NSW Riding a Scooter in Car Park Without a Helmet?

[Adam1user]

I cannot work out what this phrase even tries to mean.

\/
\/
\/
\/
For the benefit of later readers of this thread, I'll say this....

On websites like this, one advantage that lay people have compared to lawyers is
that lay people get to say whatever they want.
And, they get to do it without regard to accuracy, reliability, or downstream consequences.
They also get to use petulance, petty rhetoric and personal abuse
without fear of accountability.

By contrast, as lawyers we have, among our numerous legal and ethical duties,
a duty of candour to our clients, and, as officers of the court, a requirement to
conduct ourselves with middling dignity. I AGREE LAWYERS SHOULD GIVE THE BEST ADVICE TO THEIR CLIENT BUT YOU DID NOT, YOU WENT TO THE MAX WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

One thing we do try avoid is creating false hopes in a client*
that one outcome or another is a certainty, or an "easy out".

As to traffic matters....
In NSW, there is a widely used and highly efficient mechanism
for disposing of court-elected traffic matters called "Pleading guilty with an explanation".
Often, but not always and not automatically, a Magistrate will dismiss a matter
upon a plea of guilty, where there is a reasonable explanation.
"Reasonable" can be a very fluid thing in traffic cases.

This path does not require skill as an advocate.
Nor does it invoke any issues of justice, nor of proportional enforcement,
nor even of technical law.
Discharge on the above basis is really a question of
good luck in court on the day.
Our friend above has not stated whether or not
"Pleading guilty with an explanation" was his chosen course. READ MY FIRST COMMENT, I STATED THAT I WAS WRONG WHICH MEAN GUILTY AND I WAS SEEKING SECTION 10, THUS IT SHOULD MEAN I AM GUILTY WITH EXPLANATION, THIS IS NOT THE COURT AND IF ANYONE WITH SOME KNOWLEDGE SHOULD KNOW I WILL BE STATE THAT I AM GUILTY WITH EXPLANATION.

In any event, it would be an irresponsible lawyer who let their client think
that discharge on this basis was a certainty, and an "easy out".
And it would be an even more irresponsible lawyer who did it here,
where the background facts and circumstances are so often not available
(often rightly so) in the interests of a user's privacy. I SPOKE TO TWO LAWYER IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS - NOT SAME PLACE OR SAME WORKPLACE- BOTH STATED THAT I SHOULD GET SECTION 10 AND ONE STATED IF I DON'T GET IT, I SHOULD APPEAL. PLEASE CLARIFY TO ME WHY THOSE TWO LAWYERS GAVE ME THIS ADVICE WHILE YOURS WAS THE OPPOSITE. THE SECOND LAWYER TOLD ME TO APPEAL IF I DON'T GET SECTION 10, WHY? HE DOES NOT KNOW THE LAW? IS HE STUPID?

--------------------------------------------------
* a real life client, or even quasi-clients such as
those with whom we engage on here, or might speak to
in a clinic or "walk-in" community activity

One: what I mean "a chopping board" is that you went to the max penalty of the offence or infringement, you did not consider the facts I stated, in my case, I stated that the fine was excessive for it.
also to clarify more: is that the officer should consider the risk of the infringement and whether the fine is deserved. In my case, the office did not have good judgement. You went directly to max and stated that I am a "GOD" [you did not state in words but your comments meant it] that I will not have an accident, and the I am not responsible. Go back to my first comment and read it slowly and see what I wrote. In my case, I was sure I did not deserve a fine. A caution would be more appropriate. The facts I stated that it was a car park which means low traffic and slow speed, I was riding in slow speed. I also stated in my first comment that the law does not rely on common sense and that I am guilty, how come you did not read those and came attacking. Even after couple of comments, I stated clearly that these are the facts you continued with max penalty (that is what I meant by chopping board- you don't go for max for minor offences). This is what the officer should have considered and should given a caution. The police are to help and serve the people. Also, you judgement was wrong, you stated that there is a risk that I can kill myself in my situation which is stupid, the worst thing that happens (which is very unlikely) is if I hit a car the worst thing would be paint scratches at most, there will not be a dent. This is what I meant by chopping board,

Two: you are right that on this site, everyone has a right to write what ever they want (within reason) and not to attack someone, I did not attack you at all, I did that after you did not back down, I clarified my comments which were clear but it seems you did not read them or did not understand what I wrote, and you kept stating I am irresponsible and that I'm a "GOD" [See above]. Don't expect to go "GOD" on someone and not hear anything back!

