No, you can be discharged without conviction, yet still disqualified.
arandomusername,
Jan 14, 8:57am
No you can't. A discharge without conviction is treated as an acquittal - i.e. no punishment (Crimes Act).
smac,
Jan 14, 9:10am
There's no debate there, and it happens. I've seen it first hand. As with much of our law, it doesn't mean squat what the learned professors in their offices think, it's what the judge orders on the day that actually happens.
arandomusername,
Jan 14, 8:59pm
Seeing as we disagree there might be some debate. And that's from a law firm, not 'professors in their offices'.
owene,
Jan 14, 9:39pm
Hahaha!
Loss of traction is caused by driver stupidity and if any of your excuses are valid then the driver was incompetant for having even got into the vehicle.
"Ah officer, I'm sorry my car slid and wiped out the lady with the pram on the pedestrian crossing but the road was wet, I am inexperienced, my car is too powerful. etc" Yeah right.
r15,
Jan 14, 9:52pm
owene you seem to be assuming the nz police are fair and just.
the quote you mention is what the law is there to prevent,however as mentioned above, if you are a young person with a half decent car the cops will target you, and will issue fines / impound for things that either didnt even happen, or barely happened.the 'sustained loss of traction' , the 'excessive noise' and 'excessive acceleration'offences that cops are able to dish out are simply subjective, in that no evidence is required to convict, other than a cop's word.
a simple squeek of a tyre is enough for some people to have their car impounded.i've seen it first hand.
the one thing that keeps coming up on here is the honesty / integrity of nz police, and unfortunately they are not all what they should be.though some contributors to this forum obviously have never seen just how bad some of nz's police force can be
budgel,
Jan 14, 10:00pm
How can the 22 year old brother be diqualified for six months without being convicted!
arandomusername,
Jan 14, 10:45pm
And enter the anti-police posters!
If the guy was discharged without conviction he would have had to plead guilty - meaning he admitted intentionally loosing traction. Not everything is a vast conspiracy of police corruption.
jeffqv,
Jan 14, 10:56pm
Its called Duty of Disclosure and failing to disclose any material fact in any Country can lead to a claim being declined.
tonyrockyhorror,
Jan 14, 11:51pm
Material being the operative word here.
owene,
Jan 15, 12:07am
So the answer is surely to not drive rip shit and bust type motor vehicles and then the cops won't notice you.
tonyrockyhorror,
Jan 15, 1:01am
Yeah! Or be dark skinned!
owene,
Jan 15, 3:55am
I'd have thought that'd be an advantage nowadays.
smac,
Jan 15, 8:17am
Ok, I have seen, in person,multiple traffic offense history printouts with disqualification sentences that have resulted from offenses that were discharged without conviction at trial.
You've looking at some 3rd party website.
Let the debate begin.
arandomusername,
Jan 15, 8:34am
Just because you claim to have seen it doesn't mean you're right.
There IS debate, here is a copy and paste from that "third party website":
"There is however case law referring to offenders being discharged without conviction thereby escaping the mandatory disqualification imposed under the Land Transport Act for a variety of motoring offences. The Land Transport Act 1998 states that where a provision in this Act requires a Court to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driver??
smac,
Jan 16, 7:30am
No, no I'm not. I'm not arguing, I'm stating facts.
Somebody above questioned how the person being discussed in this thread could have got a disqualification if they were not convicted. So I have explained that even though a case is discharged without conviction, a disqualification can still be imposed. Clear cut.
For some reason you have pointed out that there is legal opinion that when somebody is discharged without conviction this may avoid a mandatory disqualification. This is an entirely different circumstance and not at all relevant.Just because a mandatory disqualification is not imposed does not mean that the judge may not disqualify them. It just means they don't HAVE to. Not relevant to the OP.
Anywho.moving on.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.