Today I got caught for turning right when you are only allowed to turn right on certain times. It was my first time passing there and I really didn't notice any sign. Though I heard one of the police officer said there were 3 big signs but about 6 of us missed it. It's my first time to get a ticket and a demerit, what are my chances of getting let off for this offense? And who do I need to contact to appeal to?
My First Traffic Offense
haniel008 on 22/10/2014 - 20:08
Comments
You need to take it to court, you can represent yourself but I wouldn't recommend you plea "First time there and didn't see it". Say you were behind a truck or something and had reduced visibility etc. Either way, having a clean record doesn't really weigh in as much as you may think. Everyone has to start somewhere, if everyone got off for first offence we would never get one.
I tried to contest doing a U-Turn at a set of lights. I argued that I see signs all the time saying no U-turn permitted, yet this lights didn't have said sign so I assumed it was legal. Turns out you are only allowed to do one if there is a sign that says you are permitted. I argued this is stupid, why even have the no U-turn signs on some lights? End result was I had to pay the fine plus an extra $130 odd bucks for court fee's.
Morale of the story, have an amazing reason that you can either prove or the police report cant disprove, or just pay the fine.
Interestingly enough, in Vic, you're allowed to U-Turn at right turn lights as long as there is no U-turn not permitted signs. Perhaps it was the case in NSW as well at some point in time.
Instead of arguing the logicality or validity of the law, you could have researched when the law changed and tried to argue that there was insufficient notification and that you didn't know.
That said, I think it's ridiculous that road rules change and nobody is notified. Why not just keep an e-mail address on hand for all drivers, at least, and send out e-mails when the law changes.
Despite a lot of national standardisation of road rules, Victoria and NSW still differ on a few laws. U-turn legality is the big one, and whether you need to indicate when exiting a roundabout (VIC no, NSW yes).
The roundabout one is confusing as well. In Victoria, you approach a roundabout, there are three options, i.e. 1st, 2nd and 3rd exit. If you want to take the 1st exit, you indicate left (as you are turning left), if you want to take the 2nd exit, you don't indicate, if you want to take the 3rd exit, you indicate right. So essentially, you just indicate as if the roundabout wasn't there. That makes sense to me.
I just don't get how indicating to enter and exit a roundabout works. I know that people from NSW find what we do in Victoria confusing.
@paulsterio: In NSW and the ACT, we do exactly the same as you Victorians when entering the roundabout, but we're then supposed to indicate left when exiting (not many people actually do this in NSW though).
by the book thats true in VIC as well, but not many people do it. This is because the roundabout is legally A ROAD, and all rules apply, indicate when entering/leaving, giving way, etc.
Say you were behind a truck or something and had reduced visibility etc.
Great advice, tell him to commit perjury and risk jail time for a traffic offence.
No-one gets done for perjury in court…
and there's a lot of it going on ;)
I beg to differ. I've seen it happen many times. This is just stupid irresponsible advice; urging someone to commit perjury could actually be construed as conspiracy, which is just as serious. It's great having a keyboard warrior spouting "advice" like this, with nothing to lose when it goes pear-shaped — he isn't the one going to jail. Think about it for a minute, he got caught in person by the police, I assume in a car. Do you think police don't record things in their cars these days, much like people are resorting to installing crash-cams because people don't believe their version of events? What happens when you claim there was a dirty big truck in front of you and then the police produce the actual video? I guarantee you there will be plenty of people lining up for an easy win in prosecuting you for perjury.
If your driving record is as good as stated, and it was a genuine mistake and you admit it, you stand a far better chance of getting off by writing a letter and applying for leniency. You have more to lose by blatantly lying about it. Otherwise suck it up and wear it. If you're the type of person that "never" gets fines, there is nothing to worry about with accruing demerit points.
No-one gets done for perjury in court…
Marcus Einfeld - no less than a former judge - would beg to differ
You are comparing a former judge against an average citizen. An average citizen wouldn't beg to differ: The case related to your news article did just this, here I'll outline some key points:
[82] There may be a public perception that an elite group in the community, such as, in this case, members of the legal profession, may tend to protect their own. However, there is a contrary risk, which may have more substance, namely that those involved in the administration of justice will have an accentuated sensitivity to the need to maintain the highest reputation possible for the incorruptibility and integrity of the system in which they operate. In such circumstances there may be a risk that judges will deal more harshly than some would think appropriate with those from within their own ranks who transgress in a way which could have a tendency to undermine those characteristics, and hence diminish respect for the rule of law in the community. Recognizing the latter danger, it should nevertheless be accepted that the applicant’s status and former office-holding rendered the offences MORE SERIOUS than they would otherwise have been. Einfeld v R 266 ALR 598 at 617, per Basten JA, Hulme and Latham JJ.
