Contacted by NSW Police about traffic incident which never happened

harthagan on 10/05/2020 - 07:40
Last edited 10/05/2020 - 08:19

At the end of last year my parents got a call from police stating they needed to speak with me regarding a traffic matter. My parents gave me the officers name and contact number and I called her up. She said that someone had reported being involved in a collision with a car that was registered in my name.

I explained that I had not been in any collisions and that no one else had driven my car on the day in question. She told me that regardless they (nsw police) needed to see me in person to take down my driver details. I told her that I wasn't going to give up my driving details when I wasn't involved in any traffic incident because I don't want to get a phony insurance claim against me for an accident I was never in.

Anyway I never heard anything further about it until 2 weeks ago I got a card left on my door from the police. On it was written to email the police officer otherwise I would receive a fine. I emailed him and he arranged a night to come over and "see me" but he never came. When I called the following day he said he was working at another station but that he needed me to come there that day or I'd get a "big fine". I went there and waited for over an hour for him before having to leave without getting to see him.

Anyway since then the original female police officer who I spoke to at the beginning is now calling me again and saying I need to go to any NSW police station immediately and give them my details.

I still don't see how I'm legally required to give over my details unless I was involved in the alleged incident/collision. Is there a law saying that I must comply with this request? The last time I spoke with her she threatened with charging me with something if I don't do what she says.

<EDIT>

I should have mentioned the original officer did give me some details of the “incident” just the date, time and location. It was in a suburb over an hour from where I live and somewhere I have never driven before, let alone on the day in question.

Automotive

Comments

  • Okayy on 10/05/2020 - 07:53
    +18

    did you take any advice from Legal aid 1300888529

    • MrFrugalSpend on 13/05/2020 - 00:39
      +13

      why would OP do that when you can get the far more entertaining legal 'advice' of the OzBargain Community!?!

    • Lucky13 on 14/05/2020 - 06:28

      Have to agree with getting quick legal advice too to point you in the right direction, notify you of your rights and take the stress out of the situation. https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/get-legal-help/advice

  • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 07:55
    +43

    Someone alleged you created an offence, surely you would want that cleared up. They maybe wrong but helping clear the air helps everyone. However it’s up to you. Read this that might help you.

    https://youthlegalserviceinc.com.au/fact-sheets/requesting-y…

    • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 09:28
      +84

      We shouldn't be obliged, much less with the threat of "big fines", to help.

      The presumption, unless our record shows otherwise, is that we are law abiding citizens. It is a dangerous precedence to allow the police to operate as if we are criminals they can summon and command as they see fit.

      If the police wants something, it should be at OPs convenience. OP should seek legal council if providing anything more than personal details.

      • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 11:09
        +5

        I dont know all the details and we are seeing only one side, and we have people complaining that the police wont do anything even if they have the details.

        If someone has made an allegation about you, why make it difficult. As in the first instance last year. Cooperate and move on. Now the OP has to deal with this and get legal assistance.

        Very simple the Police can ask for details, you can initially refuse but realise there maybe complications like getting a lawyer to help, because depending on info they have, they can take it further.

        In the first place the OP could have said to the officer sure come around and I can do that. Now everyones time is wasted.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 11:33
          +2

          In the first place the OP could have said to the officer sure come around and I can do that.

          He did. Whether it was the first thing he said or later on is irrelevant. They didn't show up. That could happen at whichever point he agreed to the home visit.

          I dont know all the details and we are seeing only one side

          In any forum post where we will only ever get to see one side, unless there's a lot of dubious ambiguity, we should go on what is disclosed otherwise every forum post will eventually reach the same conclusion - can't know both sides so can't comment.

          • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 19:04
            +1

            @[Deactivated]:

            He did. Whether it was the first thing he said or later on is irrelevant. They didn't show up. That could happen at whichever point he agreed to the home visit.

            I cant see that in their post.

