Another Bike running from the cops

[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????
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 (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

[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

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

[Blakamin]

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

[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

People who quote long posts really piss me off