My Car Got Impounded :(

[PrincessFastnDirty]

the fight is that the lawer believes i was rongly charged, because there was nobody round, big area and i didn't lose control of the car. So he believes it should b only dangerous not wrekless

[Kaido_RR]

No sympathy....sorry. Whats reckless these days? 9 points?

+1

LOL wrongly charged !

no one around? -> How does that make it safe?

Big Area? -> Again how does that make it safe?

do the crime, do the time! its very simple

[Hanaldo]

The cops obviously didnt do anything because they didnt have proof, only someone elses complaint. its just like me i used to rip stand stills speed over take people on the opposite lane, even had people saying they are going to call the hoon hot line. but the cops couldnt do anything because they never saw it, but insted they came to my house personaly and slaped a defect with a full roadworthy needed. still... better then losing my car lol =]

The anti-hoon law states that no evidence is required, all it takes is a complaint. When it comes to hoon laws, they can do what they want.

[4NTM4N]

doesnt suprise me with the bunbury police...i live here aswell they have thrown some rediculous fines at me when i was not at fault but in the end they do what they want...

wat carpark was it at? not down the beach was it?

[Char]

i'm fairly certain dangerous driving is WORSE than reckless. as reckless is not a criminal offence. dangerous driving stays on ur criminal record...

Edited May 18, 2009 by Char

[dan_the_man]

already confessed

what did you lawyer say when you told him this?

The anti-hoon law states that no evidence is required, all it takes is a complaint. When it comes to hoon laws, they can do what they want.

Where does it state that no evidence is required?

Quoting the Second Reading Speech for the Bill that introduced provisions into the antihoon legislation section of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA).

"A police officer’s reasonable suspicion must be based on evidence that will stand up to scrutiny in a court. A vehicle will be impounded only on the basis of a civilian witness report if it is corroborated by other forms of evidence gathered by the investigating police officer."

[Hanaldo]

what did you lawyer say when you told him this?

Where does it state that no evidence is required?

Quoting the Second Reading Speech for the Bill that introduced provisions into the antihoon legislation section of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA).

"A police officer's reasonable suspicion must be based on evidence that will stand up to scrutiny in a court. A vehicle will be impounded only on the basis of a civilian witness report if it is corroborated by other forms of evidence gathered by the investigating police officer."

Yeh 1974, the laws changed a few years ago im pretty sure. What does it say about confiscation of vehicles in that bill? I cant find where i read that evidence is not required... Sucks lol, now i sound like a ranter lol. Just before i got my license i was reading somewhere that police would no longer need material evidence for conviction, just a written or court statement from a witness

[dan_the_man]

Yeh 1974, the laws changed a few years ago im pretty sure. What does it say about confiscation of vehicles in that bill? I cant find where i read that evidence is not required... Sucks lol, now i sound like a ranter lol. Just before i got my license i was reading somewhere that police would no longer need material evidence for conviction, just a written or court statement from a witness

"introduced provisions" means introducing changes to that Road Traffic Act from 1974. We don't have a new Road Traffic Act everytime the legislation is changed. This amendment was introduced in 2006.

If the police do not have personal knowledge that there are grounds to impound the vehicle, then sufficent evidence is needed.

[mitchy_]

The anti-hoon law states that no evidence is required, all it takes is a complaint. When it comes to hoon laws, they can do what they want.

where does it state that? someone can't read properly, or is making things up.

do you honestly think if it made it to court, they would have a leg to stand on with no evidence?

[Ehgriez]

They need evidence. On a side note guys if they say "lolz you were hooning I'm taking your car"

Do you have a leg to stand on and say "lolz no I wasn't, can see me in court not taking my car"

Because the fact is even if your not hooning cop decides to say you are, doesnt matter if you get let off the fine or not your still out of pocket for losing your car for that time etc.

Anyone?

[Char]

fat chance saying to a cop "your not taking my car" if they accuse u of hooning

in my opinion this whole HOON thing is just a dumb label, i think its just like saying there is no difference between a bikeY and a bikeR -he rides a harley that means he owns tattoo shops and brothels and will sell drugs to my children etc

if people were these big bad hoons that the media are portraying i think the police would be having a much harder time catching them"police trying to pull me over time to hit 250kph+" isnt that what a real hoon would do?

Edited May 18, 2009 by Char

[KurtG]

This is one of the reason hoon laws are so harsh. Iam not taking a dig but if you were doing dounuts in the gravel which you have already admited to then your a fault........ You car got inpounded and so it should you did the crime your car does the time. There are events like whoop ass wednesday for you to do this. Things like this are just giving even more reason for cops to pull over skyline drivers for nothing because they suspect us as doing wrong. I do feel that the hoon laws are harsh but i have no sympathy for someone that was in the wrong.

[Nizmo]

Damm, that is almost the EXACT time and night that you can legally go to Kwinana Whoop Arse Wednesday and go nuts on the snake pit!!!!

LOL - good call

Friend of mine had his bike impounded for doing 40kms over speed limit so it was impounded for something like two weeks..... his court date is in October.

[Dsturbd]

already confessed

Thats where they got you , deny everything and let the police do there job by proving it was you ..

[R DIRTY 3]

You confessed so your obviously guilty. I wouldnt fight it in court. JUst cop it on the chin and pick up your car next week. Stir shit with them and they wont be as leinient next time.

Lesson learnt id hope!

Kwinanna Motorplex, Collie Raceway, Wanneroo Raceway, AHG, plus the speed series events (which run from perth through to albany i believe) are all great ways to get the 'hooning' out of your system legally....and you may actually learn a thing or 2 about driving properly.

p.s. chucking donuts on gravel is a bit 'bogan'...just saying hahaha

[ix9]

ohh true, talking to the lawer again on friday so will ask!!

Lawyer? - I would front up at court with no lawyer and admit defeat. Then tell the magistrate you believe the driving offense to be incorrect. He knows the law, and the police prosecutor knows your case. They can lessen the charge right there on the spot.

Quoting the Second Reading Speech for the Bill that introduced provisions into the antihoon legislation section of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA).

Yeh 1974, the laws changed a few years ago im pretty sure. What does it say about confiscation of vehicles in that bill? I cant find where i read that evidence is not required...

Oh deary. *facepalm*

[rev210]

Sorry to hear.

Learn your lesson this time and save yourself future pain and $$$

Instead as suggested go have a blast at the race track. Your car was born to do it and you will enjoy yourself far more than the ' Fast and the Furious-no skill street racing retards '

[TheBoShow]

If the police didnt see the incident plead not guilty, you have to be proven guilty before you can be charged.

Just deny the whole thing in court, so what if there was dust u could have been making a u turn

[syfon]

I have almost been done under hoon laws and i shat me frikin' pants!

Although i do agree with most here that the hoon laws are very tough and can be bullshit sometimes, i must agreee that if you get caught, then you just have to learn and accept the consequences......

Life is a lonnnnnggg learning curve

[Magic]

i'm fairly certain dangerous driving is WORSE than reckless. as reckless is not a criminal offence. dangerous driving stays on ur criminal record...

If you contest a fine (speeding, accident, hooning, etc) in court and lose the case, it will go down on your criminal record. Thus everytime I get fined I cough up the coin and never contest.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Magic