[83] Second, it is also true, as the sentencing judge recognised, that the applicant’s status and former office-holding permitted him to appreciate fully the seriousness of the offences, thus removing an element of ignorance which might otherwise have diminished the degree of culpability. It was not merely a matter of knowing that it is a crime to lie on oath or seek to pervert the course of justice: it was a matter of understanding the significance accorded to such conduct by the law and the heightened seriousness of offences when committed by a person with the applicant’s background and experience.
Einfeld v R 266 ALR 598 at 618, per Basten JA, Hulme and Latham JJ.
It's safe to say that the OP is not involved in any judicial administrative work, thus given the ratio decidendi above and the "cautionary treatment" given to the case, enforcing perjury is seldom against your average citizen and the OP.
Seen it happen many times. Intriguing! Expand on your observations and direct me. I'll swing my keyboard around until I get a reply.
Thought I'd edit it a bit to give my prior statement a bit more clout. "charges for perjury are rare" Australian Defence Lawyers Alliance
Or perhaps something peer reviewed? Melbourne University Law Review, 2014, Volume 38, Issue 1: "Problematic judicial conduct remains rare in Australia"…
Contrary to your opinion, I'm pretty versed on the police powers and responsibilities act, DPP guidelines and sentencing…from, um, representing people that have made statements with evidence showing otherwise.
I will address your comment simply
- I did not give advice.
- I merely made a statement.
- It is a shared sentiment with other people in my field.
- Legal prose stays at work.
I could elaborate on how the courts would treat statements indicating the contrary - like your dirty big truck comment, but I don't get paid for that here.
Lastly, I'd be wary of your "advice" - guarantee of perjury, conspiracy and jail!!! Righhhhhht.
Just tell the OP "don't lie it's bad"… and you can hold on to your faith in the judicial system in how it treats liars.
@nerangsta: I'm not sure why you think the "keyboard warrior" comment was directed at you (specifically it was cypher67). My observations are personally being involved in giving sworn evidence in Superior Courts in relation to the charge of Perjury on multiple occasions, resulting in terms of imprisonment. While charges for perjury are fairly rare, that is not to say they do not occur. The statement "No-one gets done for perjury" is clearly wrong.
Your first link really does not provide any substance or figures apart from a broad statement. It is also specifically referring to rarity in public order offences. Whilst it is true:
A mistake does not mean you have committed perjury.
Perjury is where you have been wilfully false in the evidence that you have given to a Court.Just because a judge does not believe your evidence or version of events, it does not automatically mean you will be charged with perjury. I agree "there is a lot of it going on" but it is a question of proving it. As you would be aware, our justice system gives you the benefit of the doubt, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary the charge of perjury would not be forthcoming.
Your other link appears to refer to judges and the legal profession, and not particularly relevant to the original post as it is focused on a narrow part of the problem.
Again, I'm not sure of what contrary opinion you are defending here. It was a comment not directed at you.
No-one gets done for perjury in court…
and there's a lot of it going on ;)and
This is just stupid irresponsible advice; urging someone to commit perjury …
I don't see you urging anyone to commit perjury. My statement is that urging someone to commit perjury is stupid and irresponsible. It is again clearly directed at cypher67.
"Representing people that have made statements with evidence showing otherwise" is quite different and really doesn't add to an argument about people willfully telling lies.
Clearly you have misunderstood to whom the comment was directed. I agree with your points, and most of your comments are valid.
I'm not sure what you think would happen in the "dirty big truck" scenario that I/cypher67 mentioned. Defendant swears there is a big truck in front of him and the prosecution produces incontrovertible video proof that it did not happen. I doubt "Oops, I must have been mistaken" would carry a lot of weight. The reason perjury charges are not generally initiated is the inability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement is false and that it was willful. Having a recording and documentation covering those points or proof would just about cover that and would justify initiating the prosecution.
I guarantee you there will be plenty of people lining up for an easy win in prosecuting you for perjury.
My if-then comment is based on having a slam-dunk case with evidence proving the charge. I stand by my comment there would not be a shortage of people wanting to prosecute, not guaranteeing a win.
I did not say "guarantee of perjury = conspiracy = jail". Verbal much? Want to take anything else out of context? Jail is certainly an option for a penalty, not always, but it is given. You also might want to look up the definition of conspiracy one day. Depending on the level of involvement of the person doing the urging, it could indeed be construed as conspiracy.
Passenger: Let's pull over here so you can drop me off.
Driver: There are no parking spots.
Passenger: Let's just stop in the No Stopping area and you can wait for me.
Driver: OK.Technically a conspiracy, both agreeing to break the law.
