Mechanic beats 160kmh hoon charge in court

Cooper69S · 17-11-2010, 09:18 PM

Interesting story on the news tonight about the Lamborghini mechanic that got charged with hooning in Perth in January... Always thought some of the evidence the police were claiming came across as a bit shaky - basically that they had to reach 160kmh to try to catch up but the Lambo appeared to be still pulling away. Judge seems to have had problems with that too...

jamesson1980 · 17-11-2010, 09:22 PM

Perth Magistrate gets chubby over Lamborghini doing alleged 160km/h+ and lets driver off scott free after 'bog' FG falcon cop car fails to catch it.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nat...-1225955191065
Please remove if this is a copy thread.. but I thought it a very interesting example of possible bias in some legal officials

fmc351 · 17-11-2010, 09:30 PM

Magistrate
$18k in court costs awarded to the defendant.

This may not be over yet.

This was funny though.

Quote:

"With no disrespect to the Ford Falcon could it cut the mustard with the Lamborghini being driven by the accused ... it couldn't even catch my car in all honesty," the magistrate said.

He also raised the issue of police not having pursuit vehicles, saying that Sen Const Brent would probably never have expected it when he arrived in Western Australia from the UK.

"He would have thought he'd never find himself driving a bog standard Ford Falcon when he came to Australia but I suppose that's what bean counters do," the magistrate said.

Jim Goose · 17-11-2010, 09:54 PM

You have to be kidding right????

The cops reached speeds of 160kmh and were not able to catch them... so the guy is let off?!?!?!?

WTF message is this to speeders??

Keepleft · 17-11-2010, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

You have to be kidding right????

The cops reached speeds of 160kmh and were not able to catch them... so the guy is let off?!?!?!?

WTF message is this to speeders??

EVIDENCE, duh. Another police case lost because they didn't tie up all loose ends:-)

Thats without even needing to call up national metrology.

Quote:

No radar, MultaNova or infra red speed evidence was taken.

fmc351 · 17-11-2010, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

EVIDENCE, duh. Another police case lost because they didn't tie up all loose ends:-)

Thats without even needing to call up national metrology.

You think thats all she wrote?

It'll be interesting to see what the WA govt and prosecuters do next.

RSgerry · 17-11-2010, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

You think thats all she wrote?

It'll be interesting to see what the WA govt and prosecuters do next.

the government will do what it always does...run around in a flap, have a press conference and make a lot of noise and then head off to fast-track another piece of badly flawed legislation which will get shown up again in the press. unfortunately, our police minister is a complete tw@t who gets nothing right.

Auturbo6 · 17-11-2010, 10:14 PM

Im a mechanic, 160km/h all day everyday from now on, lol. later.

geckoGT · 17-11-2010, 10:32 PM

I can see that decision being appealed, especially considering in his closing comments the magistrate has shown clear bias.

Cooper69S · 17-11-2010, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

You have to be kidding right????

The cops reached speeds of 160kmh and were not able to catch them... so the guy is let off?!?!?!?

WTF message is this to speeders??

By all accounts they were a LONG way behind, and claimed that when they reached 160kmh he was still pulling away. Apparently the data from the cop car didn't back up their story that they were doing that speed at the time that they said they were, and how can you be sure when you're so far behind whether you're gaining on him or not.

so like keepleft said - lack of evidence = no charges. Although it seems that quite often these days people are happy to see others charged without evidence, especially when it comes to "hoon" offences. I'm sure if they're ever on the receiving end they'll change their mind about that though...

fmc351 · 17-11-2010, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper69S

By all accounts they were a LONG way behind, and claimed that when they reached 160kmh he was still pulling away. Apparently the data from the cop car didn't back up their story that they were doing that speed at the time that they said they were, and how can you be sure when you're so far behind whether you're gaining on him or not.

so like keepleft said - lack of evidence = no charges. Although it seems that quite often these days people are happy to see others charged without evidence, especially when it comes to "hoon" offences. I'm sure if they're ever on the receiving end they'll change their mind about that though...

The magistrate also said he believed the copper, he didnt suggest he was dishonest and went to lengths in the short bit we got, to state that clearly. I reckon its a fair bet the copper kept his foot into it for more than a few seconds. If at 160 with his foot still into it, he didnt catch up, its a fair guess the Lambo was exceeding 140.

Im not saying based on evidence the court got it wrong, but Id like to hear more before saying its over, and not necessarily wrongly. The law is complex, and needs to be. The magistrate just may find himself in the proverbial.

The media are notoriously unreliable. Both factually and in the paraphrasing and snippets they leave out or include.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSgerry

the government will do what it always does...run around in a flap, have a press conference and make a lot of noise and then head off to fast-track another piece of badly flawed legislation which will get shown up again in the press. unfortunately, our police minister is a complete tw@t who gets nothing right.

The minister is just one cog in a more complex machine.

geckoGT · 17-11-2010, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper69S

By all accounts they were a LONG way behind, and claimed that when they reached 160kmh he was still pulling away. Apparently the data from the cop car didn't back up their story that they were doing that speed at the time that they said they were, and how can you be sure when you're so far behind whether you're gaining on him or not.

so like keepleft said - lack of evidence = no charges. Although it seems that quite often these days people are happy to see others charged without evidence, especially when it comes to "hoon" offences. I'm sure if they're ever on the receiving end they'll change their mind about that though...

Maybe, but I find it hard to believe. I have often been behind other cars on a motorway (100 zone) when I am doing 140 under lights and siren and I can easily see that I am gaining on them.

I wonder what this data regarding the cop car is?

I wonder if the closing comments of the magistrate regarding his love of the Gallardo and TG is grounds for an appeal due to bias on the part of the magistrate?

What disturbs me is that there is now a precedence that you can do 60 km/h over the limit as long as the cops do not get within a certain amount of distance from your car to estimate the speed.

fmc351 · 17-11-2010, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Maybe, but I find it hard to believe. I have often been behind other cars on a motorway (100 zone) when I am doing 140 under lights and siren and I can easily see that I am gaining on them.

I wonder what this data regarding the cop car is?

I wonder if the closing comments of the magistrate regarding his love of the Gallardo and TG is grounds for an appeal due to bias on the part of the magistrate?

What disturbs me is that there is now a precedence that you can do 60 km/h over the limit as long as the cops do not get within a certain amount of distance from your car to estimate the speed.

No precedent, its a Magistrate. Any Magistrate can find otherwise in another case, including this Magistrate. It may be used in argument, it can guide, but there is no requirement on courts to follow it, it would be different if a higher court decided the case. It gets sticjy here though, if the lower courts think the higher court got it wrong, and they know other higher court judges agree with them, they sometimes push the boundaries and deliberately go against the precedent to force a higher court to overturn the 'bad' law set in precedent. Its more complex, but that the crux of it.

The Magistrates words would need to be put into perspective of the whole. Its a smippet of the facts, who knows what we're missing.

geckoGT · 17-11-2010, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

No precedent, its a Magistrate. Any Magistrate can find otherwise in another case, including this Magistrate. It may be used in argument, it can guide, but there is no requirement on courts to follow it, it would be different if a higher court decided the case. It gets sticjy here though, if the lower courts think the higher court got it wrong, and they know other higher court judges agree with them, they sometimes push the boundaries and deliberately go against the precedent to force a higher court to overturn the 'bad' law set in precedent. Its more complex, but that the crux of it.

The Magistrates words would need to be put into perspective of the whole. Its a smippet of the facts, who knows what we're missing.

Thanks, makes it a bit clearer.

It is very true, what is missing?

duaned · 17-11-2010, 10:53 PM

The cops shouldn't have been doing 160km/h plus on a busy freeway either. Where they thinking of performing a pit manoevure on the Lambo or something?

Where was the helicoptor when the police needed one?

Ben73 · 17-11-2010, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duaned

The cops shouldn't have been doing 160km/h plus on a busy freeway either. Where they thinking of performing a pit manoevure on the Lambo or something?

Where was the helicoptor when the police needed one?

Didn't say busy freeway did it? I not sure don't think it did.

Probably was basically deserted and the only real danger was to the lambo driver.

Plus anyway cops can do whatever they like as long as they "take care"
So 160 on a busy road is no problem for them.
But obviously the lambo driver doing 160+ was not taking care and probably texting on his phone or something.

fordOwner · 17-11-2010, 11:24 PM

Im a little confused by it all to be honest. Im not sure what to think!

was the magistrate (Mr Wheeler) saying that the Falcon could not catch his personal car?? - wonder what he drives!

And do you think if the V8's were not dropped from the persuit cars (to prevent youngsters picking up a cheap used V8) they would have caught him at speeds of 160+ ??

So not only there was 1 car driving at a stupid speed on our freeway it turned into two!! If there was a crash it would have been absolutly horrific.

Bent8 · 17-11-2010, 11:31 PM

I believe the Magistrate was right in his judgement.

No evidence, no conviction...simple as that.

If that ever changed in our courts, we would lose whatever civil liberties we have left!

