Mechanic beats 160kmh hoon charge in court

[Cooper69S]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Without further, more reliable information I would suggest the magistrate's decision is not a finding of innocence as much as it is a finding of unable to prove guilt.

most likely you're quite right. but I'm not sure there's any problem with that. Isn't that how the legal system is supposed to work?

They claimed that he was only arrested after the media turned up. Maybe the police realised they didn't have enough to charge him on, but felt compelled to "do something" due to the media being there? who knows...

[aussiblue]

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.

[fmc351]

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.

[Gaz]

I think the point is -

If they charged him for doing 130 in a 90 zone they would have got the conviction, but they decided to go for 160 so they could confiscate the car.

The court case was relating to his charge under the 'hoon' legislation, him doing 160 in a 90 zone. They have charged him with that and it's before court. He can turn around and say I was doing 130, not 160 - but I don't believe at that stage the Police can go, hey, it's not going well, lets try for 130. They picked the offence.

You have to remember, 2 cars travelling at different speeds makes very interesting numbers when you try to have a lower vehicle catch up.

90km/h = 25m/s
130km/h = 36m/s

Say after 5 seconds (lambo passes cops at this speed, police need to react to the event and decide to chase and start accelerating). In 5 seconds the cops have travelled 125m and the lambo 180.5m - the lambo is already 55.5m ahead of the police car. Say it takes 5 second for them to accelerate from 90-130 (f6 takes 2.8 from 80-120 so it's probably close).

v=u+at -That's an acceleration of 2.2m/s
v^2=u^2 + 2as - takes them 152.5m to get from 90-130

In 5 seconds the lambo has travelled another 180.5m - take away the 152.5m the cops have travelled in that 5 seconds = 27.5m - then add the original 55.5m and it's
83m in front.

So 10 seconds after it passes the cops, and the cops having their foot on the floor for half that until 130km/h at that point the police have only just paced him and until that instant he would have still 'been pulling away'.

In this time the lambo has travelled 361m, close to a 1/4 mile (for comparison sakes).

I am more interested in the potential follow up case now of wrongfully detaining a 200,000 car and the costs associated with that.

Personally the Mechanic is an idiot for doing '130' in a 90 zone. But I'm more interested in the potential first real 'test' of the 'hoon' laws.

[fmc351]

The case was Dangerous driving or Reckless driving. The impounding was under hoon laws.

All the prosecution needs is a judge who suggests the Magistrate was mistaken in his assumptions about the abilities of the police.

[jaydee]

But he still coughed to doing 130, so why wasn't he convicted of the lesser charge of speeding.

[sandmanls1]

commentary is a classic by the judge might offend falcon fans though

Top Gear fan acquits 'Lambo' driver
November 18, 2010

A MAN charged with recklessly driving a Lamborghini at more than 155km/h has been acquitted by a magistrate who admits he is a Top Gear ''tragic''.

Leone Antonino Magistro, 53, a Perth motor mechanic, was at the wheel of a client's yellow Lamborghini Gallardo in January when a policeman in a Ford Falcon saw the car take off.

Senior Constable Michael Brent had said he reached 160km/h as he tried to gauge Mr Magistro's speed, but the ''Lambo'' was too quick to catch.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Yesterday magistrate Michael Wheeler acquitted Mr Magistro, saying there was no way police in a Falcon could accurately determine the Lamborghini's speed. ''The police vehicle was so far behind … it was impossible to really estimate, or really guesstimate, how fast the [Lamborghini] was moving.

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

He said Senior Constable Brent, who hails from Britain, would never have thought he would ''find himself driving a bog standard Ford Falcon when he came to Australia but I suppose that's what bean counters do''.

Before delivering his judgment, Mr Wheeler told the court he had a vast knowledge of ''useless information'' about sports cars. ''I have to confess, I'm a Top Gear tragic,'' he said.

''I know in 2006 Top Gear named the Lamborghini Gallardo as the dream car of the year. [Top Gear] host Jeremy Clarkson bought one, in fact, in 2006.'' He also referred to a recent Top Gear episode in which celebrity guest Kristin Scott Thomas said she was about to buy a Lamborghini Gallardo.

Mr Magistro was awarded $18,000 in court costs.

[Jim Goose]

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?

[SensationFG8]

I think it's a poor message to be sending to the general public. They're more than happy to nab people for momentarily going 5-10k over but they wont convict someone who is clearly driving dangerously?

What are we trying to achieve with speeding legislation, public protection or revenue raising? I think it's time the govt made up their mind. If it's revenue raising ditch the cameras and add 140 per year to everyones rego (i've not ever been done for speeding but i'm tired of the people who step on their brakes as hard as they can when they get to 200m of a camera it's just plain dangerous).

Last time I checked a bog standard FG falcon wasn't as slow as this magistrate is alluding to.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by SensationFG8

I think it's a poor message to be sending to the general public. They're more than happy to nab people for momentarily going 5-10k over but they wont convict someone who is clearly driving dangerously?

What are we trying to achieve with speeding legislation, public protection or revenue raising? I think it's time the govt made up their mind. If it's revenue raising ditch the cameras and add 140 per year to everyones rego (i've not ever been done for speeding but i'm tired of the people who step on their brakes as hard as they can when they get to 200m of a camera it's just plain dangerous).

Last time I checked a bog standard FG falcon wasn't as slow as this magistrate is alluding to.

You people really are your own worst enemies.

Do you REALLY want a legal system where any random officer of any department can just say you did something with no ACTUAL evidence and you are automatically convicted?

Maybe he did do it and maybe he got away with it but it is not very common for this to happen and a couple of escapes are much better the alternate.

We fought several wars to prevent this sort of thing being forced upon us......

[ltd]

Originally Posted by flappist

You people really are your own worst enemies.

Do you REALLY want a legal system where any random officer of any department can just say you did something with no ACTUAL evidence and you are automatically convicted?

Maybe he did do it and maybe he got away with it but it is not very common for this to happen and a couple of escapes are much better the alternate.

We fought several wars to prevent this sort of thing being forced upon us......

100% agree with this. I also respectfully submit, that everyone reads the book Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell. Once you've read it, be honest and tell me if your opinions have changed and the parallels between the fiction and our own reality. For those who can't read, watch the Matrix. Then again, for those that can't read, you won't be reading this and so can't decipher either. Hmmm.... Look at the dog with a wagging tail, look, look.

The Lambo driver was an idiot for speeding in someone elses car, the magistrate was correct in their judgement for the lack of evidence. I support the police and happily donate to the NSW police Association every year, but in this instance they need more evidence. Charge the guy with the confessed 130kmh.

[geckoGT]

"Ultimately, the police vehicle was so far behind the Lamborghini at all times that when the police vehicle seemed to be doing 160km/h it was impossible to really estimate, or really guesstimate, how fast the (Lamborghini) was moving away from them," the magistrate said.

Mr Wheeler said he did not doubt Sen Const Brent's honesty when he told the court the police vehicle was travelling at 160km/h.

But the distance between the two vehicles, 100 to 200 metres, raised questions about the accuracy of the police officer's opinion of what speed Mr Magistro was travelling, he said.

While respecting that we have limited information and I am sure there would be lot more in the court transcript, look at the quote I have put up.

The magistrate has said that the cop car was too far behind to accurately estimate speed, yet it was only about 100-200m. That distance is easy to tell if a car is getting nearer, staying the same or pulling away, even 400-500m it would be possible to make a reasonable estimate of this on a reasonably straight road.

The magistrate has also said that he does not doubt the cops reported catch up speed of 160, so this speed is a known and accepted constant, it is only the Lambo speed that is in question. If the Lambo was doing 130 as the driver confessed to, then the cop doing 160 would have been making up noticeable ground on him. The fact that the cop was not making up that ground suggests very strongly that he was in fact traveling much faster than 130. The driver seems to have picked 130 as he knows he was over the speed limit by a lot, but that is the maximum he can get away with without the reckless driving charge and still remaining plausible.

I can't help but think, if the car and driver involved had been a XR6T or SS Commodore and the driver 21 years old, would we be having this conversation? I have a very strong suspicion we would not, the magistrate would have found the evidence more than strong enough to convict such a terrible young hoon that has no respect for public safety on our streets. I think you would have to be pretty brave to deny that the age of the driver and the magistrates self admitted love of Lambo's were not influencing factors in his decision.

[chevypower]

I say let him off. 160km/h in a Lambo is about the equivalent of 40km/h in any other car.

[Maggot]

The next time any of you lot have your car stolen or your granny bashed and robbed.. dont call the cops.. put the phone down,the magistrate has rendered the police useless anyway, the copper can trade his badge in for a phone and call the hoon hotline.. it's more effective anyway.

If the lambo had crashed at that time.. the headline would have been ' police chase ends in carnage'.. you really have to feel for the coppers sometimes.

[LTDHO]

So long story short - speed could not be proven so aquited.

No biggie.

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by sandmanls1

He said Senior Constable Brent, who hails from Britain, would never have thought he would ''find himself driving a bog standard Ford Falcon when he came to Australia but I suppose that's what bean counters do''.

Yeah, a diesel vectra or astra is what's needed to run down those hoon lambo's

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Yeah, a diesel vectra or astra is what's needed to run down those hoon lambo's

Don't they call them Panda cars.

[OzJavelin]

Originally Posted by sandmanls1

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

Sounds like a LOT of disrespect to me ..

Obviously we need to issue Lambos to all police as pursuit vehicles. Obviously they are capable of carrying all the police gear and two officers and any arrested individuals .. and can sit by the roadside idling for half the day with the A/C on .. and can be driven over concrete gutters or roundabouts at speed ..

What a crock ..

[Romulus]

The police in WA are phasing out all XR6T's, to be replaced with XT Falcons. The SV6's are also being phased out to be replaced with Omega Commodores.

The magistrate was right, the Falcon simply couldn't catch the Lambo. A FG F6 or new GT still wouldn't cut the mustard against a supercar. Simple.

The police got it wrong and this hoon law is flawed.

[RG]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Yeah, a diesel vectra or astra is what's needed to run down those hoon lambo's

Evo's, WRX's & BMW's is what they use now apparently.

[geckoGT]

Do we really need three threads on the same topic, time for a merge perhaps?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I say let him off. 160km/h in a Lambo is about the equivalent of 40km/h in any other car.

What an absolute load of rubbish. The force of impact is way higher, the braking distance is way longer (despite the huge brakes) and the chance of loss of control is way higher than any car doing 40 km/h.

By your theory, someone with a veyron should be allowed to do at least 200 in a 90 zone.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

The police in WA are phasing out all XR6T's, to be replaced with XT Falcons. The SV6's are also being phased out to be replaced with Omega Commodores.

The magistrate was right, the Falcon simply couldn't catch the Lambo. A FG F6 or new GT still wouldn't cut the mustard against a supercar. Simple.

The police got it wrong and this hoon law is flawed.

Kind of like Deja Vu when they phased out the V8's back in 2000.

But I beleive the ability to impound someone's car still needs to be there, just that it should be a power exercised by the courts, not the Police. At the moment, the Police are judge jury and executioner, guilty until proven innocent, which is completely inappropriate.

Not to mention the hoon laws in their various forms around the country could be unconstitutional the way they are composed.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Maggot

The next time any of you lot have your car stolen or your granny bashed and robbed.. dont call the cops.. put the phone down,the magistrate has rendered the police useless anyway, the copper can trade his badge in for a phone and call the hoon hotline.. it's more effective anyway.

If the lambo had crashed at that time.. the headline would have been ' police chase ends in carnage'.. you really have to feel for the coppers sometimes.

Conversely how would you feel if you had your car crushed because someone saw a car that was similar to yours doing something silly and just dobbed you adding your rego number to their story because "they knew you are a hoon, you have a hoon car".

This is VERY dangerous territory.......

[FPV8U]

As has already been said "If" it were someone < 25 in a SS Commodore or XR Falcon i'd would be hard to see the same result being achived, which in itself is not what you would call an effective system.

Police have the tools if they choose not to use them thats their problem, would you like them to start arresting people of DUI without giving people bretho tests just because they "Seemed" to be intoxicated?

[MAD]

So moral of the story is if you fly past a cop and they pull out after you but didn't radar you. If you slow down to the speed limit before they get to you there is no record of what speed was achieved and then no action can be taken.

I have heard of charges being laid without a radar or laser measurement, so what gives in this case? Are WA's laws different?

[|||]

score 1 for the good guys.

so since the "hoon laws" came in that makes the score 1 to 8755144.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by MAD

So moral of the story is if you fly past a cop and they pull out after you but didn't radar you. If you slow down to the speed limit before they get to you there is no record of what speed was achieved and then no action can be taken.

I have heard of charges being laid without a radar or laser measurement, so what gives in this case? Are WA's laws different?

The plot is stick to your story and don't be fooled by any of the cunning ploys they use to trick you into admitting you were speeding or whatever.

Of course this is only if you are not speeding, if you actually are speeding then quickly pull out your katana and cut your own head off as you are the spawn of satan and must be cast out from the flock.....

[xisled]

Reading the article, the police have charged him with driving at 160ks, the evidence the police had was not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was doing 160ks.

Maybe if the police did charge the driver with driving 130ks in a 90k zone the driver may have been found guilty, due to his own statement, but the police went for the bigger charge and failed.

I know this is a bit off topic but.
Now someone mentioned about hoon driving, in Victoria you can only be charged if the police see you doing something or you admit to police you were doing something. Only in very strong cases, video footage will be used to impound someones car.
With Vic Pol, they have 48 hours to impound a car, if not done within that time then they have another 8 days to impound the car by warrant. after 10 days they can not impound the car. They also have up to a year to charge the person with an driving offence.

[divine_afg]

Originally Posted by MAD

So moral of the story is if you fly past a cop and they pull out after you but didn't radar you. If you slow down to the speed limit before they get to you there is no record of what speed was achieved and then no action can be taken.

I have heard of charges being laid without a radar or laser measurement, so what gives in this case? Are WA's laws different?

I am very puzzled by this decision aswell... but i guess i wasnt there and i am not the magistrate.

Last year Friend of mine got fine for speeding 100 in 80 zone.
Weather Condition Raining.
TT Supra Manual - Take off Lights wheelspin unintentional he swore on it.
cops where on the otherside of the rd, pull him over and fined for speeding 100 on 80 zone.
No Radar was used and cops said they estimates thats speed he is doing and lucky for him that they not charging him with hoon laws.
Wrote letter to dispute case and decision was upheld.
I did tell him to fight to courts but he is too busy with family and work life.

May be if he had gone to court and got magistrate like wheeler he would have won too.