            What they said was they said they wont give the details, and then 4+ months later they were contacted by a visit, but at that time they were either not home or the copper did an Austpost (put card under door without knocking).

            They have not told us if they said to the first ( lady) copper, anything that indicates they requested the coppers visit them. All they have told us is that they refused to give their details in person. We have no idea whether that was at station or a their home.

            As you said

            we should go on what is disclosed

        • sarahlump on 11/05/2020 - 10:09
          +2

          If you give the police the opportunity to make their job easier and simply stick a charge on you rather than take the time to put in hard work and find the right person you very well might find yourself in trouble for things you never did.

          I'd rather not take the risk. Unless your lawyera decent one says you HAVE to say something to the police you don't say anything to the police.

      • dazweeja on 10/05/2020 - 11:39
        -1

        The initial contact appears to have been a phone call last year when a police officer spoke to the OP and told them they needed to see them in person to get their driving details to help with an investigation. The OP refused. Then 4 months later, the police contacted the OP again because they still didn't have their details. It sounds like they had 4 months to conveniently get down to a police station and sort this out. I don't personally see that as unreasonable or a dangerous precedent.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 11:45
          +26

          It sounds like they had 4 months to conveniently get down to a police station…

          Adding the adjective doesn't make going out of one's way any more convenient.

          I don't personally see that as unreasonable or a dangerous precedent.

          It is unreasonable. They want something and the automatic response is that they should be granted? The dangerous precedence isn't the part of going to a police station nor the timeframe. The dangerous precedence is that they have the power the coerce you into action by threatening a fine.

          If I made you eat a delicioua meal, the eating of the meal isn't the part that is unreasonable. The fact I made you do it is.

          • dazweeja on 10/05/2020 - 13:14
            +2

            @[Deactivated]: The police don't have unfettered power. They can't search your car unless they have a reasonable suspicion for example. In this case, I think it's safe to assume that the police have a witness statement that says the OP or at least their car was involved in an accident. So I don't think I'd characterise this as police just "wanting" something - a condition has been met.

            There's all sorts of circumstances related to vehicle accidents where you can be charged with not supplying information. If someone was using your car and the police ask you for that person's name, you have to give it or you could be charged with an offence. If you leave the scene of an accident without giving your details, that's also an offence. It seems reasonable to me to have a law that compels to you to help police with these sorts of investigations generally or those other laws could not be enforced. But only where the police have a reasonable suspicion of your involvement.

            I don't disagree that this could cause inconvenience to innocent parties if someone has made a false report but there's laws to guard against that too. If you disagree that the police have a witness statement (I'm not sure why the police would be pursuing the OP in that case), then we might be talking about different circumstances.

            • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 13:19
              +25

              @dazweeja:

              In this case, I think it's safe to assume that the police have a witness statement that says the OP or at least their car was involved in an accident.

              Then the police should press charges not extort a statement from OP with threats of "big fines".

              If they press charges with insufficient evidence, there will be backlash.

              Either make an arrest or stop badgering civilians.

              • Vote for Pedro on 10/05/2020 - 15:17
                +3

                @[Deactivated]: Agree 100%

              • haemolysis on 11/05/2020 - 01:51
                +2

                @[Deactivated]: Well, they don't just ask your details for "fun." If they're gathering evidence/statements, they are already preparing to send you to court. The badgering will proceed to either an arrest or a subpoena.

                That's not to say I support chatting to cops… but I wouldn't "dare" one to arrest me.

              • cameldownunder on 11/05/2020 - 10:20

                @[Deactivated]: "I gave my friend my ( uninsured car ) and he hit a parked car, while exiting the shop. What are the chances the police is contacting me? Do I have to give them my details? Can I just ignore their demands and all will go away?"

                • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2020 - 10:49

                  @cameldownunder: If you have damage to your car and has damage that matches the description of the collision, you can ignore but I'm sure there will be court ordered inspection of the vehicle and eventually statements.

