Reflective Number Plate Cover

[hypnodoc]

:lol:

Last time I went down this path I got a 10% warning but I thought I'd give you an update on my summons for the reflective number plate cover that sent a HWP officer off into behaving like I'd just committed murder or something .

The clown didn't inform me he was going to record the conversation so he got verbally slapped by the Judge for being so unprofessional as to produce non admissable evidence.

I got what he should have given me in the first place. A $50 fine and no points or costs. I know that the vast majority of police out there are doing the best they can and do have road safety as a number one priority, but this guy was over the top at the time and I got to have the last laugh, I would have been happy with 2 or 3 hundred and he made out like it would be @ a thouand dollars.

So good to see common sense prevail and also to get a Judge who understands the reality of and the difference between road safety and revenue raising. To the idolent copper who made all the fuss. Well you might have ruined my morning that day, but I ruined your week and your ego, all through your own stupid over the top attitude. Enjoy the cold and wet winter on your Yamaha or Kawasaki or what ever it is. I'm Rapt, there is true justice

[Scruffman]

Well done.

Wayne

[CHIPS]

Good for you Doc.

[mercturbo]

HaHa good one Rick. There is the odd "chest out" cop we can all do without

[hypnodoc]

Good for you Doc.

He he he he, it's a once in a life time happening Mark. It's not nice to be treated like a criminal for putting a piece of plastic on your number plate. It's funny how the gravity of an offence is in direct proportion to the fine. E.G, in Qld when driving an unregistered car until about 1999 was a $90 ticket even the coppers didn't really bother, the Trans minister decides to raise the fine to $600 and it becomes a very serious matter all of a sudden. If the powers that be were serious about road safety, well after my trip to Melb and back I can categorically state at least some of these tens of millions of dollars in duped revenue should go back into the roads. So good to see the Vic Govt has egg all over their face, with any luck this will set a national precedent and they will all have to do the right and honourable thing. I'll bet nobody gets an apologie though

Have to go now as the thought of this National Con of the innocent population makes my blood boil.

[curious]

:lol:

Last time I went down this path I got a 10% warning but I thought I'd give you an update on my summons for the reflective number plate cover that sent a HWP officer off into behaving like I'd just committed murder or something .

The clown didn't inform me he was going to record the conversation so he got verbally slapped by the Judge for being so unprofessional as to produce non admissable evidence.

I got what he should have given me in the first place. A $50 fine and no points or costs. I know that the vast majority of police out there are doing the best they can and do have road safety as a number one priority, but this guy was over the top at the time and I got to have the last laugh, I would have been happy with 2 or 3 hundred and he made out like it would be @ a thouand dollars.

So good to see common sense prevail and also to get a Judge who understands the reality of and the difference between road safety and revenue raising. To the idolent copper who made all the fuss. Well you might have ruined my morning that day, but I ruined your week and your ego, all through your own stupid over the top attitude. Enjoy the cold and wet winter on your Yamaha or Kawasaki or what ever it is. I'm Rapt, there is true justice

Let me get this right, you still were fined so you were guilty. How is this a win for you???

I tape all my conversations and all are admissable for simple offences. Warnings must be given for indicatable offences. I understand laws are different from state to state, however I have been commended by Magistrates for recordng conversations to prove accuracy and the less likely hood of ficticious complaints by either Police or offenders.

If it was me in this matter, I would have forgotten you already, but you enjoy your glory.

P.S I have no hard feelings, we are all players in this game. I would have given you the ticket and sent you on your way.

[Guest Scootre]

I tape all my conversations and all are admissable for simple offences. Warnings must be given for indicatable offences.

How do you record them? Like, you have a pocket recorder or is there a wire that relays back to your car?

I've never heard of this.

[Velvet Glove]

I hold a hand-held tape recorder in front of people. Section 4 of the Listening Devices Act (ACT) gives me the power to do so. If I really was that way inclined I could stick the recorder in my jacket so people can't see it (the law still permits it in order to protect my legal interests). People often bullsh*t when making complaints about being pulled over, showing the tape player certainly dries that up.

The judge is wrong, well in this jurisdiction he is. The evidence produced by a tape recording is admissible for traffic offences, as they are one's of 'strict' liability.

I'm a bit with Curious, I fail to see how you won when you got convicted and fined. I think the copper actually won as any comments/criticisms delivered to us by Magistrates are generally water off a ducks back. I'm sure that the copper in question would consider it a win and hardly feels as though any damage has been done to his ego. It was a successful conviction for him. A verbal 'slapping' from a magistrate? Trust me....its a daily occurence for Police and something that doesnt concern us in the least, as we are well aware how remotely they exist from community standards, particularly where I come from

Again, as with Curious, no hard feelings at all. I have lost a few in Court but if this was me I would've enjoyed the overtime that I would've been paid to go to Court, ignored whatever the beak said, felt happy with the 'win', and moved on.

A win for you would have been getting off and having costs awarded to you. But, if it makes you happy, then well done

:lol:

[Velvet Glove]

This is what we use here in the ACT

Section 4(3)(I) allows us to record a conversation without the other parties consent to protect our lawful interests. It is also the most accurate record you can possibly take of an interaction with Police and, like Curious, we are often commended for it. It is stock standard procedure for Traffic Police to record conversations nowadays as well

LISTENING DEVICES ACT 1992 - SECT 4

Use of listening devices

(1) A person shall not use, or cause to be used, a listening device—

(a) to listen to or to record a private conversation to which the person is not a party; or

(b) to record a private conversation to which the person is a party.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) the use of a listening device under an authority granted by or under a law of the Commonwealth; or

(b) the unintentional hearing of a private conversation by means of a listening device.

(3) Subsection (1) (b) does not apply to the use of a listening device by, or on behalf of, a party to a private conversation if—

(a) each principal party to the conversation consents to that use of the listening device; or

(b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening device being so used, and—

(I) the recording of the conversation is considered by that principal party, on reasonable grounds, to be necessary for the protection of that principal party's lawful interests; or

(ii) the recording is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to any person who is not a party to the conversation.

(4) Subsection (3) (b) (I) does not apply so as to exempt a person from the application of subsection (1) if the relevant listening device is used by or on behalf of the Territory

[Falchoon]

I'm not taking "sides" here but VG doesn't that gobbledy *beep* you just posted (the rules) mean that if both partys aren't aware and consent to having their conversation recorded then it's null and void?

(a) each principal party to the conversation consents to that use of the listening device; or

(b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening device being so used

I'm not trying to stir or muckrake here, just clarify some points. I am happy to stand corrected if I have misinterperated the legislation.

Why can't they write it in plain english so people can actually understand it?