Ford Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
pR()rN_*
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Sorry peeps just have to have good old vent.....

A good mate of mine recently had an altercation with a police man.
Goes as follows:
Mate accelerates out of a service station on to a straight road the turned right through a yellow light intersection.
Now a cop pulled out of a side street before the set of lights and turned on his lights before my mate went round the corner.
Now my mate thinks the cop is after someone else and just goes round the corner as normal.
The cop follows him round the corner and so my friend pulls over.
The cop then blasts him for speeding (which he wasn't doing) and once my friend refutes his claim stating that he was doing 60 and nothing more.
So the cop then says "well what about that red light then" my friend also says no it was yellow and the cop proceeds to write out a ticket for going through a red light and tells him to take it to court....

Obviously pissing off my friend and me a fair bit.

So my mate takes it to court and this is what the police man had as his version of events:

Saw a galant (his car) going past at 80km/h (manages to know this with no detection equipment)
pursued the galant and he turned right round through a red light narrowly missing a pedestrian.
After pulling the galant over the defendant claimed he was late for work and admitted to going 80kms (in a 60 zone) and going through a red light.


1) Ahhhhhhhhh!!! I just want to see this wanker locked away for 6 months and loose his job for contempt of court.

2) If he was speeding why wasn't he booked for it!!!

3) If you thought I didn't like cops before hand, I'm just bloody seething now.
 

·
now with EF power!
Joined
·
891 Posts
Thats horrible. What a wanker of a cop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Too bad you didn't have a reciept of the purchase at the servo. If you had just pulled out maybe that would have helped to show doubt that you were going 80. The times wouldn't be perfect but every little bit of preparation helps.
 

·
XA Coupe owner.
Joined
·
42 Posts
Cops can be a pack of lying bastards........just gotta act like your sorta scared or worried and end everything with "Yes officer". If the officer didnt catch you with a speed camera.......he has nothing against you in terms of speeding.

Was he a young copper or older?

Did you beat the charge or wat?
 

·
pR()rN_*
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
It's actully not me that took it to court.
It's my best mate.
The hearing was today and thats when we found out what the cop actully recorded vs's what actully happened.

Mate will have to go back for a pre- trial but he's going to plead "no case" because the cop has no evidence to support his claims.
 

·
Lord of the RC
Joined
·
2,515 Posts
Thats just f'n BS..... damn coppers.. cant lie like that, if he has no hard evidence against ur mate.. cant really do much
 

·
Drives like a Grandad
Joined
·
112 Posts
Yawn! Policeman puts his career on the line; willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars in superannuation; possible term of imprisonment for perjury; no chance of gainfull employment after his dismissal from the Police Force to convict motorist for going through a red light. Yawn.

Not saying police don't lie, plenty of them have paid the ultimate penalty as listed above. Those cops normally lie about things that involve murder, trafficking in drugs, corruption involving them being paid big dollars - not for traffic offences.

In any case, your associate has a really easy defence to this one. Subpoena (summons) his employer to Court, along with all associated rosters, employment contracts and documents to prove that he wasn't even supposed to be at work on that day. Blows a big hole in the police officer's story doesn't it?

And did you ask the prosecutor if the conversation was taped? I couldn't determine if you have actually heard evidence or if you attended a 'mention' date to determine if you wished to plead guilty or not.

And did you go back to the service station and ask if they had a copy of the surveillance video of you and your associate at the bowser?

Keep us posted of your investigation and the results please.
 

·
pR()rN_*
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
well I'm quite sure the police man is risking absolutly nothing.
There is no evidence for anything he said nor any evidence for anything that he booked my friend for.

Even if the conversation was taped it would be inadmissible due to neither providing permission to be taped.

Yes it was simply a mention or hearing that he attended today. He entered a plead of no case.
Ultimatly he doesn't have to investigate or prove anything because when the shit hits the fan the cop has no evidence for anything and it's his word against my friends.

It's up to the cop to actully prove my mate is lieing and with absolutly no evidence (mainly because he didn't actully do it) he'd be pushing it up a hill.
 

·
pR()rN_*
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
my point exactly.
It does nothing except annoy me.
I know he can't get busted for it but bloody hell I wish he could.
 