                  They can also take paint samples and if they match, they have a very strong case to prosecute for a hit and run. Unless you can nominate a driver, you are in possession of the vehicle. Hit and run is a criminal offence so you will end up on trial.

                  As I said elsewhere to similar hypothetical questions - no one is advocating that police not investigate but investigation doesn't revolve around getting stories, especially if those stories have been coerced under threat of financial penalty.

            • sarahlump on 11/05/2020 - 10:14

              @dazweeja: Also the " But only where the police have a reasonable suspicion of your involvement." is something that is ambiguous and undefined in the police powers act. And if you have a problem with it the CCC(otherwise known as the cop at the next desk over) investigates. I don't know if I'd trust that. If your lawyer doesn't say you have to talk to the police you don't talk to the police.

              OP is potentially at risk of going to prison as a minimum. I'd take it very seriously. The police are allowed to be duplicitous and deceive you. "come see us for just a chat" could actually be 'we think you did this thing that could result in your imprisonment and don't want you to be too scared so you lawyer up'

              • xpostmanx on 11/05/2020 - 12:22
                +3

                @sarahlump: Prison as a minimum! Lucky he isn't in Victoria where they would just shoot him on sight.

          • subywagon on 11/05/2020 - 21:26
            +3

            @[Deactivated]:

            If I made you eat a delicioua meal

            Would it be a succulent Chinese meal by any chance?

        • Vote for Pedro on 10/05/2020 - 15:17
          +2

          The police can ask you to do (almost) anything. The catch is whether you’re legally required to follow that instruction.

          You are not compelled to go to a police station. You’ve tried to be a decent person and meet with them. Make yourself available but since they’ve screwed you around, let them come to you now.

          Threatening you with a fine is a dick move. Ultimately, if they do fine you, you will be able to contest in court and they will have to present a brief of evidence.

          • Euphemistic on 11/05/2020 - 13:22

            @Vote for Pedro: The threat of a fine might just be to hurry up the process, but it could be the end result of not providing a statement. Sending one in the mail to an accused hit and run (crash not killer) driver doesn’t seem to much of a stretch. Providing a statement formally stating you weren’t there could prevent having to fight any fine in court.

            Pick your poison. Time to deal with it now when t suits you, or time to deal with it in the court system when you have to go.

  • Lichen6420 on 10/05/2020 - 07:55
    +9

    https://www.gotocourt.com.au/traffic-law/nsw/motor-vehicle-a…

    In the case that the accident needs to be reported to police (see point 4 below) a driver is also required to provide an explanation as to the circumstances of the crash.

    Failure to provide such particulars could result in the driver being fined up to $2,200.

    It would seem yes, if the police believe you were involved in an accident and you do not provide particulars then you can be fined. Please note being involved in an accident doesn't necessarily mean sustaining damage, you could have caused an accident by performing an illegal or reckless manoeuvre whilst driving, causing another vehicle to sustain damage whilst avoiding you.

    Long and short, hand over your details, if you have no recollection of any event than provide that as your explanation when asked about the particulars of the alleged accident. Let your insurance company sort it out if you didn't do anything wrong.

    Not smart to try and ignore the police. If your really worried seek legal advice or call their bluff and see if they actually fine you. They will give your details to the other driver either way so they can make an insurance claim.

    • sarahlump on 11/05/2020 - 10:15
      +14

      Horrible advice. See a lawyer before you see the police.

    • This Guy on 11/05/2020 - 10:37
      +5

      OP said they were not in the area that day.
      OP has waited at a police station for over an hour.
      OP organised a home visit and the detective did not show.
      OP has acted in good faith but still may be fined.
      The police (according to OP) seem to be half arsing this.

