Fined by a Officer Who Ended up Being Found Guilty of Stealing $15,000 from The Highway Patrol Fund

Capo93 on 05/01/2019 - 12:20
Last edited 07/01/2019 - 12:44

Reading this post got me thinking of my experience

So I was riding my motorcycle on the 2nd October 2015 South along Station Street in Dapto, NSW. See this image for your under standing.

The red arrow was my path of travel, the red line is where the two HWP cars were parked. The blue square is a CCTV camera from the railway station.

As i was riding down Station street, an officer jumped out from no where waiving his arms at me pointing me to pull in, i complied and they both preceded to tell me I had been speeding, they did not have he on radar but one estimated my speed at no less then 80km/h but no more then 85km/h and the other officer at no less then 80km/h and no more then 90km/h. Now from what I had been told to estimate speed you basically need markers, for example 3 evenly spaced light poles. You need to the distance how long it takes to travel between pole 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 at the signed posted speed limit which is 50km/h for this street. And estimating speed head on is near impossible. Now if you street view this street you'll notice the side of the road the HWP cars were on, the whole side walk is covered with trees, so I unbroken straight line of sight is impossible on that side of the road.

Anyway they proceeded to fine me, I ended up taking the fine to court in 2016 and representing myself, both officers showed up to court, however the judge would not let both officers enter the court room at the same time as they were both still carrying there weapons, neither officers wanted to take there weapons back to the secure area, the officers were not happy about this as I feel they wanted to collaborate there stories together.

In the court room I caught them both lying as they each said they were standing next to each talking when they "heard my exhaust revving loudly", when I asked where they were each standing they each indicated at the front of there own patrol car, however the patrol cars were parked nose to tail so they could not physically be standing and talking to each other if they were in front of their own car.

I had subpoenaed CCTV from near the near by rail way station, camera marked by the blue box in the image. This proved where the officers were standing, however the courts video player software didn't like the format of the video so I couldn't use it.

The judge ended up finding me guilty, I later find out this judge is very pro police and will always side with police. I paid the fine, took the demerit points and moved on with life.

Fast forward to April 2017, the officer who wrote the fine was charged with stealing money $15,000 from the Highway Patrol Adventurer Club bank account.

See these news articles about it all:

https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4595734/former-ill…
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4764310/ex-lake-il…
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4854480/disgraced-…
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4965001/thieving-e…

Jason Hall's statement in the Brief of Evidence was written on 19th April 2016, in the middle of one of his stealing sprees.

Is there anything I can do in regards to this fine with the officer being found guilty? He was being dishonest and stealing money whilst fining me and other people.

EDIT 07/01/2019

To add further to the story, I remembered the brief of evidence I received in the mail was incorrect, it was missing 2 pages and when I showed up for court they told me and gave me the missing pages.

Automotive

Comments

  • swapsey on 05/01/2019 - 12:32
    +19

    I’d say your only hope is if they do a review of all his cases/infringement notices. Write a letter to the LAC and plead the case for this to happen. There may be worse cases of dishonest behaviour than yours so make sure you represent the broader community in your appeal. Maybe address it to Cheif Inspector (LAC) and CC the Police Minister (NSW) and Chief of Police.

    • Capo93 on 05/01/2019 - 13:10
      +4

      Thanks for the advice, doesn't hurt to send a email or two.

      • bobbified on 05/01/2019 - 13:22
        +2

        Include the court transcript and multiple versions of the video in different formats.

  • Yummy on 05/01/2019 - 12:34
    +6

    Karma.

    Nope OP, just move on with your life.

    • CandyMan on 06/01/2019 - 15:00
      +18

      I hate when people use this line
      Many fines are legal but not ethical
      Even the premier says councils are getting via infringements

      Why do everyone have to suck it up and move on?

      • ripesashimi on 06/01/2019 - 18:57
        +3

        Because my ethical grounds may be different to your ethical grounds. When its legal, its mostly black and white letters, sometimes theres something arguable between the lines.

        After all this is OP's side of the story. Dude owns a modded vehicle and personally I would be cautious with the so-called facts of this case.

        • CandyMan on 06/01/2019 - 20:11
          +3

          Problem is govt and councils are taking us for fools and ripping us off. This must stop and at least has been acknowledged by the premier. People have to speak up especially as most fines are hefty and not under the $100 mark like a few years ago

          • Greihawk on 07/01/2019 - 11:02
            -3

            @CandyMan: Speaking up is fine for the future, retroactively seeking to have fines dismissed and wasting taxpayers money via the time and effort is not. In my opinion the current fines for most offences for many people are too light, they need to be hefty to have any effect, i believe these fines should be tied to a persons personal wealth, after all a fine of $1000 is bugger all for someone earning $150000, while to a person getting $55000 it can be life destroying.

            • CandyMan on 07/01/2019 - 21:38
              +2

              @Greihawk:

              wasting taxpayers money

              According to OP the policeman is corrupt and was dishonest, so how is that wasting taxpayers money. Perhaps they can use some of the infringement dollars to subsidize.

              • Greihawk on 08/01/2019 - 13:43

                @CandyMan: He may have been corrupt and dishonest in a completely different matter, you don't get to commit crimes and get away with them just because the officer involved is doing illegal stuff that has nothing to do with your crime.

      • Montyjpm on 07/01/2019 - 17:56
        +3

        Agreed with this. If it is wrong and you can fight, why the f not? We’re not living in a Communist society!

  • conservative on 05/01/2019 - 12:41
    +2

    How much was the fine?

    • Capo93 on 05/01/2019 - 12:43
      +2

      It was $446 then court costs. Was also double demerits at the time of the offence.

      • Zachary on 06/01/2019 - 14:38
        +2

        then court costs

        How much was this?

      • Montyjpm on 07/01/2019 - 17:58
        +1

        Ouch man. Best of luck with this though!

      • reddead2067 on 08/01/2019 - 13:01

        I too am interested to know how much the court costs were.

        • Capo93 on 08/01/2019 - 13:38
          +2

          Between $70-$100, I think, can’t remember exactly.

  • MITM on 05/01/2019 - 12:41
    +12

    Go you good citizen. Seek citizens advice bureau for free advice.
    If I was as adamant as you seem to be - out of principle I would talk with a solicitor or your states ICAC.
    Perhaps the judge needs a kick in the arse too for not being impartial, and also ensuring his video equipment was compatible with your evidence.
    Speak to your MP about how you feel you've been unfairly judged.

    And if you have success - seek compensation.
    Good luck.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 12:56

    How many CC is your bike? :p

    • Capo93 on 05/01/2019 - 12:58

      650cc LAMS approved. It had a yoshi exhaust with baffle removed hence to it being loud.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 14:10
        +15

        Why is the baffle removed?

        Maybe if you didn't ride such a loud bike and go round drawing attention to yourself you wouldn't draw attention from the police as well.

        • serpserpserp on 05/01/2019 - 17:30
          +42

          This. People that mod their bikes to be super loud and ride in residential areas are the worst kind of people. I wish police had the power to enforce bike owners (and modded cars for that matter) to fix their bikes to be quieter. I don't mind if you own a powerful piece of kit and want to feel the joy of its acceleration etc. But when you mod average bikes/cars to be just louder or to simulate the noise of a better performing car you are just sad.

          • Capo93 on 06/01/2019 - 11:22
            +7

            @serpserpserp: The baffle was already removed when I purchased it. And it was not super loud, no where near.

            Police do have the power to enforce bike owners to fix their bikes to be quieter if they are to loud, they will hand you an EPA notice to go get it tested.

          • OzzyOzbourne on 06/01/2019 - 18:36
            +3

            @serpserpserp: "the worst kind of people"…. Worse than terrorist, murderers, rapists, peodophiles….

            "to simulate the noise of a better performing car"…. Presumably you have such a car….

            • abb on 07/01/2019 - 10:50
              +14

              @alikazi:

              One reason to […] increase the noise is also so that as a motorcyclist I am not only seen but heard

              This is bull, and easily disproved.

              Put your bike in neutral, kickstand down, with the engine running. At a distance of a few metres, walk in a circle around the bike. You will notice the sound is incredibly loud when you are directly behind, and much quieter in front.

              Where do the hazards come from when you're riding? In front, or behind? 95% are from in front. (Exception being when you're stopped and at risk of being rear-ended, but that's also when you're idling and probably reasonably quiet - keep an eye on your rear view mirrors when stopped and be ready to move if needed).

              Most of that loud noise is disturbing drivers who are no longer a threat to you (you've passed them), or people at home simply trying to watch TV or sleep. You're a jerk.

              If you really want to maximise safety, ride the bus instead.

              • alikazi on 08/01/2019 - 01:20
                -4

                @abb: Apply your logic and neg as much as you want but I'm interested in enjoying my ride and not being hit by distracted idiots in metal cages so I absolutely have the right to increase my safety. I don't pull up in front of your house and rev my engine but that's what you are making it sound like motorcyclists do to you. I have the right to use the road just as much as you do. Deal with it. There's a saying that goes "Loud pipes save lives". I did try using the baffle to reduce noise but it is wayyy too quiet.

                Also your logic that motorcycle's sound stays behind is… Mind "blasting" . Have you been living on the moon or in some sort of vacuum? Feel free to stand on a street and wait for a motorcycle to drive by you so you can finally learn how sound works. Yes it may be louder at the back (duh) but you will definitely hear the bike from at least 5-600 metres. Have you considered that all drivers can only control their reaction to what's happening in front of them but not behind them? If cars tail gate me and if I have to make an emergency stop, I am most definitely crushed by someone fiddling with their radio and what not. So I removed the baffle and cars stay the heck away from me behind me which is so peaceful. I always maintain 2 to 3 seconds distance from the vehicle in front. I take courses on riding safely. I wear all gear all the time I am not one of those motorcyclists riding around in shorts and flip flops. Sydney's public transport quality has gone down considerably yet its expensive so thanks but I will not take the bus. You may purchase ear plugs instead.