I often travel on the bit of road that Lambo was speeding on and it's a 90kph zone which eventually becomes 110kph....let me tell you it's almost impossible not to speed on that road. (not that I condone speeding of any kind

)

geckoGT · 17-11-2010, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bent8

I often travel on the bit of road that Lambo was speeding on and it's a 90kph zone which eventually becomes 110kph....let me tell you it's almost impossible not to speed on that road. (not that I condone speeding of any kind

)

Absolutely impossible, there is no such thing as a "road that is almost impossible not to speed on".

I guess we will have to se what the WA Dept of Public Prosecutions do next.

Bent8 · 17-11-2010, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Absolutely impossible, there is no such thing as a "road that is almost impossible not to speed on".

Maybe so but when you're driving a 500hp Lambo, it's hard not to open the taps a little.

He should have driven it straight to Barbagallo Raceway (only a short distance from where he was speeding) and done a few hotlaps!

geckoGT · 18-11-2010, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bent8

He should have driven it straight to Barbagallo Raceway (only a short distance from where he was speeding) and done a few hotlaps!

Or perhaps he could have done what he was paid to do, drive it straight his workshop and complete the service, without "opening the taps".

I would have been angry if it was my F6, worse if it was my Lambo (if I could afford one), I am sure the vast majority here would have.

Maggot · 17-11-2010, 11:57 PM

I thought our cops are supposed to pull out of a chase at 160 or 180 odd in traffic anyway.. so it is pretty lousy what the mag. has done there.

1 to 2 hundred meters.. doing 160 and the lambo is pulling away.. my arrse you can't tell.. the magistrate should be sacked for shear lack of any intelligent thought.. let alone anything else to do with the case.

flappist · 17-11-2010, 11:57 PM

None of us were there.
None of us have seen any of the evidence.

All we know is what we have seen in the media and we all know that is never hyped up or biased.

How can anyone have a valid opinion about something they know nothing about......oh sorry, I forgot this is an internet forum, home of the 21st century lynch mobs....my mistake.......

Bent8 · 18-11-2010, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

None of us were there.
None of us have seen any of the evidence.

All we know is what we have seen in the media and we all know that is never hyped up or biased.

How can anyone have a valid opinion about something they know nothing about......oh sorry, I forgot this is an internet forum, home of the 21st century lynch mobs....my mistake.......

Exactly right mate, there is no evidence the Lambo was speeding, the police officer could have easily claimed he was doing 120kph or 140kph which would affect the ruling if there was evidence in the case...am I right?

**aussiblue** · 18-11-2010, 12:02 AM

Quote:

believe the Magistrate was right in his judgement.

No evidence, no conviction...simple as that.

No evidence??? The guy admitted to doing 130 kmh.

Bent8 · 18-11-2010, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiblue

No evidence??? The guy admitted to doing 130 kmh.

But there's no evidence he was doing 130kph, not even a witness (passenger sitting next to him) to backup his claim, sorry doesn't hold up in a court of law.

fmc351 · 18-11-2010, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bent8

But there's no evidence he was doing 130kph, not even a witness (passenger sitting next to him) to backup his claim, sorry doesn't hold up in a court of law.

You dont need a witness when he admits to it. Its a confession.

To go all conspiracy here (and it does happen), it seems on the tidbits given, the Magistrate was sending a message to the WA government about Police resources.

Jim Goose · 18-11-2010, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bent8

But there's no evidence he was doing 130kph, not even a witness (passenger sitting next to him) to backup his claim, sorry doesn't hold up in a court of law.

Er.. so the cop saying he reached 160kmh and wasnt gaining isnt good enough?

Are you saying that in order to be convicted the police must prove how fast he was going? Faster then 160kmh not good enough?
How about faster then 190kmh?
Or does the cop need to be side by side at 200kmh in order to prove he was speeding?

**aussiblue** · 18-11-2010, 12:29 AM

I always understood an admission in a court of law was evidence.

See http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...16/3068049.htm

Quote:

Police have testified they reached speeds of 160 kilometres an hour while trying to pull over the car, but in his evidence, Mr Maguistro has denied driving that fast.

He said he thought the speedometer reached only 130 kilometres an hour, a speed which would not have led to the car being seized.

**aussiblue** · 18-11-2010, 12:50 AM

Regardless of if he was speeding or not (and I think he was) I think the Police should have to meet the costs of repairs, if as claimed, they caused $10,000 plus worth of damage trying to, inexpertly extract data on the speeds from the car's ECU. As far as I am concerned why a car is impounded by the Police they should be liable for any consequential damages.