I went to Sutherland court today to see for myself what happens when you take a Beverly Hills "over 60" to court.
A driver was there who pleaded not guilty to 4 offences that were detected on the Northbound speed camera.
The driver told the judge he didn't realize it was 60 there, and spoke of the inadequate signage.
He said that if Police had pulled him over the first time (instead of the camera) he wouldn't have got the other three.
After admitting to the RTA lawyer that he was the driver of the vehicle in the speed camera photo, the judge ruled the offences proven and let the driver off 3 of the fines by way of a "section 10", no conviction, but you still loose the points.
It's all really a farce, you go to court, the judge listens, he realises the setup there is confusing because of the BS signage, but he can't throw it out, and because you've taken the trouble to front up, he says that the offences are proven, and gives you a "section 10"
The next driver after a spirited effort to sway the judge his way on a similar alleged offence after pleading guilty, was also awarded a "section 10", no fine but loss of points.
Would having a $1200 lawyer represent you make a difference?
This entry was posted on 14 Aug 2008 at 23:40 by hstephens and is filed under AA.