Thee: I will comment on your comments above in CAPITAL LETTERS: It does not mean I am shouting or disrespect, but so to show my comments from your comments.

Four: I did not write this before, but I was not lucky. I went to court with knowing that I will get section 10, If I had a doubt, I would not have gone to court. That does not make me "GOD" but I am not stupid, but I understand the law and know what will happen.
I agree with you that I was lucky because the Judge (Magistrate) dismissed the matter - in this I was lucky and the reason -I'm sure of it- is that I was contracting and finished my contract among other reason which I do not want to write, so the Judge(magistrate) wanted to help me with it as she saw the incident as it is and considered the factors which I stated and agreed that the police officer was wrong.

Your comments don't give any indication that you know about the law at all. you may state parts of the law and quotation from the bible, that does not mean you understand how to implement the law.

Finally, I am happy as the matter was dismissed, which means if i do a mistake later and get a fine, i will not pay for this one. Yes, I am human and I will and confirm that I will make a mistake and have a fine (but aim not to do it).

 

[Adam1user]

I think it was your lucky day. No fine, no loss of 3 points, great! But I assume you had to take the day off work to go to court, you've spent many, many, many hours on this and you know what, it's the luck of the draw on the day. I spent enough days in the Magistrates' Court in my high school legal studies days to know that like most of us, magistrates' are human and have their good and bad days. What happened to you yesterday could possibly have been a different outcome had you had your day in court today.

I also have a very keen sense of what is right and what is wrong (from reading your posts, I get the impression that you do as well). I'm realistic enough to know that the parking fine I got even though I bought a ticket and displayed it on my dashboard and on querying the fine was told the ticket was upside down and the officer took a photo but they couldn't show me, and I know it wasn't because I looked straight at it when I read the fine and saw the ticket was up the right way....well, I earn more money being at work and paying for the infringement that risking possibly wasting a day in court and the magistrate siding with the local by laws officer over the his word/her word scenario.

Bottom line - you got lucky! Enjoy your luck and buy yourself a lottery ticket and hope the luck continues!

Please read my comment above - regarding luck comment. I was sure that I will get a section 10, but i was lucky with getting dismissed. I will repeat that if I had doubt that I will not get the section 10, i would not have gone to court, other point, when I got the fine, I did not ask for a review, I elected to go to court. As I knew that the fine will stand by the people who review it.

 

[Adam1user]

I forgot to mention also, that I did not even pay for the court fees which was expecting to pay, so I was lucky in this too.

 

[Adam1user]

I don't even see why you're fighting this.
If you are guilty, as you say you are, then just pay the fine
and go get on with your life.
Losing points means nothing unless you continue to offend,
which you say you won't.

You do understand the difference between a section 10
and an application to RMS for a good behaviour period?

Further more,

I did post a comment asking about a friend's situation and you attacked us both in that comment, do you want the link?

This is other point that makes me doubt you understand anything about law, I may be wrong in saying this but from my experience and knowledge, once a person gets section 10, the person automatically is on good behavior bond, what you are asking me above my comment shows you don't understand the law....
what is the use of applying to RMS while still you have the fine?
So read the comments carefully and be diplomatic and realistic, don't attack people, you are not GOD.

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

I think there are some important points that come out of this that warrant making further comment. My comments are directed to the reasoning and sentiment expressed, and not to you personally (although I appreciate this can be hard to separate). They are also obviously just my opinions and thoughts – which should usually go without saying, but I think it is important to make that abundantly clear.

Firstly, lawyers are an animal that tends to have a particular manner and tone to their communication. It’s often nuanced by the type of law they practise in, but there are common themes: being forthright, being economical with language, decisiveness, and steadfastness. Since communication is as reliant on the person receiving the information as it is on the person imparting it these themes may be misconstrued. Forthrightness and economy can be taken as bluntness; decisiveness as dismissal; and steadfastness as being argumentative. Sometimes they are.

Lawyers usually have a high ‘justice drive’. Being a lawyer is a highly stressful, competitive, and often adversarial, profession. There’s often a lack of time to get everything done. So, when people come to us admitting to wrongdoing but wanting to get out of it we often have little compassion or time for them. I’m a little different on occasion as I also have a background in training and coaching, and believe there is worth in people understanding why they are doing what they are doing.

In saying this, I don’t apportion any blame. Consider these observational facts.

It’s also relevant to throw in: the practise of law is an ‘art form’, it is not a ‘science’. Very little is black and white.

