Mechanic beats 160kmh hoon charge in court

[hendoau99]

a simple fix for this would be an autobahn - type freeway. no speed zone at all. just put a sign up saying " enter at your own risk". ahh, wouldn't that be great.

[tweeked]

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.

Isn't that the whole basis of our legal system?

Please help us if suspicion of wrongdoing is enough to convict

[GYRKIN GT]

[QUOTE=divine_afg]I am very puzzled by this decision aswell... but i guess i wasnt there and i am not the magistrate.


First and foremost, don't be "puzzled by this decision"! There are Magistrates and, well, then there are Magistrates. In the past, Magistrates were appointed (at least in NSW and I would imagine in all other States) after spending many years working there way up through the then "Court of Petty Sessions" system. These Magistrates, although there were always exceptions, typically were level headed and capable of making just and fair decisions. However, during the latter half of the 1980's, more and more outside appointments became Magistrates. In other words, it was possible for Solicitors/Barristers to be appointed who, on the face of it, were quite qualified to sit as a Magistrate. Trouble was, and is, that you have qualified people appointed because of associations and nepotism. There have been qualified people appointed Magistrates who spent there entire legal career as a "Chamber Barrister" and never seen the inside of a court room until sitting as a Magistrate. So again, don't be "puzzled" by it. I would imagine there will be an appeal by the prosecution based (1) the magistrate erred in law, (2) because of his final comments, the Magistrate's possibly biased decision (3) it seems the Magistrate has decided to make his decision based on what is called "Judical Notice" - where the magistrate believes he is able to include his own experience and incorporate that into evidence. I would imagine, in this case, the Magistrate taking "Judical Notice" would be quite frowned upon.

One final thing. In dismissing the charges, you must remember the Magistrate did not have a speeding offence to deal with. If the journo is correct, the two offences charged were "Reckless Driving" and "Driving in a Manner Dangerous to the Public". In both offences, the speeding is an ingredient only and that is probably how the Magistrate was able to come to his decision. There are a number of other conditions that must be in place for the magistrate to find either offence proved. In very basic terms, if you travel along a freeway at 160km'h and there are no other vehicles around at all, there are no side streets, no merging traffic, the weather is fine, visibility is uncompromised, would this, to an ordinary person be dangerous? Probably not. What if you travel at 160km'h on a freeway, in peak hour traffic, raining, merging traffic and visibility is compromised by rain and spray. I imagine most people would say that was just "Dangerous".

[WMD351]

Many of us are saying that there is no evidence in this case. If the paper is to be believed there was some evidence tendered in court.
From the article I quote
"Forensic consultant and defence witness Bob Davie today told the court he had examined data from the unmarked police vehicle’s Automatic Vehicle Locator, known as the “black box”.
He conceded that police could have reached speeds of 160km/h but not on the stretch of road they described where they hit that speed before pulling back."
So that's the only real evidence, cold, hard, and irrefutable evidence that the court had available to it that could unquestionably be taken into account.
As a consequence of this evidence, the police don't really have a leg to stand on.
Personally, I would be inclined to take the word of the police as correct, but if the courts start making decisions that refute hard evidence and rely only on hearsay, well that's a horrifically slippery slope and we should all be very concerned about where it could and would take us.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Isn't that the whole basis of our legal system?

Please help us if suspicion of wrongdoing is enough to convict

It isnt simple suspiscion. They have to back it up, but not necessarily with a radar reading. That is why the magistrate enetertained the notion of following and not catching. It is also relevant in the ruling that at the distances specified, and the power of the Lambo it was impossible for Police to get close enough to properly estimate speed.

Point, it isnt pure guess.

[jamesson1980]

Good thing the police car in pursuit was an FG and not a Ferrari or the judge probably would've bashed his gavel furiously before taking a 'bathroom recess' to compose himself... contempt of court??

[Jastel]

We are all forgetting the cars owner who lost his car for months and got it back damaged.

He did nothing wrong but was punished anyway.

Normally you can argue "hardship" and get an impounded car back if you were not the driver, as he was a millionaire doctor they wouldn't even accept hardship.

I reckon both sides are going to be back in court soon.

The laws need to be changed.

