Another Bike running from the cops

[duckman]

Saw this in the Herald today:

A speeding motorcyclist who drove dangerously on a notorious stretch of Northland road has been fined $5000.

Police abandoned their chase of motorcyclist Mark Patrick Draper after he was clocked by police travelling at 160km/h on his motorbike near Waipu.

I wonder how most of us would manage a $5000 fine ??
I know that would hurt my wallet !!! :confused:

[Jackrat]

Heck,five grand,my bikes not even worth that much.
Well not in cash anyway. ;)

[MikeL]

Presumably the $5000 was for dangerous driving and not for exceeding the speed limit by 60 kph for which the fine would have been a lot lower. But was the riding deemed dangerous simply because of the speed? For that sort of money I would hope the fellow was doing something suicidal apart from just puttering along at a speed which in my recollection of roads near Waipu (flat, good surface etc.) may well have been a relatively low risk for an experienced rider, although obviously unwise in retrospect.
Or indeed was the rider simply unfortunate enough to have financial assets such that he could afford to pay such a fine? Is this an example of means-tested fines??
:eek:

[mangell6]

Him and his mate couldn't hide properly, thats all.

Hiding behind a truck trailer, not so bright at all.

[Jackrat]

Him and his mate couldn't hide properly, thats all.

Hiding behind a truck trailer, not so bright at all.

So what are ya saying,He got away an then got found afterward???
Man thats a dumb tax,not a fine :brick: LOL

[igor]

So what are ya saying,He got away an then got found afterward???
Man thats a dumb tax,not a fine :brick: LOL

finally something we agree on.

Q. Why did he get the $5000 fine
A. He must of had 2 or more previous convictions of this type and was charged with Dangerous Diving third or subsequent. Max Penalty is $6000 / 2 years prison / 12 months disqualification. but I can't find that legislation mentioning that.

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 7

7.Drivers not to be reckless or dangerous—

(1)A person may not operate a motor vehicle recklessly on a road.

(2)A person may not drive a motor vehicle on a road, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven on a road, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person.

Penalty Land Transport Act 1998 Section 35.

35.Contravention of section 7, or section 22 where no injury or death involved—
(1)A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)Operates a motor vehicle recklessly on a road; or

(b)Drives or causes a motor vehicle to be driven on a road at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person; or

(c)Without reasonable excuse, contravenes section 22 by failing to stop and ascertain whether any person has been injured, after an accident where no other person has been injured or killed.

(2)If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1),—

(a)The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and

(b)The court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.

(3)The imposition of a mandatory disqualification under this section is subject to section 81.

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 81

81.Provisions relating to mandatory disqualification—

(1)If any provision of this Act (other than section 63) requires a court to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period not less than the specified minimum period, the court must order that the person be disqualified accordingly unless for special reasons relating to the offence it thinks fit to order otherwise.

(2)Nothing in any provision referred to in subsection (1) or in section 68 restricts any other duty or power of the court to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driver licence or to impose any other penalty.

(3)This section is subject to section 94 (which relates to community-based sentences).

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 94 (they don't have to disqualify u if, lot of people unaware of this)

94.Substitution of community-based sentences— (in other words u do PD which is now called community work)

(1)This section applies if—

(a)The offender has previously been ordered on conviction for an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence; and

(b)The court, having regard to—

(i)The circumstances of the case and of the offender; and

(ii)The effectiveness or otherwise of a previous order of disqualification made in respect of the offender; and

(iii)The likely effect on the offender of a further order of disqualification; and

(iv)The interests of the public,—

considers that it would be inappropriate to order that the offender be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence; and

(c)The court considers that it would be appropriate to sentence the offender to a community-based sentence in accordance with [Part 2 of the Sentencing Act 2002]

(2)Despite any provision of this Act that requires a court (in the absence of special reasons relating to the offence) to order a person convicted of an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence, the court may instead make an order referred to in subsection (3) if this section applies.

(3)If the court sentencing an offender determines under this section not to make an order of disqualification,—

(a)The court must impose a community-based sentence on the offender; and

(b)The imposition of such a sentence does not limit or affect the power of the court to impose any other sentence for the offence that, in accordance with the provisions of the [Sentencing Act 2002], it may impose in addition to the community-based sentence; and

(c)In determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the offender in respect of the offence, the court must take into account the gravity of the offence and the fact that the offender would otherwise have been liable to disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence.

(4)This section does not apply if the offender is not entitled to apply for or hold a limited licence, or if section 63 or section 65 applies.

Cf 1962 No 135 s 30AC

Also under Section 129 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (now this really hurts if its ya second offence with-in 4 years)

129.Confiscation of motor vehicle after second offence—

(1)This section applies if,—

(a)on or after 26 July 1996, a person commits an offence (the ``first offence'') against any of sections 32(1)(a) or (b), 35(1)(a) or (b), 36(1), [36A(1)(a) or (c),] 56(1) or (2), 58(1), 60(1), 61(1), or 62(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (which relate to driving offences); and

(b)within 4 years after the date of the commission of that offence, the person commits a further offence (the ``second offence'') against any of those provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998.

(2)For the purpose of subsection (1), it does not matter whether or not the second offence is of the same kind as the first offence, but it must be an offence that arises from a different incident from the one that gave rise to the first offence.

(3)If the court by or before which the offender is convicted of the second offence is satisfied that any motor vehicle owned by the offender or in which the offender has any interest was being driven by, or in the charge of, the offender at the material time, the court must order that the motor vehicle be confiscated.

(4)Despite subsection (3), the court must not make an order under that subsection if it will result in extreme hardship to the offender or undue hardship to any other person.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a conviction for an offence against a provision of the Transport Act 1962 that corresponds to an offence specified in subsection (1) must be treated as a conviction for an offence specified in that subsection.

Cf 1985 No 120 s 84(2A), (2AA)

So to all those who think about running away and ya been nabbed with-in the last 4 years ya get to give ya bike to the government. But u all nu that didn't ya's cause ya all so smart here :shit:

[marty]

igor - dangerous/reckless don't have 3rd/subsequent provisions, only eba and disqual/suspended charges.

the large fine may have been covered under the Failing To Stop provisions, which carry a maximum fine of $10000.

minimum 6 months disqualification is mandatory for dangerous, but discretionary for FTS

what does have 2nd provisions though is an 'unnecessary display of speed or acceleration' and 'operating a vehicle in a race'. a 2nd conviction for those offences WILL result in your vehicle being confiscated and sold (you get nothing from the sale - the HP is not even paid off)

[igor]

igor - dangerous/reckless don't have 3rd/subsequent provisions, only eba and disqual/suspended charges.

the large fine may have been covered under the Failing To Stop provisions, which carry a maximum fine of $10000.

minimum 6 months disqualification is mandatory for dangerous, but discretionary for FTS

what does have 2nd provisions though is an 'unnecessary display of speed or acceleration' and 'operating a vehicle in a race'. a 2nd conviction for those offences WILL result in your vehicle being confiscated and sold (you get nothing from the sale - the HP is not even paid off)

beauty ya cleared that up

wonder why i couldn't find it

that legislation is just so easy to read. penalities listed away from the offences, pain in da bum

[mangell6]

The article said that the Police lost sight of them but found the bikes parked behind a truck trailer.

[igor]

The article said that the Police lost sight of them but found the bikes parked behind a truck trailer.

and, sorry u lost me

Thasnks for the expolnation Marty

$10000 fine and he got half price. must of been a hanging Judge cause they only ususlly give out $250 for those kind of offences

why did he get the 12 months suspension if he only allowed to give 6 months ????? any ideas

[marty]

the 6 months is a MINIMUM sentence. if the judge imposes nothing else, he must impose the disqualification. a longer period may be applied. a longer period sometimes is imposed if it's the bad guys 100th offence

[igor]

the 6 months is a MINIMUM sentence. if the judge imposes nothing else, he must impose the disqualification. a longer period may be applied. a longer period sometimes is imposed if it's the bad guys 100th offence

having bad brain fade i new that

[marty]

this is part of the report commisioned by the police to overview pursuit policy. it has looked at a number of reporting methods, formal and informal. it runs to 15 or so pages, but i thought this was quite relevant. noter these are for pursuits that are logged at comms only, since the comms centres were centralised - not every failing to stop is called in, sometimes it's not practical to do so, sometimes the failing to stop is short (less than 1km), and there is insufficient time/radio space



"For example: there were 4,076 pursuits in the 7-year period, and average of
582 a year; most pursuit offenders have substantial criminal and traffic
offending histories (the apprehended pursuit offenders over the 7 years had
accumulated over 60,000 criminal convictions between them; the proportion
of pursuits abandoned by Police has increased markedly since 1996 (with a
corresponding decrease in offenders apprehended); road spikes were able to
be deployed in very few pursuits; that 34% of pursuits involve damage (a
crash of some form) to an offender's vehicle and 6% to a Police vehicle;
and both Police and offender crashes are trending downwards."

[Coldkiwi]

perhaps he was hoisting a wheelie at the time then to cop a $6000 fine? easy to do and then amble up to 160kph if you're not looking I imagine (I'm no expert, my front only got lofted properly yesterday accelerating over a rise.. but I do read enough mag's :) )

I agree about a stupid tax... get away then hide behind a truck?? not so clever.

[wkid_one]

By the sounds of the article etc - that fact he hid meant piss all....the cops had is rego anyway. He was most likely going to recieve a luverly visit from Polizei anyway...

Can't understand the point in running if they (or the public) get a look at your rego......talk about just adding to your problems.

[inlinefour]

Saw this in the Herald today:

A speeding motorcyclist who drove dangerously on a notorious stretch of Northland road has been fined $5000.

Police abandoned their chase of motorcyclist Mark Patrick Draper after he was clocked by police travelling at 160km/h on his motorbike near Waipu.

I wonder how most of us would manage a $5000 fine ??
I know that would hurt my wallet !!! :confused:

One could buy a reasonable bike for 5 grand...

[marty]

fuckin hell honda - this thread is over a YEAR old - not too many crazies down your way at the moment huh?

[Sensei]

Yea I'm still here !!! 296k why wont my bike go any faster ??? May be it has a limiter . May have to get it looked at by shop to see if they can get 300k out of it
SENSEI :sly:

[WINJA]

EVERYTHING I READ HERE SO FAR SAYS ONE THING TO ME "NEVER EVER STOP"

[WINJA]

Yea I'm still here !!! 296k why wont my bike go any faster ??? May be it has a limiter . May have to get it looked at by shop to see if they can get 300k out of it
SENSEI :sly:
MINE FREEZES AT 299 .BTW IVE HAD IT FROZEN AT 299 WHEN A WELL KNOWN F1 RACER WENT PAST ME LIKE IM SITTING STILL

[Sensei]

Duh put into 6th gear 308k getting better :crazy: >
SENSEI

[sAsLEX]

what does have 2nd provisions though is an 'unnecessary display of speed or acceleration' and 'operating a vehicle in a race'. a 2nd conviction for those offences WILL result in your vehicle being confiscated and sold (you get nothing from the sale - the HP is not even paid off)

peretty harsh for a very 'grey" law!! Sure some Boy Racers need to be taken off the road but in some areas they take this a bit too far. Mate got done for loss of traction turning sharply out of a gravel drive! Cop eventually dropped the charge but they are quick to jump on any young guys!!!

[mattt]

finally something we agree on.

Q. Why did he get the $5000 fine
A. He must of had 2 or more previous convictions of this type and was charged with Dangerous Diving third or subsequent. Max Penalty is $6000 / 2 years prison / 12 months disqualification. but I can't find that legislation mentioning that.

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 7

7.Drivers not to be reckless or dangerous—

(1)A person may not operate a motor vehicle recklessly on a road.

(2)A person may not drive a motor vehicle on a road, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven on a road, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person.

Penalty Land Transport Act 1998 Section 35.

