What's involved when you go to court and dispute a traffic fine?
What cost can be imposed on the losing party?
How long is the actual court appearance?
Will represent myself.
What's Involved When You Go to Court and Dispute a Traffic Fine?
vegemite2008 on 06/02/2020 - 19:10
Last edited 07/02/2020 - 08:33 by 1 other user
Last edited 07/02/2020 - 08:33 by 1 other user
Comments
- 1
- 2
No.
Then what is the case?
Wait so in the last couple months you did something to get another ticket? Dude, drive better.
what happens?
Pre court room: meet with prosecutor to hash out a deal (usually pointless) They won’t let you off, so don’t bother asking. They need to pay for their time, so will want full price of fine.
Plead guilty, give excuse, ask for leniency
Plead not guilty, get adjourned and marked down for trial.
what costs?
Court costs (Fixed for a magistrate) and the original fine plus any fees (they can’t hit you up for $50,000 in lawyers fees)
how long?
Could wait all day. Once in front of the magistrate, about 5 to 30 mins.
Represent self?
If pleading guilty, yes. Pleading not guilty, get a lawyer.
Source: been to court twice for traffic offences many years ago.
hmm, so there's no way to get a free trial, even if you represent yourself and found to be not guilty?
No. If you plead “not guilty” it will be set down for trial. You will need a lawyer for that.
Best case I got was to plead guilty, explained my case. Magistrate waived the fine, gave me a good behaviour bond and charged me $66 court costs. Second time was reduced fine and court costs of $108. Lost a day off work both times.
You don't 'need' a lawyer though one is recommended. A friend fought a red light fine, (issued by two police who the magistrate found to be unreliable in their testimony). Defended himself, took all day (plus an initial appearance to plead not guilty). Cost $0, got off.
Both sides just had two witnesses saying opposite things, that the light was red / light was green. No other evidence was allowed, except the prosecutors photo of the scene (my friend's photo was not allowed), they had someone testify the light was functioning correctly, but there wasn't any dispute of that, just the colour. The police testified that from 20m back they saw them cross the stop line on a red, but the photo showed the line was very faded and not visible from that distance.
@[Deactivated]: For every story like that, I can give you a story where someone defended themselves, had absolute NFA and got lumped with $800-1500 in costs as well as losing a day of income.
@Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Probably 10:1. Yeah. If you have an actual story with costs though that's what OP was asking, given I only know someone that won I have no idea what the costs would have been.
@[Deactivated]: Costs and potential additional costs are all on the Court website if OP bothered to look.
@Milk tea: Yes. Would you call “waiting for your turn in court” as a good use for an annual leave day?
How ever you get the day off, it’s a wasted day, as either, you don’t get paid, or it’s one less sick/annual leave day you don’t get to use for something you actually need it for.
Ergo; wasted day.
Prosecutors do not need to 'pay for their time'. And if they did the fine frankly wouldn't go close in most cases. Look at the cost of running your state's prosecution service and police force compared to the fines paid. Fines do not fund prosecutors.
If you lose, you will have to pay the fine, plus some court costs and contribute to the victims compensation fund, its usually around $100 extra all up.
I contested once years ago when the officer gave me 3 fines for one supposed offence because we were being belligerent to him. When I went to court the prosecutor offered to withdrawal 2 of the fines which I accepted. In hindsight I recon I had a good shot of contesting all 3.
More interested in actual costs involved. How long is the actual court appearance etc. Thanks
the cheapest path is to pay the fine and learn from your mistake.
That's presuming the infringement fits the circumstances of the traffic incident, which in some cases doesn't. That's why we have courts, for presenting your case and avoiding unfair fines. The review process before any court action is a joke these days, as they employ "zero tolerance" on things like parking in loading zones, so probably just auto-respond with templated rejection. A real human brain doesn't review your case until you turn up to court.
A real human brain doesn't review your case until you turn up to court.
If you read the thread, a real human wrote the ticket, if you also look at the OP other posts, they also got fined recently for driving while using a mobile.
I'm pretty sure the ticket will stick, but if you want your taxpayer dollars wasted dealing by telling people to fight it, then sure.
@JimmyF: Its the OP's right to contest it if he wants to. He may or may not have a good case, we don't know the details and are not qualified to make the decision anyway.
People writing tickets do make errors, as do all humans except apparently most drivers on ozbargain forums. Even cameras have sometimes been found to be unreliable. That's why the court appeal system exists.
OP is asking about the process and likely costs, I presume from somebody who has been through it, not for moral judgements. If all fines were correctly issued there would be no need for a court process.
It makes me laugh on here every time there is a thread about fines and all the perfect drivers who have never made an error jump up and down on their high horses about it. I only wish the drivers I encounter on the road every day were as good as those on here profess to be!
@berry580: Tax-payers pay for the prosecutor regardless of the outcome. Prosecutors are employed by the state.
a real human wrote the ticket
The ticket writer is basically a robot following rules to the letter. A real human doesn't review your case and consider other factors until court.
driving while using a mobile
Okay, but I wasn't interested in specific case of OP. I hate drivers who use mobiles. The worst I saw was a P-plater girl drive through a pedestrian crossing while looking at her phone in her lap as she drove through. I was a pedestrian waiting to cross. Couldn't believe what I saw. So yes, in many cases the fine should be paid for the mistake.
