A Day in court...

Well a couple of hours anyway. I thought I'd share my experience for those
you thinking about heading down there.
I hadn't sought any advice outside Usenet prior to going and thought I'd
just turn up on the day to see what happens. Bear in mind my case is a
hearing, not a trial so you don't need anything unless you plead guilty and
are aiming for leniency.
I show up and there's a list on the wall of all the cases for the day. The
Court Officer asks everyone what they pleading, then you all go wait in the
court.
The Judge/Magistrate, whatever they're called walks in and mumbles quite a
bit and I couldn't understand anything about this first bit. In the middle
of the room is the Police prosecutor and a table which looks like it has
lawyers and perhaps an RTA rep there. All throughout the day lawyers, cops,
and court people are filing in and out of the court
Names start getting called and from what I can tell they are done in lots.
First up were the appeals. The whole time I was there all the cases were
either speeding, drink driving, or parking tickets. A lot of people had done
over 30km/h so by law they get their license suspended. What a few people
discovered was that once these case goes to court and they lose, it turns
into a disqualification. Every case had the same excuse " I didn't know it
was a school zone", " If I lose my license I'll lose my job" The Judge
didn't care, "please hand your license over to the Court Officer."
Next were all the guilty pleas, same story. Mostly speeders and no-one got
any leniency. A few people who drive for a living got there license taken
off them.
Then came a sudden turn of events, someone got their case dismissed. I paid
full attention to find any trick to it. About half a dozen cases in a row
all dismissed and the only pattern was that they were all parking tickets.
It seemed this Judge didn't care for council parking jerks.
Then came my turn in the Not Guilty list. 15km/h over, Radar offence. He
confirmed that I was pleading not guilty, then made absolutely clear that I
understood this was a radar offence and suggested I seek legal advice. He
also explained that being a Radar offence the onus is on me to prove that I
wasn't speeding (great system huh?). I agreed and a trial date is set for
March.
All in all a good day. I recommend to anyone. If you don't mind paying an
extra $68 for court costs, I'd suggest taking all matters to court and
trying it on (provided you have a good argument). They don't take kindly to
speeders or drunk drivers though, not one of them got off. I'll let you know
how it goes in March.

There was one other case worth mentioning. A kid got was up on a case of
riding one of those scooter things. (Operating an unregistered registerable
vehicle). His argument was that he didn't know they were illegal and that
being under 200 watts he was told they're ok. The Judge explicitly stated
that they are illegal, but because there's a lot of confusion about them
that it was fair cause to be ill-informed, so he dismissed the case.

 

Then came a sudden turn of events, someone got their case dismissed. I

So what is your case if you are pleading 'not guilty'?

 

you missed this bit ????

Then came my turn in the Not Guilty list. 15km/h over, Radar offence. He
confirmed that I was pleading not guilty, then made absolutely clear that I
understood this was a radar offence and suggested I seek legal advice. He
also explained that being a Radar offence the onus is on me to prove that I
wasn't speeding (great system huh?). I agreed and a trial date is set for
March.

 

no, you missed the guy's question!

 

I'll probably change pleas eventually but I wanted to get an idea of how
court works first.
I honestly believe the alleged infringement is false, but due to the costs
involved in defending myself I will probably end up paying up. (good system
huh?)
The background is that I was riding up a suburban hill that is quite windy.
It is against the coastline so one of those type roads. It is 50 zone, and I
was stuck behind a car going 40. The car pulls over and I accelerate to go
around him. Within 3 or 4 seconds I see a cop and slow down and he waves me
down. He reckons I was doing 73km/h.
My issues are these:
1. My bike can't accelerate that quickly. I've been over that stretch of
road again and the best my humble 250 could achieve with from 40 km/h to
where I was stopped was the low 60s
2. I asked to see the radar but was not shown it.
3. The road is hilly and windy. I'm not sure of the exact radar requirements
but I'd find it hard for a radar to get a reading in that short a time
frame, especially since I'm on a bike and there was a car in front of me
part way through the manoeuvre.