35.Contravention of section 7, or section 22 where no injury or death involved—
(1)A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)Operates a motor vehicle recklessly on a road; or

(b)Drives or causes a motor vehicle to be driven on a road at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person; or

(c)Without reasonable excuse, contravenes section 22 by failing to stop and ascertain whether any person has been injured, after an accident where no other person has been injured or killed.

(2)If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1),—

(a)The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and

(b)The court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.

(3)The imposition of a mandatory disqualification under this section is subject to section 81.

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 81

81.Provisions relating to mandatory disqualification—

(1)If any provision of this Act (other than section 63) requires a court to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period not less than the specified minimum period, the court must order that the person be disqualified accordingly unless for special reasons relating to the offence it thinks fit to order otherwise.

(2)Nothing in any provision referred to in subsection (1) or in section 68 restricts any other duty or power of the court to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driver licence or to impose any other penalty.

(3)This section is subject to section 94 (which relates to community-based sentences).

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 94 (they don't have to disqualify u if, lot of people unaware of this)

94.Substitution of community-based sentences— (in other words u do PD which is now called community work)

(1)This section applies if—

(a)The offender has previously been ordered on conviction for an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence; and

(b)The court, having regard to—

(i)The circumstances of the case and of the offender; and

(ii)The effectiveness or otherwise of a previous order of disqualification made in respect of the offender; and

(iii)The likely effect on the offender of a further order of disqualification; and

(iv)The interests of the public,—

considers that it would be inappropriate to order that the offender be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence; and

(c)The court considers that it would be appropriate to sentence the offender to a community-based sentence in accordance with [Part 2 of the Sentencing Act 2002]

(2)Despite any provision of this Act that requires a court (in the absence of special reasons relating to the offence) to order a person convicted of an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence, the court may instead make an order referred to in subsection (3) if this section applies.

(3)If the court sentencing an offender determines under this section not to make an order of disqualification,—

(a)The court must impose a community-based sentence on the offender; and

(b)The imposition of such a sentence does not limit or affect the power of the court to impose any other sentence for the offence that, in accordance with the provisions of the [Sentencing Act 2002], it may impose in addition to the community-based sentence; and

(c)In determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the offender in respect of the offence, the court must take into account the gravity of the offence and the fact that the offender would otherwise have been liable to disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence.

(4)This section does not apply if the offender is not entitled to apply for or hold a limited licence, or if section 63 or section 65 applies.

Cf 1962 No 135 s 30AC

Also under Section 129 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (now this really hurts if its ya second offence with-in 4 years)

129.Confiscation of motor vehicle after second offence—

(1)This section applies if,—

(a)on or after 26 July 1996, a person commits an offence (the ``first offence'') against any of sections 32(1)(a) or (b), 35(1)(a) or (b), 36(1), [36A(1)(a) or (c),] 56(1) or (2), 58(1), 60(1), 61(1), or 62(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (which relate to driving offences); and

(b)within 4 years after the date of the commission of that offence, the person commits a further offence (the ``second offence'') against any of those provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998.

(2)For the purpose of subsection (1), it does not matter whether or not the second offence is of the same kind as the first offence, but it must be an offence that arises from a different incident from the one that gave rise to the first offence.

(3)If the court by or before which the offender is convicted of the second offence is satisfied that any motor vehicle owned by the offender or in which the offender has any interest was being driven by, or in the charge of, the offender at the material time, the court must order that the motor vehicle be confiscated.

(4)Despite subsection (3), the court must not make an order under that subsection if it will result in extreme hardship to the offender or undue hardship to any other person.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a conviction for an offence against a provision of the Transport Act 1962 that corresponds to an offence specified in subsection (1) must be treated as a conviction for an offence specified in that subsection.

