Just got two tickets today...

[Rob MacLennan]

Did you have a good reason for speeding or was there an error on the ticket? I had no excuse for speeding other then being late for class and no errors on the ticket.

An 'excuse' is also known as 'guilty with an explanation.' The key word in that sentence is *guilty*.

[dricked]

Other than the idiot infront of me doing 10 under, no. There was no talking, she took my liscence, expired insurance, ownership and brought back my tickets with no errors.

[OpenGambit]

There are NO excuses in HTA offences (Generally). They are what are known as "absolute liability" offences (HTA 172 is an exception), which means that the Crown has to prove ONLY the action of committing the crime (Actus reus).

The Crown does NOT have to prove any element of culpability (mens rea). Therefore, defences of due diligence /I didn't mean to / my mom died / marauders were chasing me / my gf is chasing me are all USELESS.

the ONLY defense against a absolute liability offence is one of voluntariness, because that actually attacks actus reus.
Therefore, defenses such as ( a bee stung me and it make me swerve ), I had an allergic reaction, or i had a heart attack, or something like that.. That would work.

Hope that helps.

[TwistedKestrel]

Just plain old regular speeding (i.e. less than 50km/h over the limit) is an absolute liability offense? Can anyone else confirm that?

[OpenGambit]

Just plain old regular speeding (i.e. less than 50km/h over the limit) is an absolute liability offense? Can anyone else confirm that?

If it doesn't have the possibility of Jail time, absolute liability.

[Rob MacLennan]

Just plain old regular speeding (i.e. less than 50km/h over the limit) is an absolute liability offense? Can anyone else confirm that?

Yup. HTA 172 is 'strict liability', because of the possible term of imprisonment, giving you the option of putting forth a defence of due diligence (I had to speed because the banjo-playing rednecks were going to violate me if they caught me).

[OpenGambit]

Yup. HTA 172 is 'strict liability', because of the possible term of imprisonment, giving you the option of putting forth a defence of due diligence (I had to speed because the banjo-playing rednecks were going to violate me if they caught me).

It still has to be reasonable rob! lol...

[Rob MacLennan]

It still has to be reasonable rob! lol...

If I was actually being chased by banjo-playing rednecks then you don't think that would be reasonable? Well, whatever floats yer goat