State governments have passed laws “deeming” the owner of a vehicle to have been the driver of a car at the time of a camera infringement, unless that driver dobs somebody else in for the offence. This “deeming” somebody to be guilty of an offence, merely because that person owns the equipment used to commit the offence, flies in the face of our legal system. It’s like saying that you are guilty of perjury because your pen was used to sign a false declaration and you cannot identify who used your pen. Or that you are “deemed” to be a copyright infringer if pirated movies are found on your computer, despite everybody in your house having access to it. NOTE: I personally beat a camera infringement from South Australia simply because I wrote back to the SA Police and told them that although the vehicle in question was registered to me, they had no evidence whatsoever that I was the driver. I told them that if they wished to convict me of the offence, they would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I was the driver. In the absence of that evidence, I stated that they had no case. I refused to furnish the cops with a statutory declaration and told them politely where to shove it. I told the cops that I did not have to provide anything that may tend to incriminate me. I also told the cops that if they prosecuted me and failed, as they would have done, I would sue them for their back teeth. Suffice it to say that I received a letter from the cops retracting the infringement. So if you receive an infringement notice that was generated by a speed or red light camera, NEVER sign the statutory declaration that comes with it. As a defendant, you are NOT required to provide anything that may tend to incriminate you. DO NOT make any admissions whatsoever. DO NOT nominate anybody else. Make a copy of the infringement notice and send it back, stating that until you are duly convicted of that offence in a properly convened court of law, you are innocent and it is up to the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence to properly identify you beyond reasonable doubt. “Deeming” a person to be guilty of an offence merely because he is the owner of equipment that was used to commit that offence does not satisfy the legal burden of proof required for a conviction. State governments may have passed these “deeming” laws, but that does not make them legal. Plenty of stupid and unjust laws have been overturned in the High Court and the quicker these “deeming” laws are declared to be illegal, the better. So read that CARR News article and never ever allow yourself to be railroaded into paying a camera-generated fine or be conned into dobbing somebody else in for driving your car. You are NOT required to do any of that. Just remember that you have legal rights and you should uphold them. It is entirely up to the prosecution to prove that YOU were driving your car at the time of the infringement and if they have no evidence of this, then you can demand that the case be dismissed for lack of evidence. And they cannot “deem” you to be guilty of that offence - they need hard evidence. If you don’t give them that evidence in the form of a statement or admission, then they have NOTHING. Just to give you a quick scenario, let’s say that the prosecution goes to extraordinary lengths and produces cellphone tracking data to show that you were in the proximity of that speed camera when your car was booked. That does not prove in the slightest that you were the driver. That merely shows that your mobile phone MAY have been in the car at the time. You may have left it in the car. You may have been in the car, but not as the driver. If the prosecution cannot prove that you were behind the wheel at the time, its case is shot to hell. Cheers, Ziggy Webmaster, Campaign Against Road Ripoffs [email protected] carr.org.au
Posted on: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 21:31:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015