Ouch! - no more bike!!.

[Ixion]

I am confused about the authority under which the bike was destroyed.

A vehicle can be confiscated where some serious driving offences have occured

But as I understand it no such charges were laid in this case? Because the police were unable to identify the driver . So they charged the owner under Sect 14 with failing to provide particulars

As I read it the LTA 1998 Sect 44 provides the penalty for that offence, and the penalty is a maximum fine of $10000. No mention of confiscation. Which presumbly is the reason for the very high maximum fine. And the owner was accordingly fined, $1500.

So how did the bike get confiscated?

[spudchucka]

I am confused about the authority under which the bike was destroyed.

A vehicle can be confiscated where some serious driving offences have occured

But as I understand it no such charges were laid in this case? Because the police were unable to identify the driver . So they charged the owner under Sect 14 with failing to provide particulars

As I read it the LTA 1998 Sect 44 provides the penalty for that offence, and the penalty is a maximum fine of $10000. No mention of confiscation. Which presumbly is the reason for the very high maximum fine. And the owner was accordingly fined, $1500.

So how did the bike get confiscated?

I'd say it has more to do with the Sentencing Act 2002, section 128. Not entirely sure how the judge managed it but good on him I reckon.

[Ixion]

Sentencing Act 2002

128.Confiscation of motor vehicle—

(1)This section applies if a person is convicted of any of the following offences:

(a)an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than 12 months, or by imprisonment for life:

(b)an offence against any of the provisions of sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b), [36A(1)(a) or (c),] 38(1), 39(1), or 56 to 60 of the Land Transport Act 1998 (which relate to driving offences).

(2)A court may exercise the power in subsection (3) if a person is convicted of an offence referred to in subsection (1) and the court by or before which the offender is convicted is satisfied that any motor vehicle owned by the offender or in which the offender has any interest at the time of conviction—

(a)was used to commit or facilitate the commission of the offence, whether or not the offender was the driver or person in charge; or

(b)in the case of an offence against any of the provisions of sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b), 36(1)(a), [36A(1)(a) or (c),] 38(1), 39(1), and 56 to 62 of the Land Transport Act 1998, was being driven by, or in the charge of, the offender at the material time; or

(c)was used by the offender, whether or not the offender was the driver or person in charge, to facilitate the offender's flight or avoid his or her detection or arrest after the commission of the offence.

But but but. The offences specified are basically careless, reckless, and drink driving. And if someone is convicted of those their vehicle can be confiscated. Fair enough .

But, surely, here noone was so convicted, that being the whole point of the "refuse to name" thing?

Don't really have any issue with the result, suspect that Percy still got off lightly. Just puzzled how the judge managed to squeeze it into the law.

Shouldn't have been destroyed , either, act says it must be sold. But that might be dodgy reporting, papers often get stuff wrong.

[spudchucka]

But but but. The offences specified are basically careless, reckless, and drink driving. And if someone is convicted of those their vehicle can be confiscated. Fair enough .

Yes, exactly, which is why I said I wasn't sure how the judge arrived at that decision. However, the bike had clearly been involved in such an offence, the only issue was who was in control of it at the time. I guess the judge just convicted the bike and sentenced it to death?

Section 139 of the same act says something about the court registrar can dispose of the bike in any way he / she sees fit if it isn't in a saleable condition.

[McJim]

Section 139 of the same act says something about the court registrar can dispose of the bike in any way he / she sees fit if it isn't in a saleable condition.

Yeah - I think some strange interpretations of the legislation may have been made by the judge in this instance - If the bike can do 170kph then surely it would be sellable. A better route for New Zealand law to take would be if a vehicle is clocked exceeding the speed limit the driver is automatically cited with all penalties UNLESS they can provide proof that another person was driving the vehicle at the time. I believe this is how it works back in blighty but never having broken the speed limit myself I have no idea. PLEASE NOTE THIS IS MERELY AN OPINION OR SUGGESTION NOT A CRITICISM so please don't gimme any more annonymous unexplained red bling.
Be aware that I will often place posts that are not necessarily my opinion as I believe all points of view should be voiced - that is the purpose is it not of a forum?

[spudchucka]

Yeah - I think some strange interpretations of the legislation may have been made by the judge in this instance - If the bike can do 170kph then surely it would be sellable.

At that time no doubt it was in a reasonable condition but that would have been several months ago now. Anything could have happened to it betwen the time the incident happened and now.

[scumdog]

I am confused about the authority under which the bike was destroyed.

A vehicle can be confiscated where some serious driving offences have occured

But as I understand it no such charges were laid in this case? Because the police were unable to identify the driver . So they charged the owner under Sect 14 with failing to provide particulars

As I read it the LTA 1998 Sect 44 provides the penalty for that offence, and the penalty is a maximum fine of $10000. No mention of confiscation. Which presumbly is the reason for the very high maximum fine. And the owner was accordingly fined, $1500.

So how did the bike get confiscated?

How did the bike get confiscated?
Because the Judge was not a trendy left wing soft-cock liberal Dorkland 'slap-on-the-wrist' type.

This is red-neck territory and at times 'real' justice prevails.

F*ck the slack-jawed mouth-breathing drongo that thought he would 'staunch' it with the Judge, he LOST!!!!

Don't come down here unless you can face the music.

P.S. This guy was lucky, last guys got fined $1,500 for 'doing nothing'

[Gremlin]

Ask for the photo/evidence?

Wait till the cop you question says it was him that saw it. As easy as that sounds, now imagine having your word against his...

[Lou Girardin]

F*ck the slack-jawed mouth-breathing drongo that thought he would 'staunch' it with the Judge, he LOST!!!!

The Judge better hope that he is and that he's too stupid to get a big city lawyer or else Mr Drongo might be getting a new bike.

[scumdog]

The Judge better hope that he is and that he's too stupid to get a big city lawyer or else Mr Drongo might be getting a new bike.

Pah, this IS redneck territory down here Lou, crap like above only happens on TV - or Auckland.