Cf 1985 No 120 s 84(2A), (2AA)

So to all those who think about running away and ya been nabbed with-in the last 4 years ya get to give ya bike to the government. But u all nu that didn't ya's cause ya all so smart here :shit:

I'm going to print all this, paste it on my tank, and learn it by heart. :finger:

[WINJA]

Duh put into 6th gear 308k getting better :crazy: >
SENSEI
THE BIKE KEEPS GOING THE SPEEDO STOPS AT 299. I THINK THERES DIFFERENT SPEEDOS SUZUKI SAY THEY READ NO HIGHER THAN 289 IVE SEEN 299 HEAPS AND MY MATE PUT A 600 SPEEDO ON AND IT READ 315 BUT I DONT BELIEVE A LIGHTLY MODED GSXR1000 DOES A GENUINE 315

[marty]

well you *would* know winja, being god and all

[avgas]

man i really need a better speedo, it goes round to 180, hits the pin, and flexes like mad. Im either gonna break or bend the pin/needle.
why would they limit 299? Isnt it a little past dangerous?

[scumdog]

AHA but thats where your wrong ol chap.

The thing is they have to prove IDENTITY of the rider.
When they come knocking on your door you tell them no officer it wasnt me, my bike is for sale and there have been several anonymous riders take it out today.
Speeding you say?? Holy crap well I'll be, i would never do such a thing. Next time i will get there licence off them and be sure to tell you straight away.
Now good day.

I said good day

Harupmh! THAT kind of cunning plan cost a few car owners $1,500 each for their 'silence' when they went to court down here for 'failing to identify driver' offence! - I kid you not.

We don't cotton on to lilly-livered modern liberal left-wing ideas down here!!

[Mr Skid]

Harupmh! THAT kind of cunning plan cost a few car owners $1,500 each for their 'silence' when they went to court for 'failing to identify driver' offence!
I'm not taking a position on 'doing a runner', but was wondering how much it would cost all up for taking the wrap for doing a runner?

I'm thinking loss of licence /solicitors cost of getting a work licence, possible vehicle confiscation, insurance premium increases etc.

Might $1500 be cheaper in some situations? It sounds like an expensive get out of jail free card, but one that might pay for itself depending on circumstances.

[Blakamin]

Harupmh! THAT kind of cunning plan cost a few car owners $1,500 each for their 'silence' when they went to court down here for 'failing to identify driver' offence! - I kid you not.

was about to mention that offence myself... your vehicle and you dont know who's in control?? your fault unless you reported it stolen.... they have to prove nothing..... you have to prove it wasn't you... and if you can do that but not name the person...thats when the $1500 happens

[Indo]

[QUOTE=SpeedMedic]Where do you get this from Blakamin? This is simply not the case.
Are you saying you would have to prove it wasnt you driving if somebody test drove one of your vehicles and they committed some crime while in possesion of it? /QUOTE]

Actually it is the case. Its called section 118 of the land transport act from memory. If an offence has been committed you have 7 days to provide Police with information as to who was driving the bike/car etc, failure to do so within 7 days can result in a $20,000 fine. Thats from the top of my head anyway.

And no judge is going to believe you when you say that some thief took your bike used it to do a runner from the cops and then kindly returned it back into your garage. Or that you lent it to some friend whose name is 'bob or something' isn't going to work either.

Doing a runner is fkin stupid in itself, but doing a runner when the cops have your rego you have to have a complete retard.

[Blakamin]

The police's job is to prove guilt.. it is not yours to prove innocence.
Our Justice system is built on this foundation that you are innocent untill PROVEN guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

shit... can I go to the courts that actually do that???? :2thumbsup
not having a go, but we all know that to be "in the perfect world"
if it is your vehicle, it's a fact that you have to inform the police who was in control... if you said someone was test-riding, in court you're gunna have to prove it was for sale at that time or cop the $1500... if its a case of "your word against theirs", how many court rooms have you been in????
I wish that "innocent untill PROVEN guilty beyond any reasonable doubt" was actually the case ... this is what I think of it anyway :lol: :lol: (coz its a friggin joke)

[Blakamin]

Why am i getting involved in these things anyway.. i normally just cajole and cheer from the sidelines...
me too, but after seeing numerous court cases over the years, I dont believe the "innocent, blah,blah,blah" anymore than i believe in flying giant squid.... not the coppers fault, the system just aint fool proof... if it was we wouldn't have a need for any lawyers let alone a "good" lawyer...and every murderer would be in jail for life...

[Indo]

Fine, I will stand corrected if someone comes up with some case where this has happened.
I didnt say a theif took my bike and kindly bought it back. I said a unknowen person to me, test rode it for the purpose of purchasing it, and whilst out got in a pursuit... rego noted, pursuit terminated.
Couple hours later plods turn up and wanna know who was riding bike... I honestly dont know oficer... you think i will wear 20,000 dollar fine for that.. highly doubt it.

Err really what Judge is really going to believe that?

That between "" hrs and ""hrs you just happenned to let some complete stranger waltz in off the street and take your bike for a test drive. And that this stranger just happened to be a criminal who ran from the cops but still returned your bike in pristine condition back to you.

Judges might seem clueless at times, but not quite that clueless.

[spudchucka]

118.Owner or hirer to give information as to identity of driver or passenger—




(1)If an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that the driver of a vehicle has committed an offence while in charge of the vehicle, the officer may request the owner or hirer of the vehicle to give all information in his or her possession or obtainable by him or her which may lead to the identification and apprehension of the driver of the vehicle.


(2)If an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that a passenger of a vehicle has committed an offence in or through the use of the vehicle where that use relates to the commission of the offence or the aiding of the commission of the offence or the assisting of that passenger to avoid arrest in connection with or conviction for that offence, the officer may request the owner or hirer of the vehicle to give all information which may lead to the identification and apprehension of the passenger.


(3)A request under subsection (1) or subsection (2) may be made orally or in writing and the owner or hirer (as the case may be) must comply with the request within 14 days.


(4)If a vehicle has been used to flee a Police pursuit, an enforcement officer may request the owner of the vehicle to give all information in his or her possession or obtainable by him or her which may lead to the identification and apprehension of the driver, and the owner must give the officer that information immediately.


(5)Subsection (4) does not apply if the owner has been arrested or detained in relation to the suspected offence.


Thats the relevant section of the Act. You guys figure it out!

[marty]

AND, if your bike was involved in a pursuit, and the rego was obtained, you can bet your bottom dollar that the feds would be knocking at your house door long before you got home. i have never lost a 'failing to give information' charge in court, however it is pretty obvious at the time of prosecution whether it will go all the way. i have had a couple of disqualified sentences be handed down too (disqual is a discretionary sentence). like i said - you could always disappear for a month, or hang out with OLMG types.....

[marty]

cause the wife/flatmate/girlfried/boyfriend isn't always schooled up, and more often that not will say 'oh he's just out riding his bike', or 'he's at the paeroa races on his bike' or 'he NEVER lets any one ride his bike' or 'no, it's not for sale at the moment'......

[Racer X]

Why am i getting involved in these things anyway.. i normally just cajole and cheer from the sidelines... I'm subbing out.

I said good day

Thanks for getting involved - I never really thought about the old, my bike is for sale idea... I have a feeling I might have to use it some time :whistle:

[scumdog]

Thanks for getting involved - I never really thought about the old, my bike is for sale idea... I have a feeling I might have to use it some time :whistle:

And another urban myth carries on.......

[Sniper]

in flying giant squid

Umm, saw one the other day, bastard of a thing, stole an icecream cone and then flew off :Pokey: :Oops: :Offtopic:

[Blakamin]

Umm, saw one the other day, bastard of a thing, stole an icecream cone and then flew off :Pokey: :Oops: :Offtopic:
:2thumbsup :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[bane]

finally something we agree on.

Q. Why did he get the $5000 fine
A. He must of had 2 or more previous convictions of this type and was charged with Dangerous Diving third or subsequent. Max Penalty is $6000 / 2 years prison / 12 months disqualification. but I can't find that legislation mentioning that.

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 7

7.Drivers not to be reckless or dangerous—

(1)A person may not operate a motor vehicle recklessly on a road.

(2)A person may not drive a motor vehicle on a road, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven on a road, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person.

Penalty Land Transport Act 1998 Section 35.

35.Contravention of section 7, or section 22 where no injury or death involved—
(1)A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)Operates a motor vehicle recklessly on a road; or

(b)Drives or causes a motor vehicle to be driven on a road at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person; or

(c)Without reasonable excuse, contravenes section 22 by failing to stop and ascertain whether any person has been injured, after an accident where no other person has been injured or killed.

(2)If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1),—

(a)The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and

(b)The court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.

(3)The imposition of a mandatory disqualification under this section is subject to section 81.

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 81

81.Provisions relating to mandatory disqualification—

(1)If any provision of this Act (other than section 63) requires a court to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period not less than the specified minimum period, the court must order that the person be disqualified accordingly unless for special reasons relating to the offence it thinks fit to order otherwise.

(2)Nothing in any provision referred to in subsection (1) or in section 68 restricts any other duty or power of the court to disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driver licence or to impose any other penalty.

(3)This section is subject to section 94 (which relates to community-based sentences).

Land Transport Act 1998 Section 94 (they don't have to disqualify u if, lot of people unaware of this)

94.Substitution of community-based sentences— (in other words u do PD which is now called community work)

(1)This section applies if—

(a)The offender has previously been ordered on conviction for an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence; and

(b)The court, having regard to—

(i)The circumstances of the case and of the offender; and

(ii)The effectiveness or otherwise of a previous order of disqualification made in respect of the offender; and

(iii)The likely effect on the offender of a further order of disqualification; and

(iv)The interests of the public,—

considers that it would be inappropriate to order that the offender be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence; and

(c)The court considers that it would be appropriate to sentence the offender to a community-based sentence in accordance with [Part 2 of the Sentencing Act 2002]

(2)Despite any provision of this Act that requires a court (in the absence of special reasons relating to the offence) to order a person convicted of an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence, the court may instead make an order referred to in subsection (3) if this section applies.

(3)If the court sentencing an offender determines under this section not to make an order of disqualification,—

(a)The court must impose a community-based sentence on the offender; and

(b)The imposition of such a sentence does not limit or affect the power of the court to impose any other sentence for the offence that, in accordance with the provisions of the [Sentencing Act 2002], it may impose in addition to the community-based sentence; and

(c)In determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the offender in respect of the offence, the court must take into account the gravity of the offence and the fact that the offender would otherwise have been liable to disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence.

(4)This section does not apply if the offender is not entitled to apply for or hold a limited licence, or if section 63 or section 65 applies.

Cf 1962 No 135 s 30AC

Also under Section 129 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (now this really hurts if its ya second offence with-in 4 years)

129.Confiscation of motor vehicle after second offence—

(1)This section applies if,—

(a)on or after 26 July 1996, a person commits an offence (the ``first offence'') against any of sections 32(1)(a) or (b), 35(1)(a) or (b), 36(1), [36A(1)(a) or (c),] 56(1) or (2), 58(1), 60(1), 61(1), or 62(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (which relate to driving offences); and

(b)within 4 years after the date of the commission of that offence, the person commits a further offence (the ``second offence'') against any of those provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998.

(2)For the purpose of subsection (1), it does not matter whether or not the second offence is of the same kind as the first offence, but it must be an offence that arises from a different incident from the one that gave rise to the first offence.

(3)If the court by or before which the offender is convicted of the second offence is satisfied that any motor vehicle owned by the offender or in which the offender has any interest was being driven by, or in the charge of, the offender at the material time, the court must order that the motor vehicle be confiscated.

(4)Despite subsection (3), the court must not make an order under that subsection if it will result in extreme hardship to the offender or undue hardship to any other person.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a conviction for an offence against a provision of the Transport Act 1962 that corresponds to an offence specified in subsection (1) must be treated as a conviction for an offence specified in that subsection.

Cf 1985 No 120 s 84(2A), (2AA)

So to all those who think about running away and ya been nabbed with-in the last 4 years ya get to give ya bike to the government. But u all nu that didn't ya's cause ya all so smart here :shit:


People who quote long posts really piss me off