But it's no secret that revenue from fines is a river of gold. The millions earned every year is depended on, and is a factor in enforcement action or lack of action. An example of lack of action is neglecting to fix those confusing stacked parking signs. Some are virtually honeypot fine traps. Overlapping stacks of signs all bolted to the same pole. When drivers pull up intending to park, they need to make a decision in a timely manner. This works against them as they are faced with multi-level conditional logic puzzles to determine if parking is allowed. "Just pay the fine for your mistake" doesn't cut it for this, and many other circumstances.
No cost except your time. I contested traffic fines in court, there were no court costs and my fine was waived. You plead guilty, usually because technically you are. But there are reasons why a financial penalty is unreasonable in some instances, and you get to present a case on that basis.
Yup. I self contested a lapsed rego fine (back in the day just after the 2 week grace period ended in VIC) and had the fine recinded but did have a court undertaking of paying the similar amount to a registered charity. Court cost was nil apart from the day waiting to be called. Infringement itself remained on my summary record.
No cost except your time.
Not true, you can end up with court costs.
Well okay it seems court costs happen at times. In my case, the 2 times I've contested fines in court, no court costs and I got my fines binned in under 5 minutes (after waiting all morning for my turn to speak).
Pay the fine and don’t use your mobile when driving.
Court could take the whole day, but you'll only be in there for under an hour.
If you're convicted, it'll show on every police clearance for years (I have one from about 13yrs ago still showing up on new clearances)
Make sure you have a rock solid case with evidence. If it's hearsay, don't even bother
"If you're convicted, it'll show on every police clearance for years (I have one from about 13yrs ago still showing up on new clearances)"
So if I pay the fine it wont show up?
If you pay the fine, you wouldn't bother going to court and wasting a day, would you?
You did not answer my question ;-)
"If you're convicted, it'll show on every police clearance for years (I have one from about 13yrs ago still showing up on new clearances)"
So if I pay the fine it wont show up?
@spackbace: So if I pay the fine, the traffic offence (speeding) will show up on a police clearance?
@vegemite2008: If you just pay it and don't go to court I'm pretty sure it doesn't show up on any police records.
I don't know why this keeps getting downvoted. It's a good question. Maybe it's the person who won't or can't answer it who's ill-informed.
Paying a penalty notice isn't an admission of guilt and doesn't result in a conviction, thus it won't show up on a criminal record. Paying a penalty notice means the state is barred from prosecuting you for the same alleged offence in court.
What if it's a speeding fine and lost your licence? I thought that gets resulted in a conviction?
@RocketSwitch: Depends. You'll be forced to front court and convicted if it's speeding over a certain amount - you won't have the option of just paying a fine in that case.
If you lose the licence because of lots of minor speeding tickets and incurring too many points, iirc no conviction.
Paying a penalty notice isn't an admission of guilt
Except you can't just simply pay it once you've taken the matter to court. You can't go "oh, you found me guilty, I'll just go pay the fine and all will be golden." Instead you'll be re-issued the charge, along with court costs
Correct, unless it's an offence for which a conviction is automatically recorded (excessive speed, drink/drug driving). (Vic)
If you don't mind me asking, is it a traffic-related offence? And is it summary or indictable? Because my understanding is that in all states except Victoria, convictions are spent after 10 years (except some more serious ones). In Victoria, the police have their own policy not to disclose offences over 10 years old where there are no offences in the interim.
Last year, I had a speeding offence which I considered taking to court but I received legal advice that it wouldn't be worthwhile as the offence will only show on my traffic record, not a police check. Though I haven't ordered one to verify this.
Umm just a traffic fine, "excessive noise" 😂
That's so utterly ridiculous to show up on a police check, especially 13 years later! Surely it would be eligible to be spent - just had a look and it seems that in WA, convictions are spent by request.
@ascorbic: Police always record, and have access to, everything on your record. Always. Same with prosecutors. If you attend Court to try and get off a fine, expect them to drag up something similar from ages ago despite it no longer appearing on any checks.
There's also different kinds of police checks. Some will show everything, even from more than 10 years ago.
Even if you get let off an offence completely, it'll be on their records next time you get pulled over. Don't expect to be given a warning :)
I believe it becomes a criminal offence after you loose in court hence goes on your record.
Prior to that it is considered an infringement.
Pay the fine
Like a good little soldier.
Yeh, nah.Most of the time, it's probably cheaper.
Why if he thinks it was a mistake and has a decent argument?
More interested in actual costs involved
Court electing the fine doesn’t cost you anything. It’s more about how much it will cost you if you lose the case - criminal record, fine, prosecutor costs, court costs levy….
Keep in mind there is a directions hearing before the actual final hearing. So spare 2 mornings for the case
What is the ticket for?
A drink driving ticket (even if paid) is a conviction.
A parking ticket, is not.
