Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Prometheus

Car seizure law ruled unconstitutional

Recommended Posts

http://www.abc.net.a...utional/4319298

 

SA's Chief Justice has ruled that state anti-hoon legislation is unconstitutional, and overturned an order for a Port Pirie man to forfeit his car for repeated drink driving offences

Edited by Prometheus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally a judge with a clue.

 

Serves him right!

 

How so? There are already punishments in place, so effectively this type of property seizure is a punishment for having been punished, which is absurd.

 

An analogy would be getting caught running around a park with a chainsaw, the Police fine you and bar you from access to the park. When your access to the park is restored, you do the same thing, the Police fine you, bar you from access to the park, then seize ownership of your house and burn it to the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally a judge with a clue.

 

Serves him right!

 

How so? There are already punishments in place, so effectively this type of property seizure is a punishment for having been punished, which is absurd.

 

An analogy would be getting caught running around a park with a chainsaw, the Police fine you and bar you from access to the park. When your access to the park is restored, you do the same thing, the Police fine you, bar you from access to the park, then seize ownership of your house and burn it to the ground.

*Seems legit*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally a judge with a clue.

 

Serves him right!

 

How so? There are already punishments in place, so effectively this type of property seizure is a punishment for having been punished, which is absurd.

 

Get caught once, loss of license, get caught twice extension of loss license, get caught more than twice, you got shit coming to you and in this case he deserved to get his car crushed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about whether he deserved it or not, hoon laws gove police too much power that can be abused. Take death penalty for an example. In theory I support it for worst offenders like serial murderers, but there have been cases where an innocent person was executed which is why extreme laws like that don't work in real world. Taking people's property away is up there with corporal punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeap I agree, Taking their car, something they own and have probably put money in to (maybe life savings) is not right!

 

I totally agree with loss of licence, fines and jail time for serious stuff but I don't think they have a right to take something you own.

 

It would be like getting noise complaints at your home and after a few of them, they come round take your house and on sell it or knock it down. Its just not right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An analogy would be getting caught running around a park with a chainsaw, the Police fine you and bar you from access to the park. When your access to the park is restored, you do the same thing, the Police fine you, bar you from access to the park, then seize ownership of your house and burn it to the ground.

 

No, it would be like taking your chainsaw away from you because thats what you use to commit the offence. repeatedly. and showed you dont learn and dont give a crap about others

 

They only need to change about three words in the legislation to get this back in and legal. i have no problem with car seizures. drink drive then f*** you. do it three times or while disqualified etc and i dont want you on the road with me. We all know the consequences of the more serious stuff but some still run the risk.

 

i'm not jumping on the "omg hoonz burnouts kill ppl" bandwagon here, but it takes a special kind of wanker to do enough wrong to have their cars forfeited.

Edited by eclipse492

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to read some adelaidenow comments and rage hard.

 

i'm not jumping on the "omg hoonz burnouts kill ppl" bandwagon here, but it takes a special kind of wanker to do enough wrong to have their cars forfeited.

 

I think there's two issues going on here.

 

1. Police using legislative powers against the community. - Okay, fine not a problem.

2. Potential for police to abuse legislative powers against the community - Suddenly a problem.

 

There are often ways around right/wrong - more/cheaper motorsport tracks may deter hooning - OR at least make extreme penalties fair.

 

Courts don't need to be run by the legal profession. They can be operated by intelligent people highly skilled in critical thinking, with the legal profession being used as mere consultants. It would be vastly cheaper and suddenly, society just might become vastly safer.
BAM. Edited by TheApothecary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An analogy would be getting caught running around a park with a chainsaw, the Police fine you and bar you from access to the park. When your access to the park is restored, you do the same thing, the Police fine you, bar you from access to the park, then seize ownership of your house and burn it to the ground.

They only need to change about three words in the legislation to get this back in and legal.

 

What words ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to read some adelaidenow comments and rage hard.

there's some great ones in there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is thank f**k. I rage hard at the thought of peoples property being seized as some kind of punishment. I completely agree with harsh penalties for repeat offenders but you can't just take something that someone has legal ownership of. Its totally wrong and is a huge kick in the balls to our supposed freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its totally wrong and is a huge kick in the balls to our supposed freedom.

 

But if they've gone out of their way to impose on OTHERS freedom - isn't it right and "justified" to take away their freedom to prevent it from happening again? Isn't this why we have jail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its totally wrong and is a huge kick in the balls to our supposed freedom.

 

But if they've gone out of their way to impose on OTHERS freedom - isn't it right and "justified" to take away their freedom to prevent it from happening again? Isn't this why we have jail?

but thats the point its up to the courts to decide that not the police

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't taking freedom. They are taking personal property which doesn't belong to them nor equate to any monetary value which they are owed. AKA Theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its totally wrong and is a huge kick in the balls to our supposed freedom.
But if they've gone out of their way to impose on OTHERS freedom - isn't it right and "justified" to take away their freedom to prevent it from happening again? Isn't this why we have jail?

