Big ass ticket

[hedo2002]

Re: Big *** ticket

Fight it.

there is no difference in insurance eyes. 40 over is a major speeding, and 70 over is a major speeding. the officer has lowered it, they can take back up to 70 if you fight it, but they cannot introduce HTA172 anymore so you're free of that.

if you pay the 40 over, you'll be out thousands of $$$ through insurance. and if you're convicted of 70 over, then you're out the same Thousands through insurance plus a few hundred for trying to fight it. however, it's worth the few hundred to try and get rid of the charge

This is incorrect, as has been posted by bike cop earlier in the thread the officer has six months from the date of the infraction to proceed via a Part III. So the OP isn't technically clear. Howevere, I do agree it is highly unlikely, but it "COULD" happen is the point.

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Big *** ticket

Not sure if it is still in effect today, But in the early 80's in NB if I stopped you for an offence which had a set fine of say $150, (paying the fine or going to court). You had the option of paying a "reduced set fine of say $105" BUT you had to pay the officer in cash on the spot. EVERYTHING was properly recorded, this was just a way of reducing the court case load, and preventing the province from later having to "chase" people to get them to pay their fines.

When I accepted the position, coming from a force in Ontario I thought wow this is like the deep southern US pay off the cop in cash and get away lighter. Then I realized how well this actually worked from the provinces prospective. It was mainly tourist who payed up on the spot as the generally had the cash available on the spot so they never had to chase down and collect from people from out of province or country. People also "felt better" that they were "getting a break". One of the court people later told me at times to collect a small fine it sometimes costs the gov't more in actual collection costs.

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Big *** ticket

As shown it has been challenged and ruled proper. so again your wrong. It also doesn't discourge citizens from engaging in a fair trial process. If the accused feels they have a strong case then they will proceed to trial. If they know they are likely to lose then this merely presents them with an alternative. That is like sayign a drug dealer should never be charged with dealing to an undercover cop, because if the cop didn't offer to buy the drugs then the dealer wouldn't have sold them..LMAO The dealer MADE a choce, (albeit the wrong choice).

There is a simple way to avoid the pitfalls of this. DEMAND the officer charge the full speed then you aren't discouraged from going to trial. OR even easier don't be riding at 70 km/h over the limit, (of course nm1 is exempt from the last portion as he is an EXPERT rider)...lol

they can, but this hasn't fully been challenged out yet...it violates our charter rights to a fair trial by discouraging citizens from making use of that right.

if a cop can give you a "road-side break" but then it intimidates you into not fighting the ticket at all that isn't right.

just like HTA 172, the practice of amending the charge is pure ******** and something we need to work together to get rid of.

people suggesting you should "just pay" are asshats...speeding enforcement is for revenue generation, not safety...you should never feel bad about fighting a ticket.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Big *** ticket

they can, but this hasn't fully been challenged out yet...it violates our charter rights to a fair trial by discouraging citizens from making use of that right.

if a cop can give you a "road-side break" but then it intimidates you into not fighting the ticket at all that isn't right.

just like HTA 172, the practice of amending the charge is pure ******** and something we need to work together to get rid of.

people suggesting you should "just pay" are asshats...speeding enforcement is for revenue generation, not safety...you should never feel bad about fighting a ticket.

It has been challenged. Challenges have failed. The roadside break is considered to be much like the prosecution offering a lower charge in exchange for a plea.

And as to the people who are saying that the OP should suck it up and just pay, without furthering the discussion, they are doing something that is specifically warned against in the forum sticky.

 

[ddusseld]

Re: Big *** ticket

It really does discourage people from going to court. The fact that you get a lesser charge if not going to court versus a potentially higher charge when going to court is a complete deterrent. Back in the day when few people went to court to fight tickets the tickets were never amended. Now that the volume is up they implement the amendment potential purely to keep people from going to court.

As shown it has been challenged and ruled proper. so again your wrong. It also doesn't discourge citizens from engaging in a fair trial process. If the accused feels they have a strong case then they will proceed to trial. If they know they are likely to lose then this merely presents them with an alternative. That is like sayign a drug dealer should never be charged with dealing to an undercover cop, because if the cop didn't offer to buy the drugs then the dealer wouldn't have sold them..LMAO The dealer MADE a choce, (albeit the wrong choice).

There is a simple way to avoid the pitfalls of this. DEMAND the officer charge the full speed then you aren't discouraged from going to trial. OR even easier don't be riding at 70 km/h over the limit, (of course nm1 is exempt from the last portion as he is an EXPERT rider)...lol

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Big *** ticket

Not sure when "back in the day was" but when I started as a copper back in 1979, the crown routinely did this. Of course it is to streamline the system, but it doesn't prevent an accused who believes they have a strong defense from going to trial. It does likely prevent those who are guilty and merely show up in hopes the copper won't attend, or show up and waste courts time, in hopes of dragging it out for an 11b.

As you said "back in the day", if I missed a court date nothing was ever said by my supervisors. Today, (as an officer), if you miss a court date you are expected to explain why you didn't attend to the court liasion officer. Departemtns now take missing court seriously, (which is why you almost never see an officer missing a court date).

It really does discourage people from going to court. The fact that you get a lesser charge if not going to court versus a potentially higher charge when going to court is a complete deterrent. Back in the day when few people went to court to fight tickets the tickets were never amended. Now that the volume is up they implement the amendment potential purely to keep people from going to court.

 

[ddusseld]

Re: Big *** ticket

I fought quite a few tickets when I was younger and hence attended a lot of traffic court (clearly not as much as you). I never had any of mine nor saw a ticket amended. Late 70's through most of the 90's. It should not matter if you think you have a strong case or not. There should be no penalty for exercising your right to trial. None. The penalty should be the same if you plead guilty and pay the fine or if you go to court and lose your case.

Not sure when "back in the day was" but when I started as a copper back in 1979, the crown routinely did this. Of course it is to streamline the system, but it doesn't prevent an accused who believes they have a strong defense from going to trial. It does likely prevent those who are guilty and merely show up in hopes the copper won't attend, or show up and waste courts time, in hopes of dragging it out for an 11b.

As you said "back in the day", if I missed a court date nothing was ever said by my supervisors. Today, (as an officer), if you miss a court date you are expected to explain why you didn't attend to the court liasion officer. Departemtns now take missing court seriously, (which is why you almost never see an officer missing a court date).

 

[Furpo]

Re: Big *** ticket

...The penalty should be the same if you plead guilty and pay the fine or if you go to court and lose your case.

Not so. The quid pro quo is take the lesser charge and don't waste any more of our time. You don't get the reduced charge and a day in court. As a taxpayer I fully agree with this approach. I don't want traffic court to use officers and resources at the expense of, say, tackling crime (or dealing with family law, juvenile court, you name it).

 

[ddusseld]

Re: Big *** ticket

Imo, there should be no concept of wasting time when exercising your right to trial. I don't like to see our rights "eroded" due to cost, time or inconvenience. To me, this is pretty much fundamental....

Not so. The quid pro quo is take the lesser charge and don't waste any more of our time. You don't get the reduced charge and a day in court. As a taxpayer I fully agree with this approach. I don't want traffic court to use officers and resources at the expense of, say, tackling crime (or dealing with family law, juvenile court, you name it).

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Big *** ticket

But your looking at it as an "increased penalty" if you don't take the deal. They aren't increasing anything the officer, merely offered an incentive to take a reduced charge if you choose to plead guilty. I have seen where the ticket issued by the officer was for the full amount and the crown at first meeting offered the incentive.

If you were clocked at 85 in a 60 and the officer reduced it to, (say to 75), offer you an "incentive" to plea and pay the fine. Then that is what it is an "incentive" it is NOT preventing you from still pursuing your right to a fair and full hearing. The "cost" of doing so is you lose the "incentive" so there is no increased penalty, you are merely now facing the charge as it was recorded at the time of the offence.

No one is saying we are going to increase the charge to 95 in a 60 if you take this to trial, they merely remove the "incentive". A persons rights still remain intact. You have no right to a trial AND a reduced fine if convicted.

I don't accept the "incentive" as I know the legal system and therefore, can easily win a ticket. None of the tickets I have beat came with an "incentive" as they weren't for speeding, but had they I still would have rejected the "incentive" and exercisized my right to a full and fair trial.

I still fail to grasp your concept of your rights are being eroded. You feel it is your right to a trial AND the reduced charge? Tell us which rights under the charter your having eroded?

 

[griff2]

Re: Big *** ticket

Imo, there should be no concept of wasting time when exercising your right to trial. I don't like to see our rights "eroded" due to cost, time or inconvenience. To me, this is pretty much fundamental....

As I said earlier, by all means exercise your right to trial in order to challenge the evidence of what you were allegedly caught doing. If you are unable to successfully challenge the evidence of what you were caught doing, then be prepared to pay the penalties for what you were caught doing.

If you have a serious issue with the thought that the courts may amend the speed up if you choose to fight the charge, then you should make that clear to the officer at roadside and demand a ticket for precisely what he believes you were doing before he hands you your ticket. Anything else would be akin to demanding to have your cake and to eat it too.

 

[macdonaldderek]

Re: Big *** ticket

If you fight they'll likely reduce the demerits, which is always nice as it prevents you from losing your license if you have another similar case in the future. If you have the 400$ for a lawyer then always lawyer up.

 

[Dresden]

Re: Big *** ticket

...

In general, it's not going to be the difference between taking transit and riding/driving; but it will make you think twice about the real consequences of traffic convictions; the buck doesn't stop with the $45 conviction.

Just imagine if you're already paying $2000/yr for SF; on a first minor conviction of +15km/h you'll be paying at least +$1200 in additional premiums for the next three years. How insane is that? Imagine if the prosecutor told you this when you plea-bargained?

Investing in a $300 paralegal to fight that ticket, doesn't seem so bad anymore.

Insurance companies give zero ****s about demerit points; they'll only be interested if as a result of accumulating demerit points (ie. 15pts) you're license was suspended, during which time... you're no longer insurable.

 

[H4x0rz]

Re: Big *** ticket

NO. If in trial, evidence comes out that you were doing a higher speed, they will use the higher speed.. unless the crown doesn't want to proceed with it. They can amend the information.

 

[ddusseld]

Re: Big *** ticket

A simple question. Why does the court amend the ticket to the higher value? If the answer is to deter you from going to court then they are eroding your rights. They are attempting to intimidate you into just pleading guilty.

But your looking at it as an "increased penalty" if you don't take the deal. They aren't increasing anything the officer, merely offered an incentive to take a reduced charge if you choose to plead guilty. I have seen where the ticket issued by the officer was for the full amount and the crown at first meeting offered the incentive.

If you were clocked at 85 in a 60 and the officer reduced it to, (say to 75), offer you an "incentive" to plea and pay the fine. Then that is what it is an "incentive" it is NOT preventing you from still pursuing your right to a fair and full hearing. The "cost" of doing so is you lose the "incentive" so there is no increased penalty, you are merely now facing the charge as it was recorded at the time of the offence.

No one is saying we are going to increase the charge to 95 in a 60 if you take this to trial, they merely remove the "incentive". A persons rights still remain intact. You have no right to a trial AND a reduced fine if convicted.

I don't accept the "incentive" as I know the legal system and therefore, can easily win a ticket. None of the tickets I have beat came with an "incentive" as they weren't for speeding, but had they I still would have rejected the "incentive" and exercisized my right to a full and fair trial.

I still fail to grasp your concept of your rights are being eroded. You feel it is your right to a trial AND the reduced charge? Tell us which rights under the charter your having eroded?

 

[trebororr]

Re: Big *** ticket

A simple question. Why does the court amend the ticket to the higher value? If the answer is to deter you from going to court then they are eroding your rights. They are attempting to intimidate you into just pleading guilty.

