bush lawyer needed

[barneys]

in a mag i read (on the road )readersletters
it goes a long the lines of
he is  parked in a area not designated  as a free and or roadside stop away from impending  other traffic , when he is  approached by someone in authority demanding he move on  . he explain he is tired and has taken meds and would be a danger to other cars on the road . so he  refuse to move . then the person  becomes insistent and he is threatened  with a on the spot fine   , now  he would like to know where he would stand in court of law

[Prado BB]

I would offer that it depends on who owns the land, what authority the person making the demand has and under what authority/legislation he  could issue the supposed "on the spot fine".  There is insufficient information to conclude what the outcome would be in court.  Can you tell us who was making the threat of a fine? This may shed some light on his or her authority.

[barneys]

prado he dose not say

[darren]

I have often thought of this. The thing i always would play on is the modern person unwillingness to take responsibility.
So i would ask said officer maybe sign something demanding you drive on in your tired state, or tell them you are recording the moment on your phone.
Work the stop revive survive angle...
Dont know if it would work but i stop in heaps of places and thats what i am going to do

Or tell him you are going to punch him in the head....

[barneys]

darren i think the last one wood send the ?in a totally different direction

[Prado BB]

Let's assume it's on a freeway then in NSW.  The Road Rules 2008 state:

177   Stopping on a freeway

(1)  A driver must not stop on a freeway unless:
(a)  the driver stops in an emergency stopping lane, or
(b)  the driver's vehicle is permitted to stop on the freeway under another law of this jurisdiction.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.


Note 1. Driver's vehicle is defined in the Dictionary, and emergency stopping lane is defined in rule 95.
Note 2. Rule 178 sets out when a driver can stop in an emergency stopping lane.
(1–1)  This rule does not apply to:
(a)  the driver of a truck while stopped in a truck parking area, or
(b)  the driver of a public bus used to provide a public passenger service, while stopped:
(i)  in a bus parking area, or
(ii)  in a bus zone or at a bus stop to drop off or pick up passengers, or
(c)  the driver of a vehicle who is authorised to maintain facilities in a bus parking area, while stopped in the bus parking area for that purpose.
Note 1. Bus parking area, public bus, public passenger service, truck and truck parking area are defined in the Dictionary. Bus zone is defined in rule 183 (2). Vehicle is defined in rule 15.
Note 2. This subrule is an additional NSW subrule. There is no corresponding subrule in rule 177 of the Australian Road Rules.
(2)  A freeway is a length of road to which a freeway sign applies.
(3)  A freeway sign on a road applies to a length of road beginning at the sign (including any road into which the length of road merges) and ending at the next end freeway sign on the road.

So I would say, no he can't stop there. But, if he is claiming he is fatigued and a possible danger to himself and others, then a duty of care would prevail and make the officer liable to a degree. So, if he drove off, had and accident and survived, was able to identify the officer and convince the judge that he is telling the truth (because the officer will probably claim he did no such thing) then he may be able claim compensation form the state under the law of tort. My thought only
Yes i'm bored tonight

[Estelle]

On the spot fine indicates some level of Govt 'official'. So prob not private land.

If no signs to say otherwise, and not contrary to state road or council regs, I'd say someone has an authority problem.

You did mention 'bush lawyer' 

[Geoffwin]

I would suggest that if you were not parked (or camped) contrary to a sign and if the person did not identify themselves and their position and authority you would win (in court)

It would come down to how reasonable the direction to move on was as most enforcement positions carry some authority to issue a "reasonable direction". If your description is correct it may well be considered to be an unreasonable direction.

Depending how much you want an argument, asking for the Act and regulation under which the enfringement notice would be appropriate however this will also be written on the notice.

If it was a council officer they should be able to give you the council regulation or bylaw they are using to ask you to move on.

[MDS69]

OK Andy but what if the copper lets the fatigued driver stay in the breakdown lane where he is not lawfully allowed to stop if he doesn't meet the criteria above and someone slams into the parked car and the same copper who let him stay there and also turns up to the accident comments that he had discussions earlier in the evening and let the fatigued driver stop there. Could the motorist that drifted into the "illegally" stopped car sue the copper even though if he drifted he was probably fatigued.

[Paul Mac]

Depends on where he had pulled over. If it were on the side of a freeway or in a no standing zone then of course the 'person in authority' can tell him to move along.

If it was merely away from the road somewhere out in the never never then I can't understand a 'person in authority' insisting on someone moving on if they were fatigued or had taken medication too dangerous for the person to continue driving.

I don't believe the person writing into the mag is giving us all the details.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers.

[Prado BB]

OK Andy but what if the copper lets the fatigued driver stay in the breakdown lane where he is not lawfully allowed to stop if he doesn't meet the criteria above and someone slams into the parked car and the same copper who let him stay there and also turns up to the accident comments that he had discussions earlier in the evening and let the fatigued driver stop there. Could the motorist that drifted into the "illegally" stopped car sue the copper even though if he drifted he was probably fatigued.

Good point Mark. That's why lawyers are rich, they can argue the various bits of conflicting information, acts and regulations until everyone has spent a fortune, made the lawyers wealthy and the judge can make a decision that can then be appealed and the process starts all over again until one party runs out of money - now that would be the motorist right?

[D4D]

I think Darren was correct, punch him in the head

[morgue]

Ok...I'll have a go...legal studies 101...

Must have proof, verbal or written that the driver has been forced to move on...ie on the spot fine....step 1

Fine giverer(gov't official)...proof that it was not neg that driver was moved on, eventhough explained to the person he was under influence of meds, proof that meds would not effect driver. Step 2

But...and there is a but...

