What is the minimum speed limit? I was wondering if there was a minimum speed limit? I.e. if the speed limit is for example 60, is there a limit to how slow I can go before it counts as breaking the road rules? Is it relative to each speed limit or is there just one minimum? If that is too broad, I live in Australia, so the rule(s) for Australia is enough.
In most Australian states, it is an offence to drive &quot;abnormally slowly&quot; in a way that unreasonably obstructs drivers or pedestrians. For example, in New South Wales: A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only because: b. the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the circumstances). Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly : A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road to which a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.
No First, no new laws came into effect - new restrictions under existing law did. Specifically, the Premier declared a State of Disaster under s23(1) of the Emergency Management Act 1986 which requires it to be broadcast from a broadcasting station in Victoria (the televised press conference did that) and published in the government gazette (see first link). The government gazette is the communication channel for the promulgation of law - once it's in that then you are deemed to know it. The specific restrictions were communicated in the press conference and the power to impose them comes from s24(2)(d): (2) In addition to and without in any way limiting the generality of subsection (1), in a state of disaster the Minister may— (d) control and restrict entry into, movement within and departure from the disaster area or any part of it Note that this is a different Act than the previous restrictions which were under s200 of the public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. Second, ignorance is only an excuse when the law says it is an excuse. Neither of the above laws do that. Most laws don't do that. An example of one that does (that I know from personal experience) is s58 of the new-south-wales Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2017 which says: For the purposes of section 68(2)(b) of the Act, the use of an unregistered registrable vehicle on a road or on a road related area is permitted if the person using the vehicle-- (a) was not the responsible person for the vehicle at the relevant time, and (b) did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that the vehicle was unregistered at the relevant time. However, even here, the ignorance plea is in relation to the facts of the situation, not the applicable law. My son drove my company car while unregistered and pled this defence. The regulator denied that he had a reasonable excuse because he should have checked the registration status using the NSW Government App before driving it. That is, my son had a duty to make all reasonable efforts to establish the registration status of the vehicle. However, they used their discretion and waived the fine. Which brings me to ... Third, officers, prosecutors and judges have discretion in how they apply the law. While ignorance is not an excuse, it is a factor that they can consider in deciding if you should be penalised and how much that penalty should be.
Their code, their rules A copyright holder is free to offer their work under none, one or many licences. They can, at the same time, use their own work however they see fit without regard to the licences they have given/sold to others (except, they can only give one person an exclusive licence). As an analogy, let’s say I own a fleet of cars. I can drive my cars anytime I want. I can let Jim drive my cars anytime he wants for free. I can let Mary drive a specific car on Thursdays and only within 10km of the depot. I can let Joe drive my cars providing he pays me $50 a day. And I’m not going to let Fred drive them at all because Fred’s a jerk. Each of those is a different licence.
The statutory requirement for sentencing guidelines are at section 120 Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which includes: (2) A sentencing guideline may be general in nature or limited to a particular offence, particular category of offence or particular category of offender. Therefore, not every offence etc requires - or has - its own specific sentencing guideline. (Presumably as there are far too many offences to easily cover, so limited resources might need to be focused on the more common ones.) Note that at the foot of the Sentencing Council's explantory materials is this link: Where there is no guideline for an offence, refer to the General guideline. Which states it is for: sentencing offences for which there is no offence specific sentencing guideline... So this General guideline is the one to be applied when dealing with a s.53 RIPA offence. (I've not reproduced it here to save space)
While you have correctly stated the usual order of events in a trial, the judge has wide discretion to modify the order if it seems that justice will be served. Even in a serious criminal case, the judge can reopen testimony after closing arguments have started if the judge finds that there is good reason to do so. Traffic cases are generally less formal, and the judge will more freely modify procedure to bring out the facts of the case. I have often seen judges at traffic court ask significant relevant questions, and if they are in fact relevant, i don't think you will get far objecting to their begin asked. I am not a lawyewr, but I also have observed several traffic cases in Maryland and in NJ.
Can anyone help me understand who's liable for any damages that occur? Yes, a judge. Seriously, in almost all cases in a collision between a turning car and a straight traveling cyclist, the car will be held responsible on the basis that the turn should not be commenced unless and until it can be completed safely. If the car has to stop during the turn, the turn shouldn't have been commenced. The only exception would be if evidence could be provided that the cyclist collided deliberately. Does it matter if it's the car that's damaged or the bicycle that's damaged? No
Despite the lengthy background, the only question seems to be: Can a police officer lie about a consequence of a traffic violation they charge you with? As a matter of constitutional law in the United States, that answer is generally &quot;yes.&quot; States can impose more limitations if they like. Only a small minority of states actually do so. Incidentally, an attorney, such as a deputy district attorney, is not allowed to lie about the consequences of a traffic violation, or anything else (even in extreme circumstances like a hostage situation). This violates the rules of professional conduct applicable to all attorneys. This sounds like a classic &quot;driving while black&quot; situation and is probably involves unconstitutional discrimination by a government official, although proving that in an individual case is virtually impossible.
I've never heard the phrase used this way, and it wouldn't make any sense, anyway; &quot;indemnity&quot; is security against a consequence, so the existence of civil and criminal consequences would be a double non-indemnification. Maybe ask the lecturer for a published example of this usage.