Tim’s statements weren’t saying, “I am a “GOD””. That’s a manifestly unfair characterisation – not that I think you will have upset Tim, from very little I know of him. It’s also manifestly unfair to claim that he has attacked you. Again, I don’t think he’ll lose sleep over that.

What they appeared to be were some (perhaps terse) comments to someone who had admitting wrongdoing in their own words. While you may say there was no ‘harm’ in it, the fact of it is there was – at least by societal standards. That doesn’t mean there actually was, but rather that society deems there was. And that’s what laws are, the rules that society deems it should operate under. Here I begin to delve a little into what is called jurisprudence for those who are interested.

By partaking in society, we agree to be bound by those rules. It’s an all-in proposition for the most part, you don’t get to pick and choose. And, again, especially not when you acknowledge that you’ve contravened them (as opposed to claiming they don’t apply to you).

Laws are interconnected. They are not stand alone. There are many considerations that support a law, and it is the sum of them which makes up their worth. While you may claim a caution was appropriate, citing it was ‘slow speed’ and/or it was in a car park, these are only some of the considerations that were in play. In no particular order, here’s some things you’ve missed (or disclaimed):

- There is a risk you could kill yourself, though it may be small. Scoff if you want, but it is a fact. Feel free to consult a medical professional. Accidents happen. It may not even be your ‘fault’. It could be as simple as mechanical failure, or someone striking you when reversing out unexpectedly;

- Death aside, traumatic head injury is also a possibility. This can have permanent, debilitating effects;

- The above (particularly the second) can place significant costs on you, your family, and society overall. Therefore, society deems it is in everyone’s best interests to lessen that chance as much as reasonably possible by requiring you to wear a helmet;

- Add to that the potential cost to the medical system. What you actually pay, if anything, is a fraction of the actual cost. The public purse wears the rest. That’s not to the mention the diversion of resources into looking after your potential head injury through doing something illegal, when it may be needed for the care of ‘more deserving’ patients;

- The example factor. This is important, especially for children. If the law says wear a helmet, and you get away without doing it, other people may see your example and follow suit. This devalues the system of law; and

- On that point, there’s the simple fact that you’ve contravened a law. That rebellious act also can devalue the system of law.

Yes, some of these are tiny considerations in the scheme of things. But the difference between 0 and 1 is greater than the difference between 1 and infinity.

Ultimately, whether you think you should wear a helmet or not is immaterial. My personal thoughts are that if you don’t want to wear one then that’s your personal choice, but you alone should bear the cost of your actions. We’re not afforded that level of choice by the law. If you don’t like it, get the law changed. Until then, it remains the law.

This part you may take as personal, so that hopefully it stimulates you to think about things. “Your comments don’t give any indication that you know about the law at all. You may state parts of the law … that does not mean you understand how to implement the law.” Unfortunately, that is the pot calling the kettle black – and you should take a good look at your own comments in this apparent light. For example, you said, “I went to court knowing I will get section 10”. That’s an absolute statement; no capacity for otherwise. Nothing is absolute or clear cut in law – especially when courts are involved. Any good lawyer will acknowledge there is always a chance for things to go awry. There’s an apt saying that sums up the situation: “to win the unwinnable, and lose the unloseable”. If you don’t understand that, then you do not understand the law – let alone how to implement it. You may have some wins, but all you’re effectively doing is splashing around in a puddle with floaties on and calling it swimming.

In the end you were lucky, in more than one respect. And it appears this isn’t your first occasion. The funny thing about luck is that it always runs out sooner or later. I hope, for your sake, that doesn’t happen in the car park.

 

[Adam1user]

I think there are some important points that come out of this that warrant making further comment. My comments are directed to the reasoning and sentiment expressed, and not to you personally (although I appreciate this can be hard to separate). They are also obviously just my opinions and thoughts – which should usually go without saying, but I think it is important to make that abundantly clear.

Firstly, lawyers are an animal that tends to have a particular manner and tone to their communication. It’s often nuanced by the type of law they practise in, but there are common themes: being forthright, being economical with language, decisiveness, and steadfastness. Since communication is as reliant on the person receiving the information as it is on the person imparting it these themes may be misconstrued. Forthrightness and economy can be taken as bluntness; decisiveness as dismissal; and steadfastness as being argumentative. Sometimes they are.