                • abb on 08/01/2019 - 09:17
                  +4

                  @alikazi: You have the right to use the road, as do I on my motorbike. But your logic is incoherent and you're giving us reasonable riders a bad name.

                  I don't pull up in front of your house and rev my engine but that's what you are making it sound like motorcyclists do to you.

                  No, they ride around the residential streets at 100% throttle in the middle of the night, when there's barely a car on the road to hear them, only until-recently-sleeping dogs and residents.

                  you will definitely hear the bike from at least 5-600 metres

                  Well in excess of the legal limit. Do you drive a car also? Have you ever had a bike with a crazy loud exhaust fly past you? The sudden onset of loud noise is quite distracting and I wouldn't be surprised if it could cause some people to swerve or otherwise have an accident. (Of course, you probably won't be involved in that accident, so who cares, right)

                  Have you considered that all drivers can only control their reaction to what's happening in front of them but not behind them?

                  IF, as you claim, drivers only react to what's in front of them, what's the point of arguing the noise is audible from the front of your bike?
                  (BTW, there's another noise-maker that's aimed forward that's legally required to be fitted and legally allowed to be used when there's a specific hazard. It's probably connected to a button near your left thumb.)

                  If cars tail gate me and if I have to make an emergency stop

                  What did your advanced rider safety training teach you to do in this situation?

                  • alikazi on 08/01/2019 - 11:54
                    -3

                    @abb:

                    you're giving us reasonable riders a bad name

                    Based on your reply you have assumed that I went shopping for the loudest exhaust out there. That's not reasonable logic on your part. If you are a motorcyclist you should know that motorcycles are simply loud by default. I'll admit that I may sound overly pessimistic about the behaviour of car drivers on the road, but it takes only 1 distracted idiot to injure me. There is an accident on M5 almost every single day. People are not always paying attention, its just a reality of life. My responsibility is to make myself visible to drivers around me and be aware at the same time. Part of this is to use sound of the bike to your advantage.

                    No, they ride around the residential streets at 100% throttle in the middle of the night

                    Did you see me mention that I do this? Do you do this? From where did you develop an idea that I do? I have never noticed people doing this either.

                    Have you ever had a bike with a crazy loud exhaust fly past you?

                    Refer to point 1.

                    there's another noise-maker that's aimed forward

                    So your suggestion is, I go mute my bike's exhaust with some voodoo so that the precious car drivers around me can be "comfortable". Then I hold down that button near my left thumb to announce cars in front of me that "I am a motorcyclist and I am coming your wayyyyy". Lol. I am guessing you have never tried lane filtering on the motorway? If you did, you'd know you're passing cars that may change lanes at any time without performing a head check thereby hitting you where you end up sliding 15 meters and possibly get run over by another car. Please enjoy this yourself, I am not interested in being in that situation while doing something legal like lane filtering.

                    What did your advanced rider safety training teach you to do in this situation

                    The way you phrased this question seems like you have the answer. I'd like to know your answer. In my case, I'd opt to move to the left lane and let the tail-gater overtake me. But this means I have to check my rear mirrors more often and put myself in that situation. But with the baffle removed, I almost never get tail-gated which is 100% better.

                    • abb on 08/01/2019 - 12:33
                      +1

                      @alikazi:

                      you have assumed that I went shopping for the loudest exhaust out there.

                      No, I'm going off your statement that you have removed the baffle from your exhaust… and therefore this makes it significantly louder than necessary for proper engine operation. (Almost any after-market exhaust system will be louder than stock anyway, but usually not to an extreme. I have one myself courtesy of the previous owner)
                      Seems like you still have a muffler fitted, which is better than some ear-shatteringly-loud straight pipe Harleys I've seen!

                      I have never noticed people doing this either.

                      Half your luck, maybe you're a heavy sleeper or have no hoons around your suburb :)

                      So your suggestion is, I go mute my bike's exhaust with some voodoo so that the precious car drivers around me can be "comfortable". Then I hold down that button near my left thumb to announce cars in front of me that "I am a motorcyclist and I am coming your wayyyyy".

                      No, my suggestion is to leave the baffle in your muffler, ride defensively, and when you see a moronic driver, beep your horn, give them the finger, and maybe scream some abuse in their open window ;)

                      I am guessing you have never tried lane filtering on the motorway? If you did, you'd know you're passing cars that may change lanes at any time without performing a head check thereby hitting you where you end up sliding 15 meters and possibly get run over by another car. Please enjoy this yourself, I am not interested in being in that situation while doing something legal like lane filtering.

                      I only lane filter when traffic is stopped, because it's too dangerous when cars are moving. I know it's legal if the traffic is moving slowly, but the lanes on my roads are too narrow for that and I don't see that happen much anyway - traffic tends to be either stopped or moving at 60+.

                      The way you phrased this question seems like you have the answer. I'd like to know your answer.

                      Actually I'm yet to do the advanced course (note to self), so was curious. But I think your idea of letting them pass is prudent. One a single-lane road, I slow down if someone tailgates me. Eventually they get the message…

                • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 18:48

                  @alikazi:

                  There's a saying that goes "Loud pipes save lives".

                  There's also a saying that goes "Just because there's a goalie doesn't mean you can't score."

                  Also doesn't mean you're not a jerk.

            • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 18:46
              +1

              @alikazi:

              I am happy to make you temporarily uncomfortable so that

              That's amazing you've discovered some kind of magic that mediates the volume of the noise you create based on how distracted someone is.

              Oh wait, no it disturbs everyone even those paying due care and attention to the road, or just sitting at home? That makes you a jerk.

          • Montyjpm on 07/01/2019 - 17:59

            @serpserpserp: It’s loud so idiots in their tinroof will hopefully get off their phones and notice you for a change.

        • LikeMike on 05/01/2019 - 18:56
          -3

          This also. Hate modded or sports exhausts. Unnecessary and should be banned.

        • Capo93 on 06/01/2019 - 11:21

          The baffle was already removed when I purchased it.

          • whooah1979 on 06/01/2019 - 11:42

            @Capo93: Some motorists purchase modified vehicles because they like the previous owner's work. They then use that as an excuse then the police or other people asks them why it's been modified.

            • Capo93 on 06/01/2019 - 12:08
              +7

              @whooah1979: I purchased the bike brand new, that is how it came. I never asked for the baffle to be removed. I purchased the bike in 2013 and I only found out about 16 months ago the baffle was removed. And if it was such a loud bike as people here are assuming it to be, then why didn't the officers give me a EPA notice. All the times I had RBT on it, why have I not once been given a EPA notice? Because it wasn't "noisy" like a Harley and it didn't exceed the DB limit.

              • serpserpserp on 06/01/2019 - 17:15

                @Capo93: Cops barely give out EPA tickets because they are fairly unenforceable? Its like when a cop pulls you over for speeding in a modified car, if you take your medicine (ie. take the speeding ticket fairly gracefully) they'll leave it at that. If you get confrontational with them they'll look over your car to find a reason to make it unroadworthy (and they don't need to find much to do so).

                • Capo93 on 06/01/2019 - 18:19
                  +3

                  @serpserpserp: Cops give out EPA notices all the time, follow some Facebook riding pages and you’ll see. I can dob in my neighbour to the EPA for a noisy car/motorbike and they’ll get a notice to take the vehicle for testing at their own expense, I don’t need to prove anything to report them.

  • bobbified on 05/01/2019 - 13:05
    +3

    but one estimated my speed at no less then 80km/h but no more then 85km/h and the other officer at no less then 80km/h and no more then 90km/h.

    So you've mentioned the speed they've estimated you at, but how fast were you really travelling?

    • Capo93 on 05/01/2019 - 13:09

      I reckon 60km/h max.

      • bobbified on 05/01/2019 - 13:19
        +13

        I know it's too late now, but I think professional representation would've helped you tremendously on this case. If the CCTV footage was part of your key evidence, the case probably could've been adjourned pending the conversion of the video into a format readable by the court systems.

        It's not uncommon for officers to stretch the truth or outright lie to get a conviction. It's very difficult or impossible to prove, especialy when it's your word vs their's. And they know that.

        • unqualified89 on 07/01/2019 - 10:46
          -1

          Old adage: "A person who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client"

      • seraphim2017 on 05/01/2019 - 13:44

        just to clarify, you mentioned a 50km/h speed sign, and confirmed you were doing around 60km/h, yes? Would the fine have been different if you had been prosecuted for breaking the speed limit by a lower amount?

        • abb on 07/01/2019 - 10:59
          +1

          Yes, much lower. Also less likely to get away with an eyeball judgement of a small margin.

  • mskeggs on 05/01/2019 - 13:21
    +9

    Just a bit of objectivity…

    People remember things poorly. Details such as whether they were standing in front of, or at the tail of the car when they observed you are not “lying”. Their recollection of what they had for breakfast and what shirt you were wearing is similarly irrelevant, otherwise Lionel Hutz style (removes tie) “what else did you forget” would be more than a joke.

    The police evidence was you revved your bike and they estimated your speed as excessive.
    That is enough for a conviction, because you presented no evidence to the contrary, just suggestions it is hard to estimate speed.
    I presume you feel you weren’t speeding and didn’t over rev your bike, so are hard done by.

    Consider that the magistrate spends all day listening to people of varying credibility tell them the police were biased and unfair, or otherwise mistaken. Since the cops have zero incentive to prosecute somebody incorrectly, it seems reasonable for a judge to find in favour of the police unless the defendant presents actual evidence in response.

    That one of the cops involved was swiping cash from his mates doesn’t really have any bearing on your matter, but I do think it is a nice example of karma, as Yummy point out.

    • Capo93 on 05/01/2019 - 13:29
      +8

      I disagree with some of what you said. It may not be lying, but its misleading and not correct information. Imagine if the judge asked where the murder weapon was found and the officer says on the seat when evidence says it on top of the fridge.

      I don't see how an exhaust revving is enough to estimate someones speed. You need to visually see them on the road to estimate a speed.

      And swiping money from his mates should have bearing on this matter, as it proves if he can be dishonest to his mates and work colleagues, than he could do it to any random stranger.

      • mskeggs on 05/01/2019 - 13:50
        +10

        Fair enough, it’s your time and money.
        The police evidence is very sound.
        They identified you revved loudly, giving a persuasive reason they would both be looking at your approach, and both estimated you speeding, but importantly, gave slightly different ranges so it appears they did not collaborate.
        That they inaccurately remembered where the two cars were in relation to one and other is not like the location of the murder weapon, it is like what colour shirt you were wearing, irrelevant. That your video evidence might have “proven” they misremembered an irrelevant detail is also irrelevant.

        Their motivation for booking you if you were not speeding is nil.
        Your motivation for contesting the fine is >$400 and six demerit points, so substantial.
        The second officer is presumably not convicted of fraud (and may be a victim!) so evidence remains even if your view on the first officer’s reliability was upheld.

        Again, asking somebody to impartially assess who is likely to be most credible will mean two sworn officers over a member of the public every time.
        In this case, we discovered one of those officers was dishonest elsewhere for thousands of dollars. That he was dishonest for gain does hurt his credibility, and if he stood to gain from booking you, maybe you could argue the point. But there is a second officer, and there is no motivation to lie about it.

        Your recollection of the speed you were going is not exact. Maybe the cops had just watched three bikes in a row trundle past at 45kmh so your speed of a bit over 60kmh looked fast. Maybe were doing 80 and you started braking as soon as you saw the cops and by the time you looked at the speedo you had unwound 25kmh so you saw yourself at 55kmh, and knew you had been a bit faster, but are mis-estimating your speed prior to hitting the brakes.
        Maybe both cops are poor judges of speed and issue lots of tickets. It’s hard to say.
        I don’t know, and you have nothing to convince a court, so pursuing it seems a hard task.

        • Montyjpm on 07/01/2019 - 18:03
          -1

          What is this “revved” line got anything to do with speeding? Hold clutch and revved is a way of getting attention in lane-splitting. Does not mean I am going fast at all.

          • mskeggs on 07/01/2019 - 19:05
            +1

            @Montyjpm: No, but it explains why both police were looking to see op speeding.

      • Cartman2530 on 07/01/2019 - 16:51

        I agree with you that its the cops' integrity that is the issue here.

        However, it was 3 years ago, perhaps let it go and feel good in the fact that karma got him in the end?

    • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 13:50
      +14

      it seems reasonable for a judge to find in favour of the police unless the defendant presents actual evidence in response.

      Innocent until proven guilty.

      • mskeggs on 05/01/2019 - 13:51
        -2

        Correct. The op was innocent until a judge assessed the evidence of two police officers as being of superior veracity than op’s.
        That is the proven part.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 13:57
          +6

          An officer's estimation is not proof. It's an opinion.

          If the officers are trained technicians to calibrate speed, it would be professional opinion.

          The officers job is not. It is useless opinion.

          • mskeggs on 05/01/2019 - 16:07
            +7

            @[Deactivated]: Understood, but “proven” means to the satisfaction of the court, not the existence of incontrovertible evidence.
            The whole point of the court is to weigh the evidence to establish if the offender can be proven guilty, and make such a call. Our society routinely take the word of the police over the public, balanced by much harsher penalties for police misconduct than the public. If a cop is demonstrated to be abusing their power they have additional penalties. If the public is found incorrect, as in this case, there is no additional penalty (beyond court costs and the max penalty for the original offence).

            We want it to be this way. We want our cops to be virtues of integrity, and insist they are harshly penalised if they are not, like losing their careers.

            Consider again many people will object to police evidence because they are highly motivated to do so, so we need to weigh police evidence highly, hence penalising them if it turns out they are crooked.

            In op’s case, they estimate their own speed as above the limit, but questioned the police’s ability to judge just how far in excess. I am sympathetic as the robotic following of speed changes when the sign changes demands extreme care and leaves little room for human nature.

            But the reality is we have laws written to make their enforcement as black and white as possible. Part of that is when you get caught it is hard to prove you deserve leniency.

            I knew a bloke who got done for 61 in a 60 zone. All can agree it was harsh, and when he went to court he was asked if he was speeding. He truthfully replied 61 was likely, and was convicted. I think discretion could have rewarded his reasonableness, but can’t really complain about the application of the law.

            We are super lucky in Australia that we generally have cops of high integrity, and usually, good judgement (excepting the HWP cop who got me for front wheels over the stop sign line! Because we all hope for leniency when we transgress) but we can’t demand personal leniency as a right to trump the rules.

            This story from OP provides a good lesson that the culture in Australia has changed and speeding isn’t some minor issue any more. When I grew up, speeding was not a big deal, nor was drink driving, but the lower road toll speaks to a concrete result from strenuously applied road laws. So it is hard to argue for systemic discretion.

            • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 16:35
              +11

              @mskeggs:

              cops have zero incentive to prosecute

              They have KPIs to meet, if not actual quotas. It is virtually impossible to get an official and honest statement from the police but every police I know personally have made it clear KPIs are monitored.

              excepting the HWP cop

              I agree that our cops are much better than overseas but I disagree that they are objectively of any higher integrity than the general public. If anything, I stay away from them because the law favours the police and in turn, the police rarely are found guilty so they are perceived as more lawful. It's a self-perpetuating cycle of confirmation bias.

              lower road toll speaks to a concrete result from strenuously applied road laws.

              Seatbelts, airbags, better roads, better lighting, better tires, stability control, hydroplaning detection, reduced number of stray livestock, wildlife barriers, safer barricades… There are so many factors involved with reduced road toll. It is, however, very easy to see the correlation between increased government spending and the need to generate revenue from fines.

              • ensanguined on 06/01/2019 - 13:00
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: tshow every single comment you made was gold, couldn't agree more.

              • valleyrain on 06/01/2019 - 20:40

                @[Deactivated]:

                They have KPIs to meet, if not actual quotas. It is virtually impossible to get an official and honest statement from the police but every police I know personally have made it clear KPIs are monitored.

                This makes no sense. We have ads on pretty much every media including TV and social media on the dangers of speeding. The double demerit point period is also heavily publicised. If the purpose of these initiatives is to reduce incidences of speeding and the police want it to happen, how can you have a KPI that says you have to meet a certain quota as the quota is intended to decrease every year?

                • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2019 - 21:06

                  @valleyrain: Speeding is just going above the assigned speed limit. If speeding incidences reduces, speed limits are reduced and we are back to meeting the quotas.

                  It's not as if we haven't observed widespread decrease in speed limits nor increase in rules that attract fines.

                  • Kangal on 07/01/2019 - 15:12

                    @[Deactivated]: I was going to say; that's absurd and you're lying.

                    However, I do think the police have it in them to reduce the speed limit of a road by one stepping (eg/ 110kmh -> 100kmh, or 60kmh -> 50kmh). Yet, I do not think they can do it twice…. they certainly can't get away doing it.

                    So there seems to be a finite cap on how much money the police can smooch off motorists. Until they hit a plateau and instead start raising the fines (eg/ +50%). But even that will have a finite cap.

                    And even before both of those matters are taken, you run the risk of a revolt. See the Yellow Jacket protests in France.

                    • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 16:03

                      @Kangal: And until the revolt happens, revenue from fines are on the up and up.

                      • Kangal on 07/01/2019 - 17:17

                        @[Deactivated]: True.
                        Although I'm sure all, if not most, rich/powerful people would like to say they stand against what you wrote (or simply changed their mind) AFTER a revolt. Because it takes something drastic for some of those people (either losing their money, or their freedom, or their life) to see where the power really lies: either in the masses…. or the one living underground with their own nuclear codes.

                        Old adage: History is the greatest teacher of all.

                        • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 17:26

                          @Kangal:

                          History is the greatest teacher of all.

                          Words I live by.

                  • valleyrain on 07/01/2019 - 18:08

                    @[Deactivated]: You good at changing the goalposts of your argument. Where is the proof that speed limits were reduced because speeding incidences reduce? In fact, on the contrary, speed limits reduce because of an increase in the incidences of accidents.

                    Increase in rules attract fines because more people break them and there needs to be deterrent. If more people followed the law, there would be a decrease in fines. All this talk about quotas and fines being a money spinner would go away if people just followed the rules. Or were you going to say it is reverse psychology and a conspiracy to place additional fines so that people break more laws and keep increasing fines. Defies logic to say the least.

                    • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 20:03

                      @valleyrain: If you say so. Must be true.

    • Bottle-thief on 06/01/2019 - 21:59
      -1

      I was with you until you said

      "Since the cops have zero incentive to prosecute somebody incorrectly"

      Except, in this case, the officer did have an incentive to lie as he was actively embezzling money at the time the speed was estimated. I would be taking the previous advice and at least talking to a lawyer, the testimony of one of the officers should at least be called into question.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/01/2019 - 10:40
        +1

        There was zero incentive. The 2 incidents are not linked.

        The other officer present also had zero incentive to lie.

        • Bottle-thief on 07/01/2019 - 14:46

          My bad, I thought he was somehow stealing from the fines.

      • QW3RTY on 07/01/2019 - 13:00

        I don't think that's how incentives work.

  • Hithere on 05/01/2019 - 14:58
    +1

    Police receive advanced driver training which also includes speed estimating.

    This is considered as specialised training by a court, and therefore estimations of speed by a trained officer is regarded as acceptable proof by the court - unless the accused can prove otherwise.

    • Capo93 on 06/01/2019 - 11:27

      Yes they do receive training in estimating, but as I described above the correct way of estimating is having point markers and know time traveled between points, you need to know time taken at the posted speed limit. To do it head on is near impossible.

      • buckster on 06/01/2019 - 17:10

        That's not really estimating, that's calculating.

        • Capo93 on 07/01/2019 - 11:40

          But that's the correct way to do it.

      • abb on 07/01/2019 - 11:03

        Were you carrying your phone at the time? You might have a GPS log… (Probably too late now though)

        • Capo93 on 07/01/2019 - 11:40

          Yes I was but I'm sure that's probably to late now.

  • Donaldhump on 05/01/2019 - 15:37
    +8

    Write a letter to him in jail, maybe he will need a pen pal/lover

    Oh wait this is australia, he won’t go jail, he will get 2 hours community service

    • mskeggs on 05/01/2019 - 16:12
      +5

      To be fair, how much jail is a fair sentence for fraud is not something I think we do well.
      His career is finished, his ex-workmates will think he is a dog, and if he gets a custodial sentence it will be harder time than for most.
      I wouldn’t like to have to assess what a reasonable penalty would be.

      But he was a cop, and we rightfully insist on exemplary integrity, so he should face the high end of penalties.

      But I don’t think it should allow any murderer, robber or other crim, even a speeder, to be able to question their own convictions unless there is evidence the former officer corruptly convicted them.

      • Donaldhump on 05/01/2019 - 16:29

        Prob lost his pension too

      • serpserpserp on 05/01/2019 - 17:32

        Most fraudsters don't see any jail time.

        I knew of a family business where the receptionist ripped off the family to the tune of about 90k over 3 years by cooking the books every day depositing the days taking at the bank.

        Didn't see one day in jail when fully convicted. Don't pay a dollar back to the owners as they decided to claim bankruptcy instead.

        Oh and the business owners themselves ended up having to declare bankruptcy because of the fraud, it destroyed their marriage, hampered their kids who were pulled from private schools etc. White collar crimes just aren't punished like they should be.

        • Rohangiga on 06/01/2019 - 22:31

          On the other hand I know someone who served 5 years for defrauding about 300k (he was a lawyer)

    • Montyjpm on 07/01/2019 - 18:07

      Bring out the gimp!

  • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 16:29
    +1

    First of all I don't think you have any chance of having this offense turned over but I am not a lawyer.

    What do you hope to achieve by this and what difference will it make to your life now? I assume the points would have cleared by now so that is not going to make any difference. If you were to pursue this it would cost you a lot more than $446.

    IF you want to appeal a conviction here is how
    https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/going-to-…

  • EightImmortals on 05/01/2019 - 16:51
    -3

    1) Good on you for standing up for yourself and taking these crooks to court.

    2) As for your question, send an email to these guys: http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/

    Consider purchasing their hardcopy book (nothing in it for me) as you would have had the info to get this case dismissed. Maybe next time? But ask them the question anyway and let us know if/how they reply.

    "In the court room I caught them both lying…."

    In that case you would have been within your rights to have them charged with perjury as they were lying under oath.

    • moar bargains on 06/01/2019 - 12:57
      +4

      Yeah don't buy that book. It's a crock.
      http://aussiespeedingfine.com.au/aussiespeedingfines.html

      • EightImmortals on 06/01/2019 - 13:18
        -2

        Yeah don't believe what you read in that link. It's a crock. :)

        http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/pages/FAQs.html

        Some lawyer claims that your e-book doesn't work and it's all a scam

        Yes, we are well aware of the "liar for hire" (lawyer) who attacks the validity of our e-book but then tries get people to download it for free - A) that doesn't make ANY sense and B) he, as a lawyer, should know better than to blatantly breach international copyright law! Anyone with half a brain should be able to see right through his crap and why he says what he does but, for those that need a little help, we have had the following responses to his garbage up on-line for some time now:

        www.aussiespeedingfines.com.au

        www.aussiespeedingfinescam.com

        www.aussiespeedingfines.com/pages/Reply-from-Mike-Palmer.htm…

        Here are a couple of very simple questions to ask yourself about Sean Hardy and his rubbish before buying into any of it:

        1.  Why would a lawyer knowingly make copyright material available for download in clear breach of international law? We all know lawyers lie and cheat but that is just too blatant and ridiculous for words. What sort of ethics and how much credibility does a lawyer REALLY have who would go to those illegal extremes just to oppose a single e-book?

        2.       Why is Sean Hardy REALLY going to extreme measures of writing page after page about our little old e-book if it’s just a bunch of lies, as he claims? Why has he registered a domain name so similar to ours to try and trick and deceive people – which is, again, completely ILLEGAL, because he has NO legal entitlement to it under AUDA policies? Why is Sean Hardy spending good money after bad on Google advertising just to try and discredit us? Surely, being the prestigious lawyer that he claims to be, he has better things to do with his time. Hmm… maybe not! Maybe we have cost him so much over the years that he no longer has a viable practice to work in because people aren’t stupid enough to pay him $2,000+ to run a case for them when they can do it themselves for as little as $67!

        3.       If our information is all “wrong” and doesn’t really work – as he claims, then why the need to go to such extraordinary lengths to tell people – surely they would have found out by now on their own! After all, we have been here for over SEVEN years now!

        4.       Also, why, if the Consumer Affairs report was so damning of us, are we still around after SEVEN years and why have we been interviewed by the media on NUMEROUS occasions in that time???

        5.       Why is it for every claimed “testimonial” against us, we have 100, fully VERIFIBALE testimonials in support of us and our information?

        6.       Why is Hardy out to attack one of our founding Members, Mike Palmer – who simply did some promotion for us in the early days and helped us get up and running (we have far outgrown the ability to be run by a single individual now) - when we not only have documented wins from that Member but copies of the actual court rulings in his favour as well as a copy of the cheque from Victoria Police for the costs that they were ordered to pay him!

        7.       Why has he been unable to answer ANY of the simple questions that Aussie Speeding Fines asks in the section above?

        We don’t need to personally attach Sean Hardy or say anything negative about him at all - he has done a brilliant job of showing his TRUE colours himself – he is in breach of our clear Copyright, as is anyone who has downloaded one of his old, out-of-date copies of our e-book.

        We continue to provide cutting edge, proven strategies for defeating unjust and unlawful fines. We upload new testimonials on an almost weekly basis that verify that. We provide regular updates completely free of charge for life and we offer on-going e-mail support for life as well – we are there to help you, inspire you and educate you every step of the way – all for a very low, one-off fee that simply covers the cost of running our website and continuing to research things for you.

        Go and ask Sean Hardy what he charges per case and then ask him what kind of guarantee he offers – then make up your mind!

        Oh, and just a few hours after uploading this to our website, we received the following e-mail from a past client of Sean Hardy's:

        Hi Guys,

        In response to your washed up lawyer topic, I used Shaun(sic) Hardy and lost my licence for 12 months, copped $1,000 fine with 8 demerit points.

        Whilst being out of work on the dole because of no licence, I used your system to defend a 1 demerit point fine and won.

        Keep up the good work,

        Ross B - Vic.

        The TRUTH about Sean Hardy's overprices "services" compared to the exceptional, value for money information that we provide simply doesn't get any clearer than that!

        • moar bargains on 06/01/2019 - 14:12
          +2

          Wow, I'm shocked that they would claim they're legit on their OWN website! Imagine! But don't just believe them, there's pages and pages of (conveniently unverifiable) testimonials too right? And all they have to gain from it is another $60-$100 from every sucker poor soul they they can help! They're practically doing it for free!

  • Cheeper on 05/01/2019 - 17:43

    The relevance of you being caught speeding and the cop being caught stealing is zero, nil, zilch.
    What are you hoping to achieve? Dont break the law and you will not get a fine.
    If you feel you have a right to appeal because you feel recent incidents are related somehow then take it to court.

    • Capo93 on 06/01/2019 - 11:31
      +3

      He was being dishonest at the time of the offence, his report and court proceedings.

    • R-Man on 06/01/2019 - 17:32

      What a stupid comment, I don't reckon you believe a word of what you've written

  • singlemalt72 on 05/01/2019 - 21:34
    +2

    So, were you speeding?

  • HeWhoKnows on 06/01/2019 - 09:09
    -1

    OP should respect the law and the police.

    The police have used a tried and tested method of providing evidence.
    OP should come to grips with the fact that you dont need radar to estimate speed.
    Simply comparing known speed of a vehicle A with Vehcle B is plenty.
    Especially if the known speed of Vehicle A is at or above the speed limit and the fact that Vehicle B is going faster.

    That aside how many times have OBs been passed by speeding bikes.

    • Capo93 on 06/01/2019 - 11:30
      +3

      So where was vehicle B?

  • Baysew on 06/01/2019 - 09:52
    +2

    I paid the fine, took the demerit points and moved on with life.

    Clearly you haven't.

    Any action now will only cost you more money, time and angst.

    Move on.

    • Capo93 on 06/01/2019 - 11:30
      +1

      I did at the time.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2019 - 14:35

    There are a number of precedents for this; in fact in some jurisdictions, police officers found guilty of dishonesty are served a notice that basically says "I am dishonest and my evidence is unreliable".
    Therefore you have a reasonable chance of having his evidence dismissed, (he has been found guilty of being dishonest on a number of occasions, so it reasonable to assume that he could have been dishonest when giving evidence against you. Only reasonable doubt is required to have his evidence dismissed).
    Turning to the speed conviction. Two police officers stood together who form an opinion independently of each other, at exactly the same time, that you were speeding is sufficient evidence.
    However there has to be two officers, so if you succeed in having the dishonest cop's evidence dismissed then there will be insufficient evidence to prove the speeding.
    Your first step will be either to seek the services of a solicitor, (recommended, and you should be able to reclaim reasonable costs),or to write to the Prosecution Service that covers this area and outline your case and state that you are seeking to have the conviction set aside and reasonable financial compensation for the erroneous conviction and the negative impact on your character.

  • eggles01 on 06/01/2019 - 16:32
    -3

    I could be wrong but it seems to me it was solely capo93 fault because if he did not have a loud noisy muffler on the police more than likely would not have taken any notice of him,he wanted to be noticed hence the loud muffler so his mission was accomplished he would have been noticed by the pubic when the police were writing out his ticket,

  • frostman on 06/01/2019 - 21:25

    NSW Police force is full of these dimwits…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join