·
Drives like a Grandad
Joined
·
112 Posts
Haven't had a lot to do with South Australian Legislation so I am a bit confused about his intention to contest the matter.

Your associate has entered a 'plea of no case'? Queenslanders use the term 'not guilty' and may at that time 'make a submission' to the Magistrate that the defendant has 'no case to answer'. Is that what you mean by a 'plea of no case'?

The Magistrate, upon allowing the 'submission' from the defence, will 'hear' the submission from the table. VERY dangerous to do this because the defence is actualy 'putting all their eggs on display (so to speak)' thus allowing the prosecution to see what goodies the defence has 'up their sleeves'.

The Magistrate will then either dismiss the matter or set down a 'hearing date'. The prosecution may also, upon hearing the submission by the defence, 'Nolle' the matter (Nolle Prosequi - offer no evidence). I would suggest that you would have to HAVE SOME REALLY GOOD SUBMISSIONS for that to happen.

Now, on further reading of your planned defence of this matter, it appears you guys are relying on the 'shit hitting the fan' becuase the police 'have no evidence'. Just a quick bit of advice chaps, I think you may need to rethink your defence strategy to include something called evidence.

Hoping that experienced police officers (liars or not); who will be supported by an experienced prosecutor; will fall appart during their 'evidence in chief' is not a good reliable strategy. Should I also mention that this will all take place before a Magistrate who, I would be humble enough to suggest, 'has heard it all before'?

Not in any way disputing your claim but I just don't think that arriving at Court on the hearing date and telling the Magistrate "I didn't do it and the police officer is a liar" will really secure you an acquital.

Taping of conversations is almost mandatory for most police services these days so I suggest you may just wish to ASK the prosecutor if the they have a tape. Not 100% sure of South Aust requirments but traditionally so long as one person is a participant in the conversation then it can be taped without the other person's knowledge.
 

·
pR()rN_*
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Nope here for evidence to be admissible the recorded party must give permission.
This was a convo outside of my mates car not in an actual station, if that was the case then yes it would be recorded.

The point is and the reason for pleading no case is simply because the office has no case other than his word and this is not enough to convict some one and this is why:

My friend has all of his collection of events in a stat dec that has been handed in to the court. As I'm sure your aware lieing on a stat dec carry's a max penalty of $2000 or 6 months jail and must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

So if the judge rules against my mate claiming that he lied in a stat dec then they would have to prove it.
They can't and because your innocent unless other wise proven the inability to provide evidence to counter the stat dec nullifies the ruling against him for the red light.
The ultimate thing is that while the cop lied and claimed he admitted to speeding he wasn't charged for this he was charged for running a red light that he did not do.

The policemans logic is astounding anyway.

If you were speeding and a cop turned his lights on.. Now if your stupid enough to go through a red light (and not just a fresh red light but one in which a pedestrian was crossing as the officer claimed) then why the hell would you stop if your driving a 13sec 4wd turbo galant???
Basically the whole system is smoke and mirrors to make you pay it but if you stick to your guns they can't really prove you did it.
 

·
pR()rN_*
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Sorry in answer to your question.
You can either plead guilty.
Not guilty or plead no case.

As you said though at the mention you plead not guilty and then at the pre trial you can call no case and the judge then has to decide as to weather or not the prosecution has enough evidence to proceed.

The only evidence the cop has is his statment. There is no camera on the intersection.

The fact is that if my mate had gone through it he would have simply paid it.
He didn't and is very very pissed off that not only does he have to go through all this bullshit but the fact that the police record of events is so differant to his.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
you had a butthole copper right there,should of went straight to his OIC then made heaps of complaints about the incident.

mate that is utter crap what that cop did,shouldnt even be a cop..
 

·
Drives like a Grandad
Joined
·
112 Posts
OK. I used to think I had a grasp on the Australian Justice System but I am beginning to think that South Australia is not part of the system.

(1) Taping of conversations by law enforcement agencies.

Most states have a legislative requirement to tape Indictable offices; Section 74D of the Summary Offences Act is South Aust's reference. No requirment to tape Simple offences (Traffic being simple). No specific requirement to tell a person they are being recorded. However, they should be advised ASAP as the investigation for the indictable offence progresses.

Have lots of case law on this issue but it would make the thread a tad too long.