Lawyers usually have a high ‘justice drive’. Being a lawyer is a highly stressful, competitive, and often adversarial, profession. There’s often a lack of time to get everything done. So, when people come to us admitting to wrongdoing but wanting to get out of it we often have little compassion or time for them. I’m a little different on occasion as I also have a background in training and coaching, and believe there is worth in people understanding why they are doing what they are doing.

In saying this, I don’t apportion any blame. Consider these observational facts.

It’s also relevant to throw in: the practise of law is an ‘art form’, it is not a ‘science’. Very little is black and white.

Tim’s statements weren’t saying, “I am a “GOD””. That’s a manifestly unfair characterisation – not that I think you will have upset Tim, from very little I know of him. It’s also manifestly unfair to claim that he has attacked you. Again, I don’t think he’ll lose sleep over that.

What they appeared to be were some (perhaps terse) comments to someone who had admitting wrongdoing in their own words. While you may say there was no ‘harm’ in it, the fact of it is there was – at least by societal standards. That doesn’t mean there actually was, but rather that society deems there was. And that’s what laws are, the rules that society deems it should operate under. Here I begin to delve a little into what is called jurisprudence for those who are interested.

By partaking in society, we agree to be bound by those rules. It’s an all-in proposition for the most part, you don’t get to pick and choose. And, again, especially not when you acknowledge that you’ve contravened them (as opposed to claiming they don’t apply to you).

Laws are interconnected. They are not stand alone. There are many considerations that support a law, and it is the sum of them which makes up their worth. While you may claim a caution was appropriate, citing it was ‘slow speed’ and/or it was in a car park, these are only some of the considerations that were in play. In no particular order, here’s some things you’ve missed (or disclaimed):

- There is a risk you could kill yourself, though it may be small. Scoff if you want, but it is a fact. Feel free to consult a medical professional. Accidents happen. It may not even be your ‘fault’. It could be as simple as mechanical failure, or someone striking you when reversing out unexpectedly;

- Death aside, traumatic head injury is also a possibility. This can have permanent, debilitating effects;

- The above (particularly the second) can place significant costs on you, your family, and society overall. Therefore, society deems it is in everyone’s best interests to lessen that chance as much as reasonably possible by requiring you to wear a helmet;

- Add to that the potential cost to the medical system. What you actually pay, if anything, is a fraction of the actual cost. The public purse wears the rest. That’s not to the mention the diversion of resources into looking after your potential head injury through doing something illegal, when it may be needed for the care of ‘more deserving’ patients;

- The example factor. This is important, especially for children. If the law says wear a helmet, and you get away without doing it, other people may see your example and follow suit. This devalues the system of law; and

- On that point, there’s the simple fact that you’ve contravened a law. That rebellious act also can devalue the system of law.

Yes, some of these are tiny considerations in the scheme of things. But the difference between 0 and 1 is greater than the difference between 1 and infinity.

Ultimately, whether you think you should wear a helmet or not is immaterial. My personal thoughts are that if you don’t want to wear one then that’s your personal choice, but you alone should bear the cost of your actions. We’re not afforded that level of choice by the law. If you don’t like it, get the law changed. Until then, it remains the law.

This part you may take as personal, so that hopefully it stimulates you to think about things. “Your comments don’t give any indication that you know about the law at all. You may state parts of the law … that does not mean you understand how to implement the law.” Unfortunately, that is the pot calling the kettle black – and you should take a good look at your own comments in this apparent light. For example, you said, “I went to court knowing I will get section 10”. That’s an absolute statement; no capacity for otherwise. Nothing is absolute or clear cut in law – especially when courts are involved. Any good lawyer will acknowledge there is always a chance for things to go awry. There’s an apt saying that sums up the situation: “to win the unwinnable, and lose the unloseable”. If you don’t understand that, then you do not understand the law – let alone how to implement it. You may have some wins, but all you’re effectively doing is splashing around in a puddle with floaties on and calling it swimming.

In the end you were lucky, in more than one respect. And it appears this isn’t your first occasion. The funny thing about luck is that it always runs out sooner or later. I hope, for your sake, that doesn’t happen in the car park.

WOW, good reading!

