Quote:
Originally Posted by winnilaker
The law states it's prima facie.
"...the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:..."
As Skip can probably add value here and this has been discussed elsewhere. if you choose to fight it, MP will have to prove more than just the speed limit was broken and you have the ability to prove that your speed was reasonable and prudent. Going fast in the broads in a boat designed to go fast will probably not get you a ticket. Going fast in Weirs bay probably will. Either way, fighting it will be your best choice to keep it off your driving record.
|
Thats not the definition for prima facie in my law books:
"adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a Grand Jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment."
What this means is that any speeds above the speed limit are automatically rated as "not reasonable or prudent" and therefore are unlawful ... the burden would be on the defendant to prove otherwise.
I posted this way back on March 1, 2006 in the Collisions and Speed thread
Note that the same prima facie language is used for NH highway speed limits.