Thanks for boiling down my comments to the lowest common denominator for me. As for my "faith in the judicial system in how it treats liars"? I have a lifetime of experience in watching people lie in the system. I know how they are treated. I know if there is strong evidence proving it was a lie, they will be prosecuted. Nothing to do with faith.
I could have suggested: kill the policeman and burn down the police station so there is no evidence against you in this traffic offence (of course I don't condone this). It might save you from the initial charge, but you are exposing yourself to far greater repercussions. If someone did follow my stupid and irresponsible advice, I wouldn't be surprised if I were implicated in the matter and investigated for conspiracy.
Whoa. Huge reply on a fairly minor point.
I personally wouldn't risk flat out perjury that is easy to counteract on any offence, let alone on a first and relatively minor traffic infringement.
The fact that you've gone to the effort and dug up a legal case and used legal citations suggests you might be a law student or involved in the legal profession too. That you're so dismissive of perjury is more than a little worrying.
In my defence to my earlier statement. To commit perjury they need to prove your not telling the truth, thus the statement innocent until proven guilty. Hence my advice of making something up they cant disprove.
Example: I was once pulled over for not indicating when leaving a roundabout. Thinking quick I explained that I was having a sneezing fit and I didn't indicate because I was covering my mouth and if I did id have to take my hands off the wheel.
Knowing he couldn't prove I wasn't and it made logical sense. I was let off without even a warning. They know that if you contest a fine it means more paperwork for them, and unless your breaking one of the big ones they will generally let you off.
But to everyone's point, you are playing with fire and if you come up with something stupid like "Sorry officer, I didn't indicate because I'm high" then yes, you will get burnt.
Legal cases take seconds to find, I did it only to illustrate to you that if the OP fabricated a story he'd be OK. Citing is a force of habit. If you could find me case authority analogous to an average citizen convicted for perjury in a lower court for a summary traffic offence then I'd be wary.
The worry you have regarding your perceived impression on my opinion of perjury is the reason why most lawyers have substance abuse problems. They leave law school with high hopes that end in shattered dreams. They see the system for what it is. They never did electives on 'leveraged charges' or 'magistrate shopping'.
If you shadowed me for a day you'd probably be real disenchanted with a lot of individuals …even cops refer to witnesses as 'dogs' or 'chaaaats'…(terms that carry a lot more weight on the inside).
Also law students are the worst.
If there weren't as many signs, then prove it in court by video and photos.
Just don't film it whilst driving :)
Dashcams are fine..
6 of them in the car, surely it doesn't take more than 5 people to hold a camera for 30 seconds ;-p
Can't you write a letter for a first offence and they drop it? I know they used to. I think you get one gimme every decade.
If you have a clean driving record for ten years in NSW then they are allowed to have the fine cancelled if they wish to.
If not then you can take it to court if you wish.Same in VIC, if you have driving record 10 yrs WITH NO FINES, you can request cancel, BUT depends on severity, e.g, seatbelts, mobile phone, they still would not cancel even with clean record
I got a fine the other month and as it was a company car they MULTIPLIED the fine by 5 ($2500) and I had to prove I was the driver by getting a Stat Dec signed by a JP, then they brought the fine back to its normal penalty rate.
Then I was able to argue the fine. GRRRRIs this in every state? That's a bit harsh of 5 times.
It forces the co. to identify the driver of a co. vehicle.
Blame all the tradies racking up heaps of fines and not losing demerit points by registering the car under a "company" that they increased the fines for company cars….
People were using company cars to get out of losing demerit points.
They'd just say "driver not identified", pay the standard fine and no one lost their points.
They increased the fine massively to prevent that happening.
If the company genuinely can't identify the driver, they'll need to pay the massive fine, but like in your case - they go back to normal levels when the driver is identified - and points are lost.
The back of the sheet will have details about where you can write to if you want to have them review the fine.
The general idea is to admit the offence, but to provide some mitigating information and point out your good driving record, and ask for a caution to be issued instead.
For example, mitigating information might be something like you may have been unfamiliar with the area. Or you were driving an unfamilar car and were concentrating on the car and not paying enough attention to the signs. Or whatever reason you may have. Be truthful. And contrite.
Remember, you have to admit the offence, and say that you will ensure that you take more care in the future.
I think people have posted details of letters they have sent, here and/or on Whirlpool.
go to court and plead first offence if you have a clean record. you might as well give it a shot since you can't use it for later
If you go to court and lose you will have to pay costs though otherwise everyone would be doing it.
Do not go to court! Ask for a review in writing.
If you go to court, the offence will mostly liken be proven, and you'll be fined and lose points. You may even end up with a higher penalty. If you ask for a review, they may withdraw the ticket completely.
You probably will get more abuse than advice here, but for the latter information such as the exact offence and the state you're in (NSW I assume from the profile) will help.
Usually written on the back of the infringement notice.