If driver had an accident /incident whilst under the influence of med, ie whilst driving, proof that meds where still in his system...well, it would be on for young and old..

[Prado BB]

actually, punch in the head sounds good tonight, yeah, let's go with that one.

[bullfrog]

Or ask the "officer " if he told anyone where he was going.......

[Bird]

It would come down to his word verses the "official"

and we know who wins

[TroyE]

darren for PM, punchem in the head

troy

lawyers "suck" up money faster then home reno's 

[MDS69]

actually, punch in the head sounds good tonight, yeah, let's go with that one.

I will come and visit you in the big house . Might need someone better than a bush lawyer

[darren]

I will come and visit you in the big house . Might need someone better than a bush lawyer

Dennis Denuto perhaps???

[Maîneÿ . . .]

in a mag i read (on the road )readersletters
it goes a long the lines of

he is  parked in a area not designated  as a free and or roadside stop away from impending  other traffic , when he is  approached by someone in authority demanding he move on  . he explain he is tired and has taken meds and would be a danger to other cars on the road . so he  refuse to move . then the person  becomes insistent and he is threatened  with a on the spot fine   , now  he would like to know where he would stand in court of law

Well you must know some of my hassles, lol, this scenario happened to me in about 2005/6, I was with a gf just having a night out, as you do

We had 'parked' (just like teenagers) in a car-park down on the South West coast, close to Margaret River, there was another guy and his gf parked there in his car also.
I'm telling you we were, umm yes well we did that too and decided to stay the evening, we had had maybe 2 (6 or 9) drinks, there are signs on the main road saying "don't drive tired" and on that evening there was a huge concert on at one of the bigger wineries, forget who but if I said John Farnam & a band of that era I would not be far off line as we could hear the music in the evening (somehow)

Early next morning we woke to the noise of a ranger being yelled at by the other couple as they drove off fast and furiously.

The ranger then come over to us and explained he was going to book us for 'camping' in an area where there are signs specifically stating no camping is permitted, I did not see this sign when I arrived as it was dark and I was not looking for signs, but I do remember the ocean looked terrific in the moonlight.

I calmly explained to the ranger, we were both tired as we had been to the Lewin winery concert that evening, (stretching the truth - well we did hear it) and stopped to 'look at the ocean' on the way home and had a few wines while doing so. (How romantic is that - it does work too)

I told the ranger it was his choice to 'book' me and I would defend myself in Court, I calmly advised him I would use as part of my evidence to my defense, the messages on TV and the local signs stating "don't drive tired" and also the fact that you should not drive with in excess blood alcohol content either. I assured him I was not in control of my vehicle at this time as I was not aware where the keys were, so would look for them when the sun was up and then leave.

The ranger then had no 'logical' reason to book me, and I could see he was a tad miffed, but he left us in the car-park to continue 'watching the ocean' 

.    .    .    .    .    .     

[barneys]

i think it is all in the way you put your argument  to the person .
if you yell at them  you as good as gone

[dazzler]

in a mag i read (on the road )readersletters
it goes a long the lines of
he is  parked in a area not designated  as a free and or roadside stop away from impending  other traffic , when he is  approached by someone in authority demanding he move on  . he explain he is tired and has taken meds and would be a danger to other cars on the road . so he  refuse to move . then the person  becomes insistent and he is threatened  with a on the spot fine   , now  he would like to know where he would stand in court of law

Obviously there are a lot of variables here.  If it was in fact a 'person in authority' then image its either a council ranger or a main roads officer.  Whoever owns the land parked on has authority to enforce whatever law or act is enacted.  Some authority will own it (its not really a free country  ).  There may be a local govt by law or something under state or territory law.  They dont have to erect signs explaining the law as the old line 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' states.

From a legal point most of these laws are strict and absolute.  Intent is not a component to prove the offence. There is often no defence to it. Reasonableness is not a requirement, it wont mitigate the offence but may determine whether or not you get a caution, which it sounds was the case in this scenario.

Whether or not there is a move on power depends upon the Act.  I know that our local by law has a specific section that police can arrest someone refusing to move from a road related area when requested.

How someone reacts to being advised that they are committing an offence and could they move is really up to them and their level of intelligence.  Most intelligent people would plead ignorance and ask where they can park legally for two hours while they 'revive'.  

[singo-26]

How someone reacts to being advised that they are committing an offence and could they move is really up to them and their level of intelligence.  Most intelligent people would plead ignorance and ask where they can park legally for two hours while they 'revive'.  

I wonder where their liability would end if they moved you on whilst you were tired, Drug affected (prescription) or intoxicated, And the official was told this, If there was an accident.

[dazzler]

Interesting question that I have no  answer to. It would of course be a pretty extreme case for that to happen.

Duty of care would probably need to be considered so if you refused the cops could probably tow the vehicle away and leave you or take you into protective custody.   A fun time by all! 

[singo-26]

There would have to be some discretionary power given to the officer. I had an instance 18 months ago where I had to drive some distance with a sprained left ankle. After 3 hours of driving my ankle was throbbing. I pulled into a truck rest area and took 2 panadine forte. These knock me flat for a while so I sat and read a book for about 90 mins till I felt confident to drive safely. If I had of been fronted by an officer I would have reasonably explained my situation, and in that situation discretion could have been used and I be allowed to stay for a fair and reasonable amount of time.
There is probably more to the story that started the thread than we are getting told.