I wrote my comments and did not really review what i wrote, so I will admit that I stated my statement wrong "I went knowing I will get section 10", this was wrong, but it was fast typing, what I meant is that I went knowing I have a high possibility to get section 10. This would have been better stated.
I am still not convinced that there is a huge risk to harm myself or others in the situation that I stated. I have been in several situations with greater speed and I do acknowledge that the safety attire should be worn, no doubt about it and I wear it from boots, helmet, jacket, gloves and pants [I also recommend that to all who ride]. So I know what I am doing, and at that time, I assessed the situation for an accident occurring which is very low, if not nil.
I don't think going on and on on this point will achieve anything more, if I was wrong, It would not have been dismissed. Don't tell me now the Magistrate did not know what she was doing, and I will refer back to having talked to two different lawyers and both stated that I should get section 10 and one stated if I don't get it to appeal the Magistrate decision . How come you are giving the opposite conclusion even it was dismissed??? I am confused, please clarify to me why you and Tim still give the opposite of what happened, I have two lawyers and a Magistrate differ from your opinions? so they did not consider all the points you mentioned? Do you think the Magistrate is happy for someone to go and waste their time and the public money? I went and knowing that I have a high possibility of getting section 10 and paying the court fees, I was lucky that the Magistrate saw the situation as it is and helped me, so I was lucky in the fact it was dismissed and not paying the court fees, this is the lucky part, but going to court and putting my case up, was not luck, I differ with your opinion as I have the proof. I can not put it any more clearer than this. Even Tim's comments do not show understanding of the law, as I stated, I had other comment asking for a friend situation and he did not answer properly he attacked my friend and me although I wrote what happened and he came attacking, if you are in touch with Tim ask him which issue and read for yourself. Tim comments did not answer in constructive manner and went to the max penalty for minor issue (why the other lawyer did not use the same approach or method, still I'm confused!!!), not to mention accusing my friend and me of being irresponsible and have a "GOD" complex. It is hard to convince me otherwise, while I had two lawyers and a Magistrate backing my case.

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

I didn't say a huge risk, and I'd agree it wasn't huge - but it was still a risk. Ultimately it doesn't really matter. The law says you are to wear a helmet in that situation, so that's what you're supposed to do. I've said before this isn't the venue to argue what the law should be and why. It's to discuss the laws that are.

As for what the Magistrate did and the conversations you had with two different lawyers I can't really comment. I wasn't there. We're relying on your relaying of what happened. The Magistrate obviously knew more about the matter than we did, and probably the lawyers did as well.. If I had to hazard a guess it would be that the Magistrate had bigger concerns to deal with and just wanted you gone (and maybe wanted to save the hassle of you appealing it anyway), and the lawyers approached the matter as if you were their client. You will not get that here. The responses we give here are not legal 'advice', but rather 'legal statements'. When I act for a client I am there to represent their interests. On this forum I am more of a neutral observer. If it's not clear, read the signature text at the bottom of my post. It's not just fluff.

You seem to be confused about what's been said when it comes to being 'lucky'. Of course you were lucky in your outcome. I don't think anyone's saying that the "going to court and putting my case up" involved luck. You admit that the outcome was the lucky part - so do I.

You also appear to be confused as to what the purpose of this site is. It's to give you information and point you in the right direction so that you can move in that manner. It's not to provide you with legal advice. I would doubt any lawyer worth their salt is going to put themselves on record and advise anyone on the strength of a paragraph or two on the internet. Also be aware that this is in effect 'pro bono' work for us. We're volunteering our knowledge, information and time by responding to queries.. There is a marketing aspect to it for the verified lawyers (such as myself), but we pay for that privilege. Know that as well as not being owed an answer, there's no compunction to take your side of things.
​

 

[Adam1user]

I didn't say a huge risk, and I'd agree it wasn't huge - but it was still a risk. Ultimately it doesn't really matter. The law says you are to wear a helmet in that situation, so that's what you're supposed to do. I've said before this isn't the venue to argue what the law should be and why. It's to discuss the laws that are.

As for what the Magistrate did and the conversations you had with two different lawyers I can't really comment. I wasn't there. We're relying on your relaying of what happened. The Magistrate obviously knew more about the matter than we did, and probably the lawyers did as well.. If I had to hazard a guess it would be that the Magistrate had bigger concerns to deal with and just wanted you gone (and maybe wanted to save the hassle of you appealing it anyway), and the lawyers approached the matter as if you were their client. You will not get that here. The responses we give here are not legal 'advice', but rather 'legal statements'. When I act for a client I am there to represent their interests. On this forum I am more of a neutral observer. If it's not clear, read the signature text at the bottom of my post. It's not just fluff.

You seem to be confused about what's been said when it comes to being 'lucky'. Of course you were lucky in your outcome. I don't think anyone's saying that the "going to court and putting my case up" involved luck. You admit that the outcome was the lucky part - so do I.

