Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[NSW] SMH Drive today..."did 250kmh on F3"

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Toecutter, Apr 11, 2008.

  1. Above is from an article in this morning Sydney Morning Herald's Drive. Although I can't find it "on-line" :?

    It was about women who had done well and wanted to buy a "high-performance luxury vehicle".

    Christine El-Melky bought a Ferrari 430, "first day I took it out, I went straight from the showroom to the Hunter Valley and I did 250kmh on the F3"

    So we've had the Youtube video poster fined for posting a video, will this gal be fined or have to hand her licence in?

  2. Fined for telling a story? Have we entered the world of the thought police already?

    *looks out window*

    Fark. The Special Ops team are outside right now!!
  3. Flux - it was your post about the youtube video that I thought was relevant
  4. I can write pretty much anything I like, and declare that it was purely for satire, drama, or other entertainment purposes.

    If I stood in a court of law, hand on my heart 'onest injuns your honor, and declared that I had done 250kph on the M3 as a full admission of guilt, even then there's still the matter of proof. People have been known to lie in court for all manner of reasons. Maybe you actually do believe that you had, but maybe you were just recollecting a vivid dream and you're unaware of the mental state of mind that you're in.

    Without the evidence of a crime, and proof that a crime was committed, then just because you say you did it isn't actually enough to arrest you. It might make you a target of investigation until it can be established factually whether or not what you're saying is true.

    With the Youtube video incident. There was evidence to suggest that the guy had actually been speeding. The police went and questioned the guy and he caved in and confessed. With evidence plus a confession, that was enough to convict. Without evidence and merely a story, that's not enough.

    thetramp64 might like to clarify further, but that's my understanding.
  5. Hey all good for discussion :cool:

    No doubt there is no "video" evidence

    So what about this post from your other thread. and replace "postings" with "recorded interview"

  6. Sure, that's true. Videos and postings can be submitted as evidence. If the person denies having said it though, or declares that the statements or video evidence are purely works of fiction, it then falls back to the police to prove the person wrong.

    The Frankston individual just had to keep his mouth shut, hire a lawyer, and posit that the video was a work of fiction. His failing was that he confessed upon being presented with evidence that was of debatable veracity.

  7. I'd love to go and test it out...

    ...hand myself in at the local CopShop and say "...I can't live with the guilt anymore. You had better arrest me, I've been speeding" :LOL:

    Maybe Chaser's War on Everything might take the case on.
  8. People have been convicted on the basis of a confession only. (Not often admittedly).
    It's usually a case where a body has never been found, or where a confession is made to a "third party" eg a "snitch" (informant).

    If, hypothetically the police interviewed her and she admitted on record to committing the offence, they could sustain a charge. And if she stuck to the story in court, she could be convicted.

    Now, lets just say she hit a pedestrian, and had made the same statement. (And for the purposes of argument, there was no other evidence).
    You don't think the police would try a conviction based on a confession only?
    I'd bet a lot of money they would try!

    My point in the past has been:
    (i) Post nothing incriminating;
    (ii) Admit nothing. (make them prove it).
  9. That about sums it up!
  10. Crazy b!tch.. thats not a good way to run it in :grin:
  11. I take it from some of the posts in other threads that you have some kind of legal background. Your advice is very good and very clear. I am guessing that everyone that has admitted lane splitting or filtering may like to print a retraction. Could be a very dangerous (to the wallet) boast that people have made.
  12. Are the owners of this site under any legal requirement to surrender the details of any of their members? From memory, I don't remember having to provide a whole lot of info to get my account. That only changed when I became a paid member.
  13. Short answer is no.
    That is in the abscence of a subpeona or similar document from a court of law. They trump everything! But, it would be hard to get one.

    In answer to a previous post, yes I'm a practicing lawyer.
    (No jokes about getting it right please).
  14. In theory yes. But you really didn't mean that boast to be believed did you????
    To get "done" you would need to admit the defence, and or have other proof that the plod could present.