 

 

How does peeling out from the lights in the wet impose on others freedom? How does industrial skids impose on others freedom? Drink driving I agree does and is f**king retarded.

Edited by KurtHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, if someone is careless enough to offend repeatedly then jail is the most effective way to ensure public safety.

Eg. you have a repeat offender of drink driving who is average in terms of income. The gov can punish him as follows:

 

1. Put him in jail. You've taken his freedom to drive and endanger others.

2. Crush his car. He can buy another car or borrow someone else's car. Either way, he can still drive and endanger others.

 

Taking property is ok in some areas of the law.

Eg. if it was acquired through criminal acts such as selling illicit drugs or fraud like the Fonzy scheme (ripping people off using financial instruments/investments/derivatives). The gov can sell your property to try and recover some money for the injured parties.

 

But taking your car because you can't drive for shit and follow rules is just a waste of time. Put the guy in jail and you've taken him out of the public domain.

As mentioned previously, confiscating the car used for drink driving is like confiscating the knife/chainsaw/hammer/screwdriver that someone used to kill someone, instead of putting them in jail. You can always buy another car/chainsaw/hammer/screwdriver to repeat your crime.

Edited by fried rice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, if someone is careless enough to offend repeatedly then jail is the most effective way to ensure public safety.

Eg. you have a repeat offender of drink driving who is average in terms of income. The gov can punish him as follows:

 

1. Put him in jail. You've taken his freedom to drive and endanger others.

2. Crush his car. He can buy another car or borrow someone else's car. Either way, he can still drive and endanger others.

 

Taking property is ok in some areas of the law.

Eg. if it was acquired through criminal acts such as selling illicit drugs or fraud like the Fonzy scheme (ripping people off using financial instruments/investments/derivatives). The gov can sell your property to try and recover some money for the injured parties.

 

But taking your car because you can't drive for shit and follow rules is just a waste of time. Put the guy in jail and you've taken him out of the public domain.

As mentioned previously, confiscating the car used for drink driving is like confiscating the knife/chainsaw/hammer/screwdriver that someone used to kill someone, instead of putting them in jail. You can always buy another car/chainsaw/hammer/screwdriver to repeat your crime.

this. we already have adequate ways of dealing with offenders, especially of victimless crimes. the seizure of legitimately acquired property is not required, necessary, or even fair.

Edited by pyro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they can still take your car, just not sell it.

What pisses me off about this whole thing, is the government are gradually eroding our right of being inocent till proven guilty in the courts. Can't get court dates soon enuf? fine, build more courts!

 

I agree drunk drivers need to be off the road, so get them into court sooner! easy.

 

As for doing a wheelie and getting treated worse than if you assalted someone, well don't get me started on that one!

And no I don't do that shit, but I don't think normal everyday people should be worried just cuz they see a bloody cop car!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the property has been used to commit a crime, I think the courts should have every right to decide whether it should be confiscated or not. It shouldn't happen on the spot as it has been though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the property has been used to commit a crime, I think the courts should have every right to decide whether it should be confiscated or not. It shouldn't happen on the spot as it has been though.

 

 

Was all this hoon law crap a crime 50 years ago?

Just because a new bullshit law gives past in which amounts to huge income for the government, It doesn't mean the law works or is useful. I fail to see how taking his car will prevent anything... I have access to 7 cars myself, anyone can go buy a car for a few $100 and keep on driving..

Lock him up.. Do not take the car away and charge abused amounts in fines.. It solves nothing..

 

The Australian traffic law is designed so the accused offender is guilty and unable to prove innocents.. If you even try to fight it you are out of pocket all court costs and fee's... You have no chance of winning. They might as well just pull you over at random and say hand over cash, and move onto the next victim cause that is all the system is designed to do..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the property has been used to commit a crime, I think the courts should have every right to decide whether it should be confiscated or not. It shouldn't happen on the spot as it has been though.

 

 

Was all this hoon law crap a crime 50 years ago?

 

Yes it was, it just wasn't called 'hooning'. But I don't think we should be looking to the past for legislative ideas.

 

If the property has been used to commit a crime, I think the courts should have every right to decide whether it should be confiscated or not. It shouldn't happen on the spot as it has been though.

 

 

I fail to see how taking his car will prevent anything... I have access to 7 cars myself, anyone can go buy a car for a few $100 and keep on driving..

 

Maybe we should be banning the criminal from owning a vehicle then? Force them to sell their car(s) and confiscate their license as a median sentence to jail time.

 

Jail time should definitely be on the cards though, I don't disagree with you there.

 

I think a lot of people misunderstood the whole point behind impounding/confiscating vehicles. It wasn't designed to get the driver off the road (that's what revoking the license is for) it was designed as a deterrent.

Edited by tails13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does NOT get a driver off the road.. If it was simply aimed to do that, why do you get such HUGE fines/fee's for a impound, all BEFORE you can even prove otherwise in the court of law?

A cop has the power to pull you over, and take your car, you pay the fines and fee's and have no car for 3 months, I am not pointing the finger at this case, I am talking about the whole system...

The crime of drive driving 50 years ago was handing down as the matter saw fit by the law. Now laws are solely designed on making money, I am not saying all offenses are.

 

Can you really tell me such a thing as excessive acceleration is worthy of someone getting their car taken for 3 months? And who is to judge what excessive is? A over powered revenue enforcer that has no training?

The law is simply a blanket law to bring in huge amounts of money rather then focus on the problem.. And when it clearly pointed out that its only to bring in money the media brain wash you and scream "what about the children" crap and focus on speeding..

Rather then one blanket rule to impound, if each matter was supported by real data like a picture, video etc rather then a "police officers" word I would be in full support, 4km on the freeway over is not going to kill anyone, But an unskilled driver can legally driver 100km on a dirt road that is unsealed and no street lights which is the legal speed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does NOT get a driver off the road.. If it was simply aimed to do that, why do you get such HUGE fines/fee's for a impound, all BEFORE you can even prove otherwise in the court of law?

A cop has the power to pull you over, and take your car, you pay the fines and fee's and have no car for 3 months, I am not pointing the finger at this case, I am talking about the whole system...

The crime of drive driving 50 years ago was handing down as the matter saw fit by the law. Now laws are solely designed on making money, I am not saying all offenses are.

 

Can you really tell me such a thing as excessive acceleration is worthy of someone getting their car taken for 3 months? And who is to judge what excessive is? A over powered revenue enforcer that has no training?

The law is simply a blanket law to bring in huge amounts of money rather then focus on the problem.. And when it clearly pointed out that its only to bring in money the media brain wash you and scream "what about the children" crap and focus on speeding..

Rather then one blanket rule to impound, if each matter was supported by real data like a picture, video etc rather then a "police officers" word I would be in full support, 4km on the freeway over is not going to kill anyone, But an unskilled driver can legally driver 100km on a dirt road that is unsealed and no street lights which is the legal speed?

 

I never said impounding exists to get offenders off the road (that's what license disqualification is for), they're designed as a deterrent against 'hooning'. My last sentence said exactly that.

 

I also said it should be up to the courts to decide, not an officer on the side of the road. This gives the accused a chance to defend their actions, this is for cases such as you mentioned like 'hard accelerating'.

 

You can't just chuck every burnout doer in jail, there has to be varying degrees of punishment. This needs to take into account the severity of the crime and whether it's a first or subsequent offence. The punishment then can be a mix of fines, community service, licence disqualification, car confiscation and/or jail time depending on the severity of the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does NOT get a driver off the road.. If it was simply aimed to do that, why do you get such HUGE fines/fee's for a impound, all BEFORE you can even prove otherwise in the court of law?

A cop has the power to pull you over, and take your car, you pay the fines and fee's and have no car for 3 months, I am not pointing the finger at this case, I am talking about the whole system...

The crime of drive driving 50 years ago was handing down as the matter saw fit by the law. Now laws are solely designed on making money, I am not saying all offenses are.

 

Can you really tell me such a thing as excessive acceleration is worthy of someone getting their car taken for 3 months? And who is to judge what excessive is? A over powered revenue enforcer that has no training?

The law is simply a blanket law to bring in huge amounts of money rather then focus on the problem.. And when it clearly pointed out that its only to bring in money the media brain wash you and scream "what about the children" crap and focus on speeding..

Rather then one blanket rule to impound, if each matter was supported by real data like a picture, video etc rather then a "police officers" word I would be in full support, 4km on the freeway over is not going to kill anyone, But an unskilled driver can legally driver 100km on a dirt road that is unsealed and no street lights which is the legal speed?

 

A young cop tried this angle on my father a while ago, accusing him of "accellerating hard away from the lights". I don't know what he was expecting flagging down a 50+ guy in a new car, but given how quickly he dropped the matter, I assume a sharp and articulate Englishman wasn't his preferred target. Made for a funny anecdote, if only I could remember it.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If two R34 GT-Rs accelerate from the lights as hard as possible to the speed limit then this would be considered excessive acceleration and possibly drag racing. If two 2.8 N/A Toyota Hilux 4x4s did the exact same thing would it also be considered excessive acceleration and possibly drag racing?

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  

×