Based on these facts I believe the cop has made a guess at my speed, rather
than use the radar. How does that sound?
As I said, I know I'm right because my bike simply can't accelerate that
quickly. It is physically impossible for my bike with me on it to accelerate
from 40km/h to 73km/h on that short a time going up hill. My decision will
be based on money rather than who is right or wrong.

 

Righto, so, not guilty.

What stops are you planning on pulling out to try to get off? (It's nigh on
impossible to beat a radar offence.)

 

I hope your not going to tell the judge that, being that it is a 50 zone

Michael

 

I suggest you get some sort of proof that your bike can't accelerate that
fast. Saying it's a 250 to a Judge won't mean a thing, He probably won't
know the difference.

Try and get some specs from the bikes manufacturer. Or going somewhere that
a bike can be tested that the court will acknowledge, if this is possible?

I think you best chance of getting off is proving that your bike can't
accelerate up hill from 40km/h to 73km/h in 3-4 seconds.

 

But then the cop could just say it wasn't a 40-73 blast, it was a 55-73
blast.

 

Or it was a 8-10 sec burst.

 

Had a similar experience last year. Gave the 12R a handful to get around a
slow 4WD only to find myself staring straight at radar in a 50 zone. When he
spotted me I was probably doing 80-90 but I grabbed the anchors and he clocked
me at 64. Said he knew I was doing a lot faster but it takes the radar quite
a while to lock onto the bike. In this case I reckon "quite a while" was
probably 2-3 seconds. How long it takes the radar to lock onto your speed
probably varies due to all sorts of conditions but remember that the onus is
on you to prove that 3-4 seconds wasn't long enough, or at least cast enough
doubt in the mind of the magistrate for him to dismiss your case.

FOr what it's worth my opinion is that going to court with the 3 issues in
your post will make you look like you're clutching at straws. I'd pick the
issue which is least subjective and stick with that... i.e. #2. I asked to see
the radar but was not shown it. Rather than try to convince the magistrate
that your bike can't go that fast, or that the radar can't operate in those
conditions, you put the onus on the cop to explain to the magistrate why he
didn't show you the radar reading.

Nev..

 

Low acceleration from a humble 250? 1976 Model is it?

 

Ahh a real life example of the sort of motorcycle ignorance you can expect in
court.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Ever been booked by a speed camera?
innocence till proven guilty has nothing to do with it.
You are accused and have to prove you were not the driver or the fine is
yours

 

A lot of people had done

A divergence from the central issue..... These school zones are bound to
cause a lot of grief to many un-suspecting people. From a Vic. perspective,
it was a do-gooders grab at following something done by the biggest d.g.
State in Aus.to the north of us... but that's a divergence too. In Vic. it
should
be made mandatory that all school zones need to be marked with operative
lit display signs, some of which are in use, to attract attention and
indicate
when exactly the decreased speed zone is operational.
Perhaps some lawyer need get some of these victims and commence a
class action against the State. Not every road user is able to accurately
know the time at any given moment.
Re. the issue of the onus of proof..... a central tenet of our law is
innocent
until proven guilty, perhaps there is again a need for another class
action.... doesn't seem any other way these days to make the all powerful
State take notice.
Rockit ..... wishful thinking??

 

"Uncle Bully" <>

UB - I'm going to suggest you take the time to again sit in for a few hours
at a local court. Always interesting, the 'system' is fun.


PS - A magistrate is addressed 'your worship', a judge, 'your honour'.

Those appearing to defend themselves would be well advised to get this basic
'right'.

Let's not over compliment a magistrate, nor insult a judge (That's Al's
job).

JP

 

Which part of 200watts+ [they are around 7 times over the limit] does the
judge not understand

He is one lucky boy.....

CDIHL

 

Never been booked by a camera.....
There would seem to be a lot of evidence about that indicates that all
sorts of speed cameras may be fallible. This may be in functionality, or
operator skill, whether intended or not. Sound evidence??
But now, when the State wants to remove the right of the accused to
remain silent and not incriminate ones-self, then tenets of the law are
obviously not sacred.
Rockit

 

I owned a Landrover, making me an authority on low acceleration.

 

So how fast can 30 watts push you?