A low range PCA ticket auto suspends your licence. It would have to be proven in court for a conviction to be recorded
A parking or any traffic offence is a conviction under the traffic act.
Drink driving is a criminal offence under the act.
I can only comment on VIC (not sure where OP got the ticket).
In VIC, the only ticket that results in the recording of a conviction, is a Drink or Drug Driving ticket.
Traffic offence speeding.
Police hand-written fine, or speed camera?
Either way, good luck. Only way out of that is video proof you weren't (dash-cam with GPS), or proof the radar was faulty/not calibrated
How fast were you going?
What outcome are you looking for?
Reduced fine?
handwritten
And what proof/evidence do you have that you weren't speeding?
Might be good practise to talk about it here, before you front a much more formal public forum at court.
then your guilty, pay the fine and stop wasting tax payer dollars on court cases.
So you got a speeding fine along with the using your mobile while driving fine?
reads that way, I think it's best we allow Mr/s Vegemite2008 to consider their court options, my money is on conviction and loss of license which is a good thing for everyone else on the road
Pay the fine and move on. If you are trying leniency because you have a good driving record, just write a letter to the authority on the fine ticket. Mind you you will still have to have a very clean record for a number of years. And its still up to the reviewer to knock it back. Which is likely as its all a revenue raiser. Also how many Kms were you over. If its like 2 or 3kms over this may help, but if well over limit forget it again.
Go to court and tell us how much money and time you lost from the original fine. That would be a good topic - 'Went to court to fight speeding ticket. Now out of pocket. Advice '
That would be a good topic - 'Went to court to fight speeding ticket. Now out of pocket. Advice '
This is ozbargain. They don't want advice, they want advise. lol
I noticed the OP didn't reply into my assumptions about Kms over limit. Why do people think its worth going to court? You lose a day's wages unless you take a sickie. Then if you lose you still have to pay the fine and court costs. Representing yourself to save a fine. Might be a good idea in theory. Would have to be rock solid evidence. There was a way around the camera ones, but not a written fine.
OP was probably speeding fast enough that merits loss of licence. I'll put money on it.
Like I asked before, don't people have any annual leave accumulated for a rainy day?
If you are trying leniency because you have a good driving record
Except OP can't:
Since it's apparent you have no experience in a courtroom environment, it's pretty likely you'll get torn a new one by the prosecution - even if the prosecutor is Lionel Hutz.
Depends on the magistrate really. I had a friend defend themselves and win, and the magistrate was basically making sure the tricky questions were being understood correctly etc.
At the end of the day the prosecution has to be less believable than you if you're simply arguing they have made a mental error and there's a complete lack of evidence, so you'll have to be impeccably believable and they'll need to slip up.
Took a whole damn day plus the time to plead not guilty on an earlier day, so you'd really want to know you're right or have evidence and be prepared to spend that time.
Unless the fine is huge and/or you're at risk of losing the license, I can't see how you'll come out on top by missing a day of work.
But you mentioned in December on your other post "Spotless driving for more than 20 years."
it's not spotless anymore, isn't it?
Wow, this must be an Ozbargain record. 15 paragraphs long and every paragraph has a completely false or misleading comment in each.
I don't even know where to start tearing this down.
I think my favourite part is the quoting of a Bible verse in replacement of actual law…
I wonder if elixe wears clothes made of 2 different textiles…
However if you hope for a discounted fine just because … you will be severely disappointed.
I think that line is good advice. Don't go to court on some vague mission. Are you guilty or not guilty of the alleged offence? Can you offer any evidence that will stand up in court? Is it a better bargain to pay a fixed fine now rather than the time, trouble and uncertainty in going to court?
Is this the mantra of the self-represented litigant?
I'm betting on "Sovereign Citizen"…
fighting the “corporation” lol
I love sovereign citizens. So good for a laugh
@one man clan: “Am I under arrest, or am I free to go?”
*smashed_window.mp3*
“I do not consent… i dO NoT cOnSeNt!!!”
*police_dog_action_video.webm*
you must be 'beligerant' (look it up).
I looked it up and Google said: Did you mean: belligerent
I went to court to fight what was seen as an unwinnable speeding ticket which had a ban.
It took a morning listening to the others before my case came up.
I paid the lawyer $2G. He kept the timewasting down and he got me off scott free.
Thats how the law works - its a business.
The judge sees you've paid his profession and you get off.
If you represent yourself the judge will see that you are a lightweight and will throw the book at you.Don't think we are any better than other asian states - you pay you win.
The judge sees you've paid his profession and you get off.
If you represent yourself the judge will see that you are a lightweight and will throw the book at you.Or, here's a thought, someone whose profession is dealing with the law knows how to deal with the law better than a layperson…
We are way less corrupt than the likes of Indonesia/Malaysia. It depends which Asian countries you're referring to.
Don't waste your time and theirs and pay the bloody fine. If it is a simple matter you will be in court 15 minutes (after waiting 2 hours), found guilty, and pay the fine plus about $200 court costs, or admonished, no fine, but still charged court costs of $200. Police, and the court system, have more important things to do, than to do than deal with dweebs who have an axe to grind.
- 1
- 2
Are you contesting https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/508190