Hi,
One of my acquaintance has got a ticket for taking a left turn on red light. It includes a fine of $325 with 3 demerit points. Going by different discussion threads, I understand the options he has:
1) Plead guilty and fine may be reduced and demerit points may come off. Does he need to have to get a court date to negotiate a lower fine if go for this option or can go on any day withing the first 15 days ?
2) Contest the ticket as there is a doubt about the light being Amber/Red when he took the turn ? I think for this he has to get the court date for trial and then see on the court date if the cop shows up and if judge reduces the fine on accepting the charges?
Can we ask for the disclosure related to this ticket without going for trial or it would be part of the trial process ?
By how much the auto insurance premium is expected to go up ? He is with State Farm, Mississauga and have G license and have ~ 3 years of driving experience in Canada (and in the age group >55 if that matters in case of premium)
Thanks,
Option 2 - Don't hire paralegal . Fight it out on your own in court . If there s no hard evidence against your relative like cameras or witnesses , chance is benefit of doubt is a likelihood .
Do not accept the charge . Reduction of fine / demerit points does not help you escape insurance increase .... Guilty is guilty is guilty .
Let the Judge decide .. That s why he / she is known as a Judge. Anything else is simply reducing his / her job .
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fido.
Thanks Fido. Do you know if we can ask for disclosure related to this ticked after getting the trial date or before it ? I assume it is possible to plead guilty during anytime/on trial day, if we feel that the evidence are strong enough (from the disclosure) ?
And any idea on the insurance premium changes due to this, if convicted ?
Quote:
Originally posted by MeagainMe
Thanks Fido. Do you know if we can ask for disclosure related to this ticked after getting the trial date or before it ? I assume it is possible to plead guilty during anytime/on trial day, if we feel that the evidence are strong enough (from the disclosure) ?
And any idea on the insurance premium changes due to this, if convicted ?
For the detailed process, please read the site suggested by FIDO in another thread : ticketcombat.com. It has step by step instructions.
Most important, don't lose hope or become nervous - I have seen charges being withdrawn in the court even when cop is present and all the documentation is complete. There are lots of technical issues and if the prosecution feels that any judgement arrived at due to improper or insufficient evidence will be easily challenged in higher court. Fight it till end, confidently - there are more than 50% chances of you coming out unaffected. Don't worry about losing or guilty acceptance till the judgement is delivered.
The way insurance works is - for the first offence in 3 years, there is no increase in charge - BUT - you are unofficially bound to the same insurer for next 3 years. If you change, other companies will charge higher due to conviction. Even your existing company will charge a slight 2-5% increase during renewal, but that happens every year anyways.
At this stage, just prepare to file your intention to contest in court and follow the steps as listed in website above.
Good luck.
Hiren
How much CD site has evolved in the last few years.
I was attacked hammer and tongs when I had used google maps on this very site to suggest to another CDian from OTTAWA that he should FIGHT his ticket.
Many in this very site said that what I suggested was unethical.
I had written then even if you are wrong you should fight your ticket.
Many persons blasted me for this suggestion.
I feel vindicated by this and another similar thread that what is been suggested in Ticketcombat they say the very same.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Leone a true Canadian DESI now back in India !.
Location: God's own country
Posted on: 15-02-12 01:06:27
Vandamataram:
I donot know if you knew it already but them people are angry with you for telling them about the real happenings in Canada. That is why, when ever you say something that is termed as "unthical" by others, they jump on you, when they have the same right to the unethical behaviour.
Practice what you preach, should be told to them
Peace
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Gents and not a Ladies.
My point goes in a completely different direction but is in some ways similar to TKs. Many people want the laws applied to other people (say someone who caused them injury in a car accident) and not to themselves (say someone who plans to maintain innocence unless they find there is evidence they are caught and then they will plead guilty without addressing whether or not they think they ARE guilty in the first place).
Sure your relative might get away with turning at a red light in court. There was no collision. Tell them to fight it if they feel thats the right thing to do and tell them to start following the law. If they did in fact turn on a red I doubt they had any ill intent and it was probably a mistake but that doesn't make it legal.
Traffic laws exist so that drivers behave in a predictable manner in order to reduce the number of people that need to be pryed out of their car or scraped off the road.
Quote:
Originally posted by Vandematram
How much CD site has evolved in the last few years.
I was attacked hammer and tongs when I had used google maps on this very site to suggest to another CDian from OTTAWA that he should FIGHT his ticket.
Many in this very site said that what I suggested was unethical.
I had written then even if you are wrong you should fight your ticket.
Many persons blasted me for this suggestion.
I feel vindicated by this and another similar thread that what is been suggested in Ticketcombat they say the very same.
Glad you feel better. It seems it affected you quite badly if you held a grudge for years.
I don't mean to cause you any emotional harm by disagreeing with your position but hopefully there is room for debate. To me the "see what you can get away with" approach is, as your former detractors said, unethical. I'll agree your approach makes sense from a purely financial perspective. If the details of what you are being accused of are inaccurate it can also make sense to plead not guilty despite believing you are guilty of the offense. Using a model like Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development the belief that you're guilty only if caught red handed and that you should lie to avoid consequences is not really an "evolved" position, to use your terminology.
But yeah, some people think what is best for them is the same as what is right, some rich people for example can hire better (or craftier) lawyers and get away with all kinds of crime. Throw a few dollars at charity and they are model citizens! Its too bad that it's generally in our best interest for other people to follow the rules. Why should the rest of us have to drive slow and signal and watch the lights (or pay tax or not beat our wives or whatever criminal things rich people can do).
Letting everyone do whatever they want seems more fair and somehow more Canadian than just letting those who don't get caught with irrefutable evidence off the hook. Driving anarchy would add an element of excitement to Canadian life and parents could save a fortune in driving school costs (and maybe education costs if accidents increase fatalities).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My prayer to you
Is that you do all the things you set out to do
And live your life the way you love
Thurston Moore, Psychic Hearts