You seem to not be understand the concept of benefit to you. If you know that you are guilty and that you have little chance of winning your case on a technicality, then why not accept the lowered charge? Why cost our society additional costs? If you are not guilty or if you want to waste the court's time, by all means exercise your right to a trial.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Big *** ticket

You seem to not be understand the concept of benefit to you. If you know that you are guilty and that you have little chance of winning your case on a technicality, then why not accept the lowered charge? Why cost our society additional costs? If you are not guilty or if you want to waste the court's time, by all means exercise your right to a trial.

Because it is never a waste of the court's time when you exercise your right to trial. It is precisely the attitude that your comment displays, that needs to change. Guilty or not, The State must prove your guilt. Whenever a trial takes place the system is tested, giving The State the ability to improve the process of justice. Instead they choose to limit access to justice.You don't see a problem here?

 

[trebororr]

Re: Big *** ticket

Because it is never a waste of the court's time when you exercise your right to trial. It is precisely the attitude that your comment displays, that needs to change. Guilty or not, The State must prove your guilt. Whenever a trial takes place the system is tested, giving The State the ability to improve the process of justice. Instead they choose to limit access to justice.You don't see a problem here?

There isn't anything wrong with my attitude: I know the difference between right and wrong!

I was riding my motorcycle one evening going home; I arrived at an intersection where a car driver turned left across my path. I had to save my own life as they did't do anything to avoid the collision. I have had to deal with the pain of the injuries every day since that evening. There are many sporting activities which I can't take part in any longer. The driver should have been charged with careless driving but instead received a failure to yield charge. That was what my life was worth that day, a lousy failure to yield. And yet the charge was still too significant for this individual as a few months later I received a summons to appear as a crown witness at trial. I made a visit to this individual's house and had a chat about the difference between right and wrong. So you think that it is right for someone to damage my body and then have me take time off work above that?

No threats were made to get my point across.

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Big *** ticket

A simple question. Why does the court amend the ticket to the higher value? If the answer is to deter you from going to court then they are eroding your rights. They are attempting to intimidate you into just pleading guilty.

They don't amend it to a "higher value" they simply amend it to the ACTUAL value, (as will be presented in evidence). So many here complain about cops lying on the stand. So is the cop in a trial supposed to get up and lie because it benefits YOU? Can't have it both ways.

Please feel free to post the section of the charter which says you have a RIGHT not to be "intimidated". This is a silly premise that your "intimidated". Virtually the same as those who bring human rights cases because "their FEELINGS" were hurt.

If being offered a "deal" is intimidating to you then I assume you avoid "no tax" sales as this must be so intimidating that one must avoid it. Again the crown merely advises you they are willing to accept a plea to a lower charge. It is STILL your RIGHT to go to trial. Therefore NO RIGHTS have been denied.

So again I ask you to post the section of the charter which says you have the RIGHT not to be "intimidated". Being "intimidated" is a FEELING there are NO charter protections of your FEELINGS.

Again this has all been challenged and found by higher courts to be an acceptable practice within the legal system. I am pretty sure if it violated ANY rights the court would have ruled differently.

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Big *** ticket

Because it is never a waste of the court's time when you exercise your right to trial. It is precisely the attitude that your comment displays, that needs to change. Guilty or not, The State must prove your guilt. Whenever a trial takes place the system is tested, giving The State the ability to improve the process of justice. Instead they choose to limit access to justice.You don't see a problem here?

But in the scenario being discussed NO ONE is being denied the right to go to trial. If their feelings are hurt as a result of having to answer the ACTUAL offence, then they shouldn't have committed the offence. They still have the RIGHT to go to trial and test the system.

To the poster who earlier posted they will offer to "lower the demerit points" in a deal this is incorrect. The courts HAVE NO control over points assigned. They may offer a lower charge with less demerit points assigned but if your convicted of an offence assigned 4 demerit points then the court can't "assign" 2 or 3 points they must reduce the charge to one which is assigned 2 or 3 points.