You also appear to be confused as to what the purpose of this site is. It's to give you information and point you in the right direction so that you can move in that manner. It's not to provide you with legal advice. I would doubt any lawyer worth their salt is going to put themselves on record and advise anyone on the strength of a paragraph or two on the internet. Also be aware that this is in effect 'pro bono' work for us. We're volunteering our knowledge, information and time by responding to queries.. There is a marketing aspect to it for the verified lawyers (such as myself), but we pay for that privilege. Know that as well as not being owed an answer, there's no compunction to take your side of things.
​

Good, I am not confused. I agree the site is not to give advice as you mentioned that there are other aspects which were not known (in other issues), but in my case all essential info I stated for someone to provide some feedback, I was not originally asking for legal advice, if you read my comments (the first one), I stated that I am wrong and asking if a section 10 can be obtained, so that means I acknowledge that I am wrong, and as I am asking for section 10, means there is explanation which includes that the risk is low. The answer should have been from Tim is "you do have a chance", that is all i was asking, but he went on saying that I think I will never ever have an accident and trying to get out of it. if someone understands section 10 knows that a person is acknowledging the person is guilty, what is so hard to understand that, should not a lawyer pick that up? I think any lawyer should understand if a person is asking to get section 10, then that means the person is admitting guilt with explanation. Also, what really pissed me off from Tim, is that when I asked about a friend's situation, he came attacking that both of use think we are "GODS" ie meaning that we will not have accident, even though I wrote why my friend acted the way he did. But Tim kept attacking, I don't understand why, the action is done and past, and I explained what happened and then he says I'm a GOD!, This is what pissed me off. He did not provide constructive feedback. As mentioned, when I talked to the other lawyers, there were no other information that is not as I stated in first post, all essential info I have included, and I got different view from what Tim or what you wrote, further more, he asked me if i know the difference between section 10 and asking good behavior where he referred to RMS???? what does RMS has to do with any of this? This is where I think he is confused, I am not dealing with RMS, I am dealing with the court, and the court will decide to give me section 10 or not. I did not know section 10 only of what I heard, but I read it, it is Section 10(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the second option is a good behavior bond, and I got the first option which is dismissal.
In summary, there is not way out of it, Tim was wrong in his answer, and his attitude. I am also disagree strongly with you that the Magistrate had bigger issues to deal with, for the following reasons, is that you are undermining the legal system process and secondly, if the Magistrate acted the way you said, he would have put me on good behavior bond, which means that if I have a fine within a period, i would pay for both, but she dismissed the matter, the facts are: I rode for a short distance, I rode at slow speed, it was a carpark, other factors that I included for consideration is that I have a good driving record, please read my first post, all the factors are included the same as I told both lawyers. There is only one aspect that I did not include but that will not affect the outcome for obtaining section 10 but I think it helped that the Magistrate wanted to help me financially (as it is a financial reason) by not paying the court fees (this is the luck part- fine dismissed, but knowing that I have a high chance to get section 10 was not luck, we both agree on that.
I have read my first post now and it is very clear, no confusion. Please read it again and see for yourself, the only thing I can say is I asked if the fine could be waved and then I wrote if section 10 is applicable, as I was not sure if section 10 would be applicable in this case. I was not trying to getting out of it or avoiding it, I don't know where that idea came out, read my first comment again.
Thanks for your time, I enjoyed it.

 

[sammy01]

Tim was right!

 

[sammy01]

To clarify.
Tim was right...
he said section 10 bond would not / could not happen because this is a traffic matter. He was right. He advised you to steer clear of this approach.

Someone else suggested you go down the private property road. Your response? "it is my ticket off. Great idea." Tim corrected you and again his advice was good. He even provided a reference to the road rules. You know. Like the law...

He also advised that " There is a remote possibility that the Magistrate will dismiss the matter.
That will not make you clever, just lucky."

Tim gave you Rock solid advice. 3 times. He was right every time... He helped you win this because you knew better than to go in asking for a section 10 when such an option is not available to the judge NOR did you go in making loony bin claims about private property, which would have equally made you look silly to magistrate and you took his advice. You went in, and plead for clemancy because there is a remote chance the Magistrate 'will dismiss the mater'. He helped you and your response? A thank you?
Nope... Not you champ... Mate you would have made a fool of yourself in court making stupid arguments... Read the whole thread again. He was the one that set you on the right path to win this thing. OUCH.