Need legal advice, traffic offence related.

[croat]

dont need to get character refrences' date=' thats only if you pleed guilty, if you pleed not guilty then youll need a defence which is liable in court,QUOTE']

Still get character references... You need them. I pleaded guilty with mitigation and still brought in character references and they helped heaps. Use them as a back-up to support your facts and your show a good judge of character

[wreckedhead]

ok you can waste your time with character refrences, or you can try to get out of it being smart, good luck either way.

[Steve]

....but if you tell the judge "i thoguht i was going to  get hit by another car" then he'll say " well did it hit you" and you say "no" and he'll say " well then you crosssed the white line, soory 400 bucks and 3 points + court costs"

goood luck champ hope that helps.

er, but the point of the arguement is if he DIDNT move forward, he WOULD of been hit - isnt the burden on the law to prove that if he DIDNT move forward he WOULD NOT have been hit?

that is what having mitigating circumstances is all about, just like the guy on the motorbike who was excused speeding as he argued it was the only way he could avoid being hit by a car - the case was dismissed.

Would a precedent from Vic be admittable in NSW?

[Guest INASNT]

Firstly why is the fine so high at $400 anyway and 3 points???

For all the people that said just pay the fine, its people like u that have made the governments around aus make fines and roads laws more ridiculous over the years coz they are under the assumption that people will just pay the fines even tho they are innocent and the reason they got the fine is BS!! Why fork out $400 when u know you are in the right??

Seek some legal advice and if u have a good records (ie no previous fines) u have a good chance of getting off or atleast getting the fine reduced to something more reasonable.

[GTRgeoff]

I'm with Denham on this. You all ought to be ashamed. This is clearly self preservation and they now have to prove that he didn't move forward to avoid an accident.

Talk to a lawyer and see what the case is that you have. You can ask for costs, including the legal assistance if the ACT is wrong. Ask for the photos in writing. A phone call to an ACT lawyer should cost nothing first up as a consultation. I can ask for a recommendation from a friend in ACT for a firm. PM if you wish for my number.

Steve, not sure on the precedent there, but case law across Aust is pretty much the same and derives originally from British common law.

[CroatianR33]

You admitted in the very first post that you entered the intersection on a red light.

If you didn't enter the intersection, the camera wouldn't have gone off.

If you moved into the intersection far enough to cause the camera to go off, you were placing yourself (and any oncoming traffic) in danger.  

You may have been concerned about being rear ended, but it was still a red light.

The law is pretty much black and white.

Let us know how you go

Just because he crossed the line setting off the red light camera does not mean he was in a position to place himself and as you say oncoming (I say crossing) traffic in danger because the other cars do not drive along the dead left of the intersection.

Take it to court. Best of Luck.

[DTMPWR]

Thanks for your support and advice

[Messiah]

i'm the forum meber skyline geoff was refering to i think (ajourned twice since my post if anyones interested).

Ok heres what i know. Dont plead guilty, you didnt run the red, and you had no intention to do so.

As for anything else. get a lawyer, its not worth fecking thnigs up.

I'm in sydney too and i'm using mark steinburg and assoc, he's a rev head and bike rider aswell as a lawyer who specialises in traffic.

[siksII]

i had a consultation with mark, he is good, but not cheap, even charges for travel time if the case is not at his local (hornsby) court.

for one session in court dont expect change from around $1400

also his first consultation is not free, its $240..

so have a good think about costs... i would go and try to represent myself, i dont think its worth getting a lawyer when it will cost u three times as much as the fine..

get some legal advice and represent yourself.

[GTRgeoff]

A good lawyer should petition the court for costs in the case of the state not being successful in it's prosecution. There is no reasonable justification for you paying for your defence if you are innocent and it adds an object lesson for the prosecutors to not waste resources on bogus legal cases. You will of course be paying expenses up front, but that should be refunded by the state (in this case the Banana Republic Town Council of the ACT) on successful defence. Have an agreement with the lawyer as well for expectations of outcomes and costs overall, as well as defence strategies and reparation requests.

[DTMPWR]

WOOHOO!

I won!

I Pleaded” Not Guilty” Then "your worship" said "you cannot have a not guilty plea to a red light. Red is Red." I was like o crap. Anyway he heard me out, looked at the photos & dismissed the case

[Guest INASNT]

well done, and for all the people that said pay the $400 fine?????????????????????????? if everyone that just pays the fines had a bit of back bone and fought the bs fines they recieved then the laws would change for the better, not worse!!!

judges has some common sense unlike cops

[ferni]

CONGRATZ!!! could you give us some more details of the hearing etc?

[Steve]

love your work - go and buy a lotto ticket:)

[GTRgeoff]

Awesome news. I'm happy to hear you stuck to your beliefs, and ignored the spineless cattle who would have you pay into the corruption trust fund.

Governments are getting too addicted to the income from fines (sound like victoria?).

So what was the judgement? No contradictory proof of a self preservation/self defence case?

[JAM*353]

Thats great news man! More people should stand up for there beliefs!

Lucky you got a judge that heard you out!

[siksII]

congratulations! also on not getting ripped by a lawyer like me

[xRHETTx]

COngratulations!! My girlfriends parents own a red light camera company (operating in the USA not Aus, so dont hate me ) and they as you would expect, are quite versed in Aus traffic law. So i asked them about this and they said:

If the photos showed you stopping in the intersection, even if you ran the red light, you are not guilty. You MUST go all the way through to be found guilty, hence the two photos taken by the camera.

Well done on your win, but id say if you had spoken to a lawyer about this they would have told you that you had nothing to worry about. The self defence case may have worked as well, but im pretty sure you need to prove it. In the case given as an example (the guy that had to go through because of the ute or whatever), im pretty sure the photo from the camera showed the other car would have hit him.

[Guest INASNT]

U still havent heard from the splineless people that said to just pay the fine

[GTRgeoff]

Steady Denham. They are probably shocked the Magistrate actually disgreed with their highly educated comments.......