Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eclipse492

That mechanic 'hooning' in the lambo got off.

Recommended Posts

Many of our cars here on ns are probably quicker than a stock lambo anyway,

I wish this happened to me, nothing beats the satisfaction of being let go of such a charge woohoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised it even made it to court. Usually a Sargent will go over the brief of evidence before it's submitted to court, the Sargent should have seen that they could not determin the speed and said no to the charges.

Sargent: "what evidence do you have?"

Const: "two police statements saying we were going 160k in chase and could not catch up"

Sargent "not good enough! Can you prove he was driving?"

Const: "yes"

Sargent: "Then charge him with something else"

That's usually how it goes. He will be charged with something else now cause he admitted in court to driving at 130k. If I owned the lambo I would be taking the 18k off the mechanic as compensation lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha I rather a mechanic take my car for a bust than getting my car broken into while being there over night and then not paying for the damage yeh sucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article is misleading. In essence the guy driving admitted he was going 130km/h. The point being, he wasn't breaking the speed limit by enough of a margin to warrant the car being impounded. The cop said that he saw him speed by, and then accelerated to 160km/h to catch up to him. Based on that, the cop concluded the Lamborghini was going 160km/h. Good decision by the magistrate.

 

^ This

 

 

People are misinterpreting the facts based on a biased view of the outcome. The REAL issue here is that regarding the impounding of the car, I don't know the statutory provisions but the police must have contravened them as they had impounded the car without sufficient evidence. Besides there's the conceptual problem of allowing police to much power in convicting people with lack of concrete evidence.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the EXACT SAME SITUATION however driving a skyline, i copped a 6 month disqualification and a $2500 fine including the impounding fee and considered my self lucky.

 

I too was flying ~180-200kmh and the officer was at 150kmh approximately 200m behind me and still losing me. Heck i didnt even see him i only stopped cause there was a set of lights comming up the road. In NSW, police cars are calibrated and a police officer especially highway patrol CAN and WILL use guestimation as a method to book you. They have the adequate training for this and can enforce it.

 

Im happy to hear the guy got away but i cant see it repeating ever again, especially in a NSW court room.

 

P.s. getting disqualified is the best thing thats happened to me, havnt gone >15kmh in an entire year of having my licence back :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he is still going to get charges for endangering life, dangerous driving, misuse of motorvehicle.

 

i speak of this first hand, the speeding charges get dropped or dismissed and everything else still sticks.

 

the legal costs werent given to him, its paid for by legal aid. I know legal aid paid for my lawyer from a private law firm. so the article just words it differently to make it look like the judge awarded that to him.

 

Read the article carefully, it only states they couldnt get his speed. I had 57 charges for my hearing and it got dropped down to 7. The guy isnt getting off scott free, the article is misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

legal aid is separate to costs being awarded. for a judge to give costs it has to be to re-imburse a person for expenses they've had in the case. and it only happens if they get off completely free of any convictions. Legal aid is to provide 'fairness' to people who cant afford to pay through the ass for a lawyer. He doesnt get any of the coin himself, but he did get reimbursed for his own legal costs as he was found not guilty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet if i do a little chirp in the wet i can go to jail for 12 months and get raped?

 

australia. ya'll f**king retarded.

 

I'm sorry but jail for THAT, is f**king retarted. Priorities? wtf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pulled over after a high speed run in a certain sports car here in Tokyo - I was over 200kph for sure. He gave me plenty of stick but then to my amazement told me to fark off home.

 

I couldn't believe what happened but it turns out if he didn't gun me or have a reading then it is his word against mine. The onus of proof is on the police in this instance. I think this is a similar case.

as ridiculous as it sounds, i support it. the police MUST have evidence. without evidence, ANYONE could be f**ked.

 

this is kinda the entire basis of our legal system. innocent until proven guilty. usually with evidence and dare i say, too often these days evidence is ignored or not use to convict.

 

this judge made the right decision. evidence should be required for a conviction not just witnesses.

 

 

 

if cops cant keep up give them better cars and train them better. not that it ll happen.

 

 

I find the innocent until proven guilty system in Australia really flawed.

We can get defected on the presumption of a defectable vehicle (and have to pay with our own money to go through the appropriate measures to get off' defect) like those horror stories where people in factory cars get defected for factory options...

Cops can say that I was doing a burnout or a 'speed test of vehicle' if I'm just accelerating normally just because I have a loud car, their word vs mine = my car gets impounded, I have to pay money, etc etc.

 

Not exactly innocent until proven guilty is it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I find the innocent until proven guilty system in Australia really flawed.

We can get defected on the presumption of a defectable vehicle (and have to pay with our own money to go through the appropriate measures to get off' defect) like those horror stories where people in factory cars get defected for factory options...

Cops can say that I was doing a burnout or a 'speed test of vehicle' if I'm just accelerating normally just because I have a loud car, their word vs mine = my car gets impounded, I have to pay money, etc etc.

 

Not exactly innocent until proven guilty is it

 

 

Pretty sure innocent until proven guilty is ONLY applicable in a court of law. There are statutory provisions which confer upon police certain powers? I haven't actually looked into it but just assume that's how they are allowed to defect you even with BS reasons. How many people are going to take the matter of a defect to court? There is just no point for so much time/money and hassle so people just go along and get their car passed through regency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had 57 charges for my hearing and it got dropped down to 7. The guy isnt getting off scott free, the article is misleading.

 

holy f*ck what did you do :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was quite a good read and a laugh to see what this judge did and a kick in the ass to the police.

 

Just curious to see if this will affecting future cases of people speeding and being booked for it without having a reading and then taking it to court...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×