      Easiest option would be call legal aide for advice.
      Better option would be OP's parents to call the station to complain about unprofessional conduct.
      An even better option would be to call OP's MP and complain about unprofessional conduct.
      Is ACA still a thing? OP needs to set up a sting on the officers not attending their appointments.
      Scottie from marketing isn't doing much now days with the economy closed. Why don't we get him to set up a smear campaign in the Telegraph?
      ex Prince Harry is in need of a new job. OP should give him a call to ask a favour of his some what important grand mother.
      Why won't anyone in the Press Core ask Trump about the injustices in a quite, sunny Sydney suburb happening to harthagan? Fake news.
      The lizard people get a bad wrap. I hear if you a willing brood their young and promise feudality you can be set up with a pretty nice life, free of police interference. Luckily Savile and Epstein forgot their brooding responsabilities. Gluttony is the real hero here.

      • RockyRaccoon on 11/05/2020 - 16:06
        +1

        LOL …..Given the end rant, I think the police need to visit you, to find out what you've been taking… they might want some 🙏

        • This Guy on 11/05/2020 - 18:00
          +2

          Stringbean ignored what OP wrote so I took the piss. If you believe that that was a rant you might need to take some of what you think the police might want.

          • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2020 - 21:21
            +2

            @This Guy: Haha you made me laugh too!

            police need to visit you, to find out what you've been taking
            wrote so I took the piss

            I think you should get that piss tested :P

  • WreckTangle on 10/05/2020 - 08:03

    Did the police give any details about the accident itself? Is there a chance you may have been involved like Stringbean suggested?

    • harthagan on 10/05/2020 - 08:07
      +4

      No chance at all. The location of the incident was not anywhere I have driven.

      • holdenmg on 10/05/2020 - 08:48

        Would you Vehicle have been used by someone else under your authority… while the vehicle was being serviced, on a test drive…

        • harthagan on 10/05/2020 - 08:51
          +1

          Nope as I mentioned, no one else has driven my car

          • Lichen6420 on 10/05/2020 - 09:09
            +32

            @harthagan: So probably just wrote down the wrong number plate then i assume. However being combative to the process will just make your average police officer think your trying to hide something, as someone else stated they don't generally hire critical thinkers for general duties officers.

            No issue calling legal aid.

            Can i also suggest contacting your comprehensive insurer and asking for their advice, they may offer some advice or legal assistance as part of your policy. They don't want liability for an accident any more than you do.

  • harthagan on 10/05/2020 - 08:06
    +6

    I know that failure to provide details after a crash is an offense. But I can’t find anything specifically saying you must give details to police if someone makes a false accident claim against you. I’ll call that legal aid number and see if they can clarify.

    • Ughhh on 10/05/2020 - 10:42
      +25

      if someone makes a false accident claim against you.

      The police cant come to that conclusion yet, because you haven't spoke to the police.

      • Euphemistic on 10/05/2020 - 11:01
        +21

        Correct. False/erroneous allegations happen a lot. You need to respond to the police.

        Unless you are well known to the police, or some sort of criminal mastermind they are highly unlikely to be trying one on to a random citizen. Something has caused them to investigate you.

        • Vote for Pedro on 10/05/2020 - 15:20
          +11

          Though police are being total dicks. OP has tried to be helpful. The police didn’t show up. So as gratitude they threaten OP with a fine.

    • sarahlump on 11/05/2020 - 10:16

      Call legal aide, best decision you'll make all day.

    • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 11:15
      +40

      LOL, written by someone who may not like those with some authority. Overal Police officers are as smart as the average joe. I did a study of them while at Uni. the only difference is that they personally respect authority.

      Maybe you have been stopped too many times at your Rave parties, so you dont like them

    • TheBird on 12/05/2020 - 00:01
      +2

      Police are much like those in other professions. There are a wide range of personalities, abilities, intelligence and ethics.

      In my time, I've had my fair share of police I've called friends. I've also had my experiences with a fair share of police who… well, lets say, on the bottom end of the spectrum, ranging from opportunistic, lazy or incompetent all the way to downright criminal and corrupt… also I've experienced the complete opposite. There's a wide range. Most are middling. Most aren't saints nor criminals. Most are doing their best in their chosen profession.

      • sarahlump on 14/05/2020 - 23:02
        -1

        unfortunately as they are in the public arena and have such broad and powerful abilities in that arena the standard for what is acceptable needs to be much higher than those in other professions. The unfortunate part is that they don't all live up to that standard. Until that standard is met across the board you can't trust any of them.

        • TheBird on 16/05/2020 - 01:18
          +1

          There's about 2 million government employees in Australia. Many others in other professions who people also consider should be held to a higher standard.

          We should all be held to a high standard, not just certain individuals…. and we are. We are held to a standard of the rule of law. Certain industries also have a code of conduct they must adhere to.

          So what is this standard in which you are saying they should live up to? What gets them your "Karen" tick of approval?

          What benefit to the police would gaining your trust get them?

  • whooah1979 on 10/05/2020 - 08:38
    +7

    It sounds like the LAC is asking you to come in to provide your particulars or that they can take your statement. Why are you refusing their request?

    • harthagan on 10/05/2020 - 08:53
      +8

      Yes they are trying to force me into that. I want to find out what my legal obligation is

      • whooah1979 on 10/05/2020 - 08:57
        -5

        How are they forcing you?

        • mskeggs on 10/05/2020 - 08:59
          +20

          I mean, eventually with the guns and handcuffs. But it starts with calls and emails.

          • whooah1979 on 10/05/2020 - 09:02
            -1

            @mskeggs: It is unlawful for the New South Wales police to force someone to make a statement.

            OP is claiming that they are forcing them to make a statement. In what way are they forcing Op to do that?

            • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 09:18
              +30

              @whooah1979:

              In what way are they forcing Op to do that?

              They are being coerced to do something against their will with threats of financial burden, criminal charges and detention.

              • whooah1979 on 10/05/2020 - 09:44

                @[Deactivated]: Sec 173 of the Road Transport Act 2013 requires the owner of vehicle to name or provide particulars to identify the driver.

                • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 09:45
                  +3

                  @whooah1979: No driver. Car not driven.

                  • whooah1979 on 10/05/2020 - 09:53
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: The LAC have the rego. The owner claiming that the vehicle hasn’t been used isn’t going to make this go away.

                    • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 09:59
                      +9

                      @whooah1979: Anyone can have a rego. They are displayed prominently on every vehicle.

                      As far as OP's claim is concerned, there was no one in the driver's seat of the car that wasn't where the police claim it was.

                      So, unless the police is insisting that OP is lying, for which they better have evidence, I am not sure how cooperating is beneficial to OP.

                      (Unless keeping the police happy is now our job.)

                      • whooah1979 on 10/05/2020 - 10:05

                        @[Deactivated]: This situation is clearly causing enough stress for Op that they feel the need to go online to ask for legal advice.

                        Having this matter cleared up sounds pretty beneficial to their well-being.

                        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 10:07
                          +11

                          @whooah1979:

                          This situation is clearly causing enough stress… Having this matter cleared up sounds pretty beneficial to their well-being.

                          That is precisely the problem. Why is the police putting anyone in that situation?

                          Complying just further enables this behaviour.

                          • whooah1979 on 10/05/2020 - 10:16
                            +1

                            @[Deactivated]: Because it is their job to investigate offences.

                            We have been victim of several hit and runs and fully support their efforts to find those responsible.

                            • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 10:42
                              +5

                              @whooah1979: No one is advocating the police not investigate.

                              If the police have compelling evidence, OP is brought into the picture. If not, they are fishing. Fishing isn't investigation.

                          • zoob on 10/05/2020 - 12:49
                            +2

                            @[Deactivated]: What behaviour, the police investigating an alleged offence and doing their job? Plenty of complaints have been made in the past on this forum about police not investigating when the shoe has been on the other foot. Guess the police just can't win.

                            • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 13:13
                              +3

                              @zoob: Investigating involves more than just getting people to come in and blurt out stories.

                              If investigation is all about summoning people to clear their name, we can just stick a badge on a Cold Caller 4000 and call it a day.

                              The police can win. They just need to do their job instead of getting everyone else to work around them.

                        • sarahlump on 11/05/2020 - 10:20
                          +1

                          @whooah1979: Idk if this board counts as legal advice, OP was advised to go and contact legal aide as you do in these situations. You contact a lawyer if you're worried about the law, not the police.

                      • brendanm on 10/05/2020 - 11:05
                        +6

                        @[Deactivated]: Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. Op seems to have gone out of their way a number of times to contact police.

                  • GrueHunter on 10/05/2020 - 14:16
                    +3

                    @[Deactivated]: Let's see how things would work in your fantasy world:

                    I drive around smashing into people.
                    The victims give my plates to the police.
                    The police turn up and say 'can you tell us about this?'
                    I say 'nuh uh, can't make me, I wasn't even driving my car that day so that's the end of it, yeah'
                    The police say 'dammit he got us again' and walk away.

                    • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 14:20
                      +1

                      @GrueHunter: We have this thing called evidence.

                      Matching reports of damage. CCTV and dashcam footage. Receipts or evidence of travel to or through the area of the incident.

                      Then there are district attorneys that can subpoena a statement if compelling evidence is demonstrated.

                      I don't know. Who cares about due process. If someone makes a report, it must be true right?

                      Much smart. So condescend.

                      • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 19:27
                        +3

                        @[Deactivated]: tshow, you have points to make, so do others now you are also condescending.

                        The police do have an allegation. It was supplied by someone to them. Now is it correct evidence? We have no idea.

                        Likewise if your car is caught on a redlight camera and you werent driving, if they contact you and say you must pay, they dont accept your "word" they make you provide a StatDec and have that witnessed by an approved witness. So later, as in the case of a NSW judge, they find evidence of perjury, they can nail you.

                        I know and I would be pissed if someone made the alegation against me, for something I know I didnt do, but they have. The police are now obligated to follow this up.

                        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 19:29
                          +2

                          @RockyRaccoon:

                          Now is it correct evidence

                          No. As you mentioned, it is only an allegation. An allegation is not evidence.

                          Likewise if your car is caught on a redlight camera

                          That is evidence.

                          • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 19:30

                            @[Deactivated]: Its evidence of the car not you.

                            • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 19:32

                              @RockyRaccoon: That's correct. It is still evidence.

                              Someone making an allegation of the car is not even evidence.

                              The first scenario, we can conclusively place the car at the scene.

                              The second scenario doesn't mean anything.

                              • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 20:02

                                @[Deactivated]: Ok so it all comes down to what is evidence. I looked up the word

                                Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. … Evidence is the information which is used in a court of law to try to prove something. Evidence is obtained from documents, objects, or witnesses.

                                The police have evidence, its the report by the complainant. Strong or weak its evidence.

                                Without evidence to the contrary the Police can then charge our poster. (I have no idea whether they will or not but they can).

                                The police are obliged to follow up the complaint. If they have no statement, just saying that they spoke to our friend,(remembering the call isnt recorded) that's not evidence to the contrary.

                                Then a fine is issued. OP will in this case then dispute the fine. To do this they will go to court and present their case, the judge will decide. Now the judge will wonder why our Poster just didnt provide this in the first place. What's the decision - well anyone can guess

                                So the point is what has the OP gained.

                                • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 20:14

                                  @RockyRaccoon:

                                  The police have evidence

                                  They have a report. If a report counts as evidence, warrants would be a pointless exercise. To get a warrant, you need actual evidence.

                                  If we changed the definition to include reports, every case being handled by the police would by default have evidence and therefore every case has a warrant by default.

                                  Obviously this is not how any of this works.

                                  go to court and present their case, the judge will decide. Now the judge will wonder why our Poster just didnt provide this in the first place.

                                  Perhaps but if this is a recurring theme, they will also wonder if the police are just painting targets as they see fit.

                                  That's how I see this case. If the police actually have substantial evidence, they would press charges. If they're not pressing charges, all they're doing is intimidating civilians into submission.

                                  • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 20:22
                                    +3

                                    @[Deactivated]: Its a traffic offence, its dealt with by fines, if you dont agree then you go to court to dispute. The police have the ability to issue a fine, thats all. You can dispute that at that stage. You are making this out like a murder.

                                    Again its annoying, but without something strong like a signed statement the police have to go on what they have already, a signed statement from the complainant. They dont act upon phone calls. The original complainant would have had to come in and sign.

                                    You keep setting up the OP with this evidence argument. The MV Act makes you resonsible for your car, so give the cops something to counter the evidence they have at the moment.

                                    The complainant did this with a signed statement if it wasnt the police wouldnt be wasting their time on this as it would be thrown out of court.

                                    • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 20:28
                                      -1

                                      @RockyRaccoon:

                                      Again its annoying, but without something strong like a signed statement the police have to go on what they have already, a signed statement from the complainant. They dont acrt upon phone calls. The original complainant would have had to come in and sign.

                                      I agree, if someone formally makes an accusation, police should investigate. They should look at the damage and do all they can without laying any accusations on OP. If there is compelling evidence, then they should pursue OP for a statement.

                                      In this case, OP said they are not involved so to they effect, there would be no evidence to pursue this any further. Sure the police can ask OP for their "side of the story" but seeing as how OP doesn't have a side in this story, they can just decline.

                                      And this is what OP is doing. Declining.

                                      • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 20:58
                                        +3

                                        @[Deactivated]: Alright, I'll leave it to the OP to decide as only they can. We have done it to death and still have rightly two different views.

                                        Lets firstly hope it works out well and quickly for the OP.

                                        Would be curious to see how it does and how far they went with it.

                                        • callum9999 on 10/05/2020 - 22:17

                                          @RockyRaccoon: This whole thing would be cleared up if you just acknowledged that they have a different view to you…

                                          They believe in innocence until proven guilty, you don't (I'm sure you'll claim you do, but that's incompatible with your argument, which is that the OP should be proving their innocence). You're never going to meet in the middle so why bother continuing!

                                          • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 22:45

                                            @callum9999: I have never said they are guilty. The debate is whether they should provide a written signed statement. Thats all. The debate with tshow is on whether or not what prompted the police action is evidence, and as they have said "compelling" evidence.

                                            I have said they need to counter the evidence that the police have, which is a simple statement of facts. A verbal response isnt evidence. Its an indication, and one I accept, but its not one the police will accept. So they issue a fine, then the OP goes to court and the judge decides.

                                            The assumption made is that by providing this in writing will be used againt the OP, or that Police have no rights in requiring this. I cant tell or can anyone else if this will be used against the OP. On the other point, in the original response I pointed to legal advice that the latter might be true, that being that the police have these rights. Its up to the OP to decide, they are the ones who face the consequences of that decision.

                                            I wont argue with you about my beliefs as you have decided to judge mine anyway, so no point.

                                            • callum9999 on 11/05/2020 - 10:34

                                              @RockyRaccoon: You're stating that the OP should prove their innocence. As I said, that is why you cannot agree with tshow.

                                              • RockyRaccoon on 11/05/2020 - 16:15

                                                @callum9999: Excuse me, isnt that what I said, its the other part I was questioning you on - my beliefs on their innocence/guilt.

                                                Whether or not I think they have pink spots on their rear end, doesnt change my argument they need to provided a signed statement, to avoid further hassles like going to court. I wouldn't presume to say they are as I dont know.

                                      • Sandez on 10/05/2020 - 22:25
                                        +2

                                        @[Deactivated]: Actually, the 'report' is evidence, the other party has provided a driver version/statement to Police, therefore it is evidence. Does the other party have damage to their vehