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.

Top gear tragic judge acquits lamborghini driver :lol:

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by waedwe, Nov 18, 2010.

  1. If i'm not mistaken there was a thread about this car being impounded even though the owner wasn't driving last year. well read on :LOL:


  2. I bet the cops were none to pleased with that one.
  3. I like the judges thinking and reasoning, good on him. On top of all that the driver also gets $18000.
  4. It was the mechanic, not the owner. I reckon the judge simply understood that the temptation was too much for an ordinary mortal to bear, and gave him a break.
  5. I want to have that judges babies.
  6. ...we shall call him 'little Stigma'
  7. Which "court costs" would mostly mean that it is what he paid to defend himself in said court? (tramp would be best to know I'd say) or google ha! Cbf checking tho :) :angel:

    Ok, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_costs ta da?
  8. Nice !

    A police chase worth watching then . . .
  9. and possibly losses from not working.
  10. The article made it sound like the driver who was the mechanic of the owner was awarded the sum.
  11. Yeah, he was the one in court on [dangerous driving or whatever] charge(s).


    A Perth mechanic charged with recklessly driving a Lamborghini at more than 155km/h has been acquitted by a magistrate who admits he's a Top Gear "tragic".
  12. I still don't understand why he was acquitted when he was clearly speeding, and IIRC even admitted it saying something like "just give me a fine for 30 over but please dont impound the car"..

    I'm pretty sure i know what would happen if i sped past cops, on my bike, like the mechanic did in his Clients lambo..

    I also think that looks incredibly bad on the Judge's part.. basically like saying "i'm a fan of sports cars too, no punishment for you Sir!"...................
  13. That's how the article makes it seem. If true, it's disgraceful that someone got off just because of the type of car they were driving. How anyone can condone speeding to this extent is beyond me.

    And what mechanic can afford to throw $18k at a court case?
  14. Only a lambo or ferrari mechanic. The minor services on those things from dealerships cost in the vicinity of $20000-30000 add another $10000-15000 for majors.
  15. The guy was not charged simply with speeding. The court case was to determine reckless driving (and appears to have touched on dangerous driving as well), which is not the same thing.

    As I see it (without having given the matter much thought), this ruling may now open the way to allow the owner of the car to mount a case against the police for its impoundment. If so, that's the bit that will be really interesting.

    I'm pretty sure i know what would happen if i sped past cops, on my bike, like the mechanic did in his Clients lambo..

    If you spent $18k on legal representation, I think you'd have a good chance of getting off. As would pretty much anybody else. Most traffic offense charges only stick because, for most people in most circumstances, it's too expensive or too much trouble to fight them.

    Plenty of tradies over here own boats, jetskis, dirt bikes and other toys to a considerably greater value. If any of them really wanted to fight a court case, they could. Besides, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if he's being at least partly bankrolled b the car's owner, for the reason stated above.
  16. Just playing devils advocate here, but in this thread we seem to applaud a judge for letting someone off, yet in another thread we are screaming about the injustice of another judge handing out what would appear to be a very lenient punishment.

    I wonder, if the mechanic had run over a motorcyclist would we be so quick to applaud the judgement?
  17. Depends on whether you think that speed alone is dangerous. Was it dangerous driving? I personally don't know enough of the other circumstances to judge that.
  18. Here in WA, speed over 45km/h over the limit was recently (as in within the last 5 years or so) added to the definition of Dangerous (or it might have been Reckless, I can't remember and can't be arsed to look it up) Driving. I suspect because there are rumoured to have been successful defences on the basis that the speed of an offender was not inherently dangerous or dangerous in the circumstances.

    So the WA government, in their wisdom, changed the Road Traffic Act and now any speed more than 45 over the limit is dangerous because the Act says that it is.
  19. Easily the best part of the whole article. Does the full extent really matter when you're talking a speed that far over the limit and he's still pulling away? Nothing in here about time or place from the magistrate, either. Just goes to show that your innocence depends on the bloke you're standing in front of.
  20. It does when you're trying to prove an offence under the act.

    FFS folks, there are constant whinges on this forum about the dubious methods the coppers use to estimate speed. Here we have a magistrate finally calling them on it (correctly IMHO) and half of you bag him.

    As for whether we'd be applauding the magistrate for letting the driver off for killing a biker, the driver didn't and we have no idea if the magistrate would have, so it's a rather pointless hypothetical question.

    As far as I'm concerned, anything that points up the politically motivated hoon laws as the crock that they are is good. Anything that points up just how subjective many traffic offence prosecutions are is good. Anything that shows up the WA Police as the bunch of incompetent flatfoots that they are is good. Why? Because the more the current system is demonstrated to be crap, the more likely we are to see changes that will lead to effective legislation and enforcement.

    And because it's funny, of course.