[XESP351]

Few years ago i went through a very similar situation. Cop pulls me over and says he had to do 120 km/hr to catch me! I said so? that means nothing? He had zero evidence to prove his claim that i was doing 120 (this is in a 60 zone) except that 'he had to do 120 to catch me', told him i would see him in court. I did and i won.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by XESP351

Few years ago i went through a very similar situation. Cop pulls me over and says he had to do 120 km/hr to catch me! I said so? that means nothing? He had zero evidence to prove his claim that i was doing 120 (this is in a 60 zone) except that 'he had to do 120 to catch me', told him i would see him in court. I did and i won.

Yes but the fact he says you were doing 120, and he was doing 120 to catch up to you means you werent doing 120!!

In this case the cop said he was within 100 to 200m and doing 160kmh and the car was still pulling away... Police dont need radar guns to prove speeding

[fangq]

Originally Posted by XESP351

Few years ago i went through a very similar situation. Cop pulls me over and says he had to do 120 km/hr to catch me! I said so? that means nothing? He had zero evidence to prove his claim that i was doing 120 (this is in a 60 zone) except that 'he had to do 120 to catch me', told him i would see him in court. I did and i won.

Sometimes it's just a matter of acceleration.A car that can do 0-100 in 4 seconds will appear to be speeding to a car that does it in 8, 9 or 10 secs.
THEN, at 100, they have to accelerate to close the distance..

Steve

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Jastel

We are all forgetting the cars owner who lost his car for months and got it back damaged.

He did nothing wrong but was punished anyway.

Normally you can argue "hardship" and get an impounded car back if you were not the driver, as he was a millionaire doctor they wouldn't even accept hardship.

I reckon both sides are going to be back in court soon.

The laws need to be changed.

And the owner of the car can take it up with the guy caught speeding.... not Police.

At a mechanics workshop you leave your car there in good faith and dont expect it to be in a Police chase..

[XESP351]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Yes but the fact he says you were doing 120, and he was doing 120 to catch up to you means you werent doing 120!!

In this case the cop said he was within 100 to 200m and doing 160kmh and the car was still pulling away... Police dont need radar guns to prove speeding

Correct, they do not need radar guns to prove speeding but they do need some kind of evidence as to the exact speed they claim, can't just pluck a figure out of their crack with no proof and expect a magistrate to believe them because they are cops!

If however a cop says you were using a mobile phone whilst driving or you ran a red traffic light, it's a different issue. He does not need much proof for this.

[GYRKIN GT]

Originally Posted by XESP351

they do need some kind of evidence as to the exact speed they claim, can't just pluck a figure out of their crack with no proof and expect a magistrate to believe them because they are cops!

Actually, No. The offence is 'exceed speed', that is, the car travelled at a speed greater than permitted. The actual speed figure is used only to determine penalty. Furthermore, a court will accept evidence from a suitably qualified officer in regard to estimation of speed. In other words, an officer trained in speed detection and who has performed such duties for more than 5 minutes can give evidence based on his/her estimation of a speed without the need for an accurate instrument. This would normally be provided in the form of a speed range. So, yes, the officer can't "pluck a figure out of their crack" but they certainly don't need radar etc for a magistrate to believe them.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by XESP351

Correct, they do not need radar guns to prove speeding but they do need some kind of evidence as to the exact speed they claim, can't just pluck a figure out of their crack with no proof and expect a magistrate to believe them because they are cops!

Depends on the charge.

Dangerous driving, or Reckless driving, no they dont need to prove exact speed. Its not simply because they are cops. Its because they use various forms of evidence to prove a charge.

Apparently here the Magistrate feels they failed to prove it, but not due to a lack of exact measure. Simply police couldnt tell at the distance they were from the Lambo, if it was pulling away at the cops speed of 160, or not. Further, apparently there is a discrepency between the data from the Police car, and the statements made by police. The Magistrate says he believed the police officers but could not use that evidence as the data disputes it, but he decided based on the distance issue.

A Judge may very easily decide the Magistrate was in error in that assessment of a police officers ability to assess pulling away from that distance.


Edit: Should have read next post.

[XESP351]

So what's the penalty for an 'exceed speed' offense then? The answer is, depending on how much the speed was exceeded by? So the figure is just as important as the actual offense, without a well proven speed figure, offense means nothing, that is if it's a speeding offense, I would guess a dangerous or wreckless driving offense would not only relate to the speed.

