Re: Speed Camera Fine/NSW-wrong Driver?HELP!

On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:22:11 -0700d, sgam Blathered on
in98368994-ce73-44c4-857a-8c53ccc98d19@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 11, 5:10 pm, Toby Ponsenby <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:41:29 +1000d, Noddy Blathered on
>> in48265d38$0$89007$c30e3...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > "George W. Frost" <fro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >news:4HsVj.15$IK1.10@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> Don't think that line will work
>>
>> >> Owner****p of the vehicle is proof enough for them, if you are the
>> >> owner, then you are responsible,
>>
>> > Bit hard to be responsible for something that was taken without your
>> > permission while you were out of the country.
>>
>> Interesting thought - and that's defo the way it should be. But you
>> forget the disgusting legislation's role in all of this.
>>
>> --
>> Toby
> 
> I would have thought common law would take precedence over their silly
> rules?
> Oh, yeah, but then, it'd be innocent until...
> 
> Cheers,
> Steve



You're right.
the common law *does* take precedence over statute rubbish under 
discussion - but to get there, anyone attempting to use the common law in 
these situations needs immense patience, and understanding lawyer or 
three and an incredibly thick hide. This is precisely because the statute 
rubbish and the GovCo purveyors of the rubbish statutes run a court 
system putting every possible obstacle in the way quite deliberately.
BTW, GovCo hasn't quite had the gall to stop an accused person 
representing themselves at court.
That can be done at each end of the system for cases such as the one 
under discussion - if it gets that far. 
These are the magistrates court, and the high court. In both situations, 
the court 'officers' don't get any say and can't make deals sacrificing 
the accused in admissibility or otherwise of material:-) 



-- 
Toby