while back that if everyone contested their fine it would become uneconomical for the vic government to keep giving out fines as the direct costs would be more then what people would be charged.

Problem is its easier to complain about the tightening of the laws and pay the fine then to pay it.

torbirdie · 03-10-2009, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kircher

, Germany wouldn't have a practically immaculate death rate on their Autobahn network compared to highways here. So there's proof there that speeding in itself doesn't kill,

Its a popular myth, which gains momentum each time someone repeats it, but the stats dont back it up
:

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/Speed_Fact_Sheet_1.pdf
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/439

Along with those stats one should also consider that the figures for autobahns are skewed by:

autobahn trips are generally very short (50km dashes between centres) and people can maintain the higher levels of white knuckle concentration demanded by doing 160km/h etc.

The high density population of Germany ensures that first class medical help is available quickly for any collision on the autobahn(hospitals ambulances are closer), response time also has a high bearing on survival, helicopters equipped with trauma doctors landing on the autobahn are not uncommon either.

GSfalcon500 · 03-10-2009, 05:27 AM

Remember that governments are immoral in their dealings,if every person went to court for the tickets they would find a way to legislate against the right (privilage....in government speak) of appeal in court.

Rodp · 03-10-2009, 06:38 AM

Considering revenue from (often projected) fines are factored into budgets, if they're not collected via the one eyed cop, they're levied from elsewhere.

The government is going to get their pound of flesh one way or another. At least through fines, it's semi voluntary. I pay enough bloody tax as it is without them dipping into my pocket for more because there's a revolt in the court system from people disputing fines for speeding.

kircher · 03-10-2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GSfalcon500

Remember that governments are immoral in their dealings,if every person went to court for the tickets they would find a way to legislate against the right (privilage....in government speak) of appeal in court.

I believe that it would be illegal to legislate out the right to appeal, as I'm fairly sure it's in our constitution. We don't have a bill of rights though, so I may be wrong. To change something so drastic as a right to appeal, would take a referendum, and I doubt the populace would vote for that. So our rights are protected in that sense.

torbirdie · 03-10-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodp

Considering revenue from (often projected) fines are factored into budgets, if they're not collected via the one eyed cop, they're levied from elsewhere.

The government is going to get their pound of flesh one way or another. At least through fines, it's semi voluntary. I pay enough bloody tax as it is without them dipping into my pocket for more because there's a revolt in the court system from people disputing fines for speeding.

Quite right Rod, if there is no income through fines, even if we paid the pollies nothing, taxes would still have to go up to meet current levels of services we expect the government to pay for.

Personally the system we have now where the minority( alas very vocal) that cant control their speed pay extra tax so I pay less suits me fine.