I hope you aren't confusing the Privacy Act or The Telecommunications Interceptions Act (Commonwealth) requirements with that of State Legislation. Privacy Act has nothing to do with police recording conversations and the Telecommunications Act only relates to taping / bugging phone lines etc. (PS police are also exempt from those acts under certain provisions - case law on that one as well).

Recording of conversations with offenders, and the legality of same, will always be at the discretion of the presiding justice - they look at the circumstances surrounding the recording and if it is 'in the best interest of the public' to allow the recording to be admitted as evidence. (More case law on this issue believe it or not.)

All I suggested to you, and our associate, is that he contact the OIC of Prosecutions and ask if they have a tape recording. Might just save you a lot of embaressment if it is played to the Court....

(2)

Statutory Declaration of the events.

OK. Pardon my lack of knowledge re South Australian court procedure but in all other States it is a requirement that the only evidence that can be considered by the Magistrate / Judge is that given under Oath from the witness box. Refer to your Evidence Act for that info.

Lets take your scenario into consideration. Your associate has completed a Stat Dec which states, in brief, "I didn't do it and the police officer is lying". That document means absolutely nothing as far as 'evidence' in a Court. The evidence must be oral and under oath. (Physical evidence - photos etc - must be 'admitted' as evidence by the Magistrate / Judge).

Therefore your logic has lost me in its translation. The first lie told in Court is traditionally "Not Guilty Your Worship" (old lawyers joke). Your associates Stat Dec is simply him putting his version on paper which will still require him to give it verbally under oath in the witness box.

Looks at your rules of law. The Magistrate / Judge rules on matters of law - juries on maters of fact. The Magistrate, in simple offences, rules on both.

(3)

You are still basing your defence on the "The Police Officer Lied and I didn't do it" scenario. I suggest you spend a morning in a Magistrate's Court and see how often that argument is used and how futile it is unless you are going to produce evidence o the contrary.

(4)

I have already gien you some free advice on how to possibly successfully contest this matter. If you guys choose to rock up on the hearing day, waving a Stat Dec in the air, and proclaiming that "The Police Officer Lied!"; well - good luck guys.
 

·
pR()rN_*
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
you are correct SA law does differ a fair bit from eastern states in a few sections and Nt are just another mess all over again.
I think about 15 years ago the eastern states started bringing all their laws in line with each other and also making it easier to extradite (spelling) for interstate offenders.

To be perfectly honest I absolutly would love it if the police actully recorded the convo as it would reveal his misinformed record of events.

You are correct about the stat dec I looked in to it and my version applies to business relations and the Industry ombusman.

The fact still remains though that if you read the officers statement he claims that he was speeding and admitted it and then the very next sentance goes on about a red light. Now my understanding was that admission of guilt makes you open for the speeding fine.

The fact still remains that the police must generate some form of evidence for my mate to have to pay anything. Unless I am very much mistaken unless proven otherwise in some fashion he would be innocent.

In anycase a convo recording would be great because it would revial the officer as a lier. Hence my complete frustration and aggrivation on the subject.

Had the officer simply told the complete truth on his report I wouldn't be so infuriated.

So from now on my PDA will be travelling with me no matter where I go and if police wish to speak to me they will be recorded.

I will certianly let you know how it goes as his pre trial hearing is in March.

Oh and no my friends argument will not be to get all angry and accuse him of lieing it will simply be that the police has no acurate way of mesuring if he actully went through a red light considering his distance behind the car and the simple logic that if you break down his story and compare it to my friends version of events the police record jumps all over the place and doesn't make sence.

There will be no defence for speeding simply because he wasn't in any way booked for speeding at all he was booked for running a red light.

The officer claims he nearly bowled over a pedestrian as he went round the corner where as my friend claims he went through a clearly amber light with no pedestrians.

Now like my mate said if he did it he would quite simply pay it and not waste the time.
This moron officer now costs my friend 2 days off of work (well it's annual leave but still) and a lot of unnessasary crap.

If it wern't for the fact that he wants to maintain his unblemished driving record he wouldn't bother but this is 4 demerit points he's arguing and insurance on a high performance car goes up a lot when your not Mr perfect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
The "fact" (if it is true) the officer lied in court shows very low integrity, something that i think needs to be high on anyone thinking they are suited to a job in the Police Force.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top