Man arrested for going 147mph - in a Hyundai Sonata

[RC45]

Originally Posted by Mattk Its a good thing then that this chap could have a jury trial Trial by jury for traffic offences? Back here, they're brought before a stipendiary magistrate and it's over quite quickly.

And pray tell why shouldn't you have a fair trial by a jury of your peers?

This is the difference between the US system of Justice - the greatest and fairest in the world and all the other ex-British colonial-source bastardized systems.

Roman Dutch etc - all presuppose your GUILT and require you to prove your innosence.. right?

Where as this system presumes innocence and requires guilt be proven to varing degrees of certainty depending on the court.

One of the reasons I made my to the USA from South Africa, was because of the nature of the judicial system.

Bill of rights etc etc.

The way I understand it, the Australian constitution does not guarentee any rights or common civil liberties - in other words it would seem you are property of the state - not the other way round

[ZfrkS62]

And pray tell why shouldn't you have a fair trial by a jury of your peers?

Because some countries train their citizens to bend over and take it

[Mattk]

The way I understand it, the Australian constitution does not guarentee any rights or common civil liberties - in other words it would seem you are property of the state - not the other way round

We actually have some rights enshrined in the constitution, like freedom of religion. We have rights defined by common and statute law, and they are good enough. Better, even. They can be changed by a democratically elected government without much fuss, enabling reform when we need it.

The prosecution has to prove guilt. They must provide an answerable case. Thereafter, the defendant must disprove what evidence and arguments now lies on the table. The judge then decides. In certain cases, like murder, there is a jury, but not civil cases, and not traffic offences.

[davide]

In sweden you are forced to have a good picture of the driver and the license plate, if you can't identify the driver behind the wheel they can't charge you with the fine.

That's why you just put your sunscreen down when a camera comes along...

[RC45]

Originally Posted by Mattk The way I understand it, the Australian constitution does not guarentee any rights or common civil liberties - in other words it would seem you are property of the state - not the other way round We actually have some rights enshrined in the constitution, like freedom of religion. We have rights defined by common and statute law, and they are good enough. Better, even. They can be changed by a democratically elected government without much fuss, enabling reform when we need it. .

This needs to be taken to the Poli-SCi forum -

http://www.motorworld.net/forum/show...=661422#661422

- but Australia has NO bill of rights - you have no constitutionally protected rights - if you did, then you would have a mechanism built into your judicial system allowing a citizen to bring a case against the govenrment that their rights were violated - Australia has NO such mechanism - therefore that surely means that you have NO protected rights - afterall, if you don't have a mechanism to challenge violation of said rights, how can you claim to have those rights or that they are protected in the first place?

While the ratification of ICCPR in 1980 shows that Australia will endevour to respect and protect freedom of religions beliefs it is still not a protected civil liberty and right. Far from it.

Here is some reading material to bone up on Aussie Rules

http://libertus.net/censor/fspeechlaw.html

Contrary to popular belief in some circles, Australians have no right to freedom of expression under the Australian Constitution. This section contains links to articles and briefing papers on "rights" the High Court has found to be implied in the Constitution and on international covenants signed by the Australian Government, but not necessarily adhered to, which may give rise to a legitimate expectation by Australians of a right to freedom of expression. (It should be noted that decisions of the government and/or the High Court affect the situation. This page is updated intermittently and does not necessarily contain the latest information.)

So - unless Aussie Rules have been substantially updated and changed since 2000, I think we know what your rights are... - You have more right to freedom of expresson on these forums, than you do in your own country.. hehe

[Mattk]

We can do everything that's not illegal. Which is a lot of things. This puts onus on the govt to prove that you have committed a wrong. Things like freedom of speech etc. are allowed if there is no legislation against it.

The Australian Capital Territory has a Bill of Rights.

You have to look at the context behind the Constitution. It was a facilitating document for federalism and outlines separation of powers and other such things. It wasn't to outline rights.

A Bill of Rights will become anachronistic. Like the American Bill of Rights. For example, the right to bear arms. That right was enacted so that people could defend their property from American Indians, and the British, and the Mexicans. But now, people just buy them to feel safe, even though if a robber comes into the house, it would be highly unlikely that they would be able to grab their guns and shoot up the robbers.

More to this case, not sure what the law is over there, but it is 50/50 for me. It could go either way. It depends on whether the judge is more Ralph Nader or Jeremy Clarkson.