I don't know why people are obsessed with radar guns there are many other ways to prove and record speed, the point is which ever one the cops choose to use must be pretty solid and not just 'I was doing ## km/hr' cos as proven in this case and from my experience, magistrates will not just automatically believe any speed figure a cop says without providing sufficient proof..

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by XESP351

So what's the penalty for an 'exceed speed' offense then? The answer is, depending on how much the speed was exceeded by? So the figure is just as important as the actual offense, without a well proven speed figure, offense means nothing.

I don't know why people are obsessed with radar guns there are many other ways to prove and record speed, the point is which ever one the cops choose to use must be pretty solid and not just 'I was doing ## km/hr' cos as proven in this case and from my experience, magistrates will not just automatically believe any speed figure a cop says without providing sufficient proof..

So wait, if youre travelling at say 140, and a car 200 meters ahead is doing 180, you cant tell its pulling away from you over say 1/2 km of road? My eyesight isnt supermans but it is 20/20, I can tell its pulling away even if I cant tell exactly how fast. I see it often at 110 with cars ahead pulling away on fwy's, its obvious they going quicker. If I was a cop sitting on 140, and that happened, its a pretty safe bet he is well past the point of a simple fine and demerits.

Dangerous driving or Reckless driving does not depend on an exact speed. Speeding might.

As a comparisson, look what happens if you refuse a bretho. If it were that easy, no one would ever be done for DUI.

[XESP351]

Originally Posted by fmc351

So wait, if youre travelling at say 140, and a car 200 meters ahead is doing 180, you cant tell its pulling away from you over say 1/2 km of road? My eyesight isnt supermans but it is 20/20, I can tell its pulling away even if I cant tell exactly how fast. I see it often at 110 with cars ahead pulling away on fwy's, its obvious they going quicker. If I was a cop sitting on 140, and that happened, its a pretty safe bet he is well past the point of a simple fine and demerits.

I hear what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing that it would be obvious there is speeding involved, but what i'm saying is that it's not sufficient evidence to present in front of a magistrate as there are too many factors involved.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Dangerous driving or Reckless driving does not depend on an exact speed. Speeding might.

I edited my post moments after writing it and said exactly that.

[AWD Chaser]

So we are left with the big question then - What car does the Magistrate drive?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by fmc351

So wait, if youre travelling at say 140, and a car 200 meters ahead is doing 180, you cant tell its pulling away from you over say 1/2 km of road? My eyesight isnt supermans but it is 20/20, I can tell its pulling away even if I cant tell exactly how fast. I see it often at 110 with cars ahead pulling away on fwy's, its obvious they going quicker. If I was a cop sitting on 140, and that happened, its a pretty safe bet he is well past the point of a simple fine and demerits.

Dangerous driving or Reckless driving does not depend on an exact speed. Speeding might.

As a comparisson, look what happens if you refuse a bretho. If it were that easy, no one would ever be done for DUI.

Exactly right, it seems the speed differential and the fact that he appeared to be pulling away suggests very strongly that he was dangerously over the speed limit. Anyone would have been able to see that they either were not catching or he was pulling away at the distance of 100-200 m. I would not be surprised if the cop discontinued the pursuit as at his speed of 160 and not gaining he considered it unsafe and he had already made vehicle identification. Anyway, kind of guessing there and I am going to be interested in the outcome.

The message to the public here is not one that we want. Now we are basically told that you can do any speed you like, just as long as you can go at a speed that a standard car (Falcon XT, Commodore Omega) can not accelerate to in a short time. Therefore theoretically I could go out and do 200 on the freeway, don't have to worry about cop cars as they are not allowed to estimate speed, only have to worry about radar.

By the way, don't put too much faith in automatic vehicle locators (AVL), we have AVL's on our vehicles so I am very experienced with their use. We very often have issues with AVL not tracking properly. Just last night I heard a vehicle that was a considerable distance away being dispatched on a code 1 (lights and siren) case that I was much closer to. I called through to comms and offered to respond because I was much closer. Comms asked our current location and it was found that on their screen our location was incorrect by about 3 km and not tracking properly. The AVL is not always correct, it all depends on satellite reception. AVL data is not hard evidence and should not be considered as such.

The magistrate also discounted this argument as a factor by saying that he does not doubt the cops account of his own speed. If the cops speed was a factor in his decision he would have had to say he did not believe he was doing 160.