As much as I hate to admit it, Sollyboy and DaveReid do have a valid point...
The fundamental principle underlying New Zealand's justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. With the introduction of mandatory roadside suspensions for trivial offences (for instance, an 'unnecessary display of acceleration'), it's hardly surprising some people run when the blues'n'twos go off behind them.
Just consider, for example, what impact a mandatory 28-day impounding of a car can have on a family. If the main bread-winner loses both his licence and his vehicle, then that could affect his employment. Even if his job didn't directly rely on his ability to drive, not being able to get to and from work due to lack of transport could cause grave difficulty.
Now, should this suspension be imposed by a judge then the guilty party really doesn't have a leg to stand on. However, when the suspension and impounding can be imposed merely because a Police Officer
believes on reasonable grounds that a person ... operated the vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road (legislation
here, scroll down to section 96, paragraph 1A) there's far more grounds for the 'presumed guilty' party to feel aggrieved. There are a number worrying terms in this statement:
believes,
reasonable grounds, and
unnecessary; they're all entirely subjective, and the imposition of a roadside suspension of licence and impounding of the car removes the presumption of innocence to which every New Zealander is guaranteed by the
Bill of Rights (section 25, paragraph c).
Now, of course the majority of police pursuits do not result from the pursue-ee having rationally considered all the options, the relevant legislation and so on. No, as one of the resident officers pointed out, the vehicle in which the runner is attempted is often stolen. Or full of drugs. However, in cases where someone thinks they're going to lose their licence and vehicle simply because a cop merely has 'reasonable grounds to believe' they're done something, it's not surprising that some people do run. And no, this is not the Police's fault; it's the government's. They rammed through the Land Transport Amendment Act 2003 (the so-called Boy Racer Act) under urgency to tackle a problem that didn't actually require any additional legislation. And it isn't just boy racer offences that carry a 28 day get-fit-by-walking sentence. Anything more than 40kph over the limit and you're walking instantly. Sure, you can appeal the mandatory suspension, but even if your appeal's succesfull, you still have to wait up to give working days for your appeal to be considered. And then wait a further couple of days for your licence to be posted back out to you.
I'm not trying to say that running's justified; I'm saying that considering the lack of evidence needed to 'convict' someone and impound their vehicle, you can see why some people choose to take a chance and run. Sometimes they get away; usually they don't. Sometimes an accident will happen; usually they don't. But the fact remains that Police chases are dangerous and a significant number of injuries occur during them. I'm not saying this is the Police's fault, but the risk to the public should be considered before embarking on a chase, and as
recent events have shown, the Police don't always consider them properly. It's also clear that certain people in authority are concerned about this too; the PCA is conducting a review of the rules governing Police chases, as a result of concerns about the number of deaths and serious injuries that occur during such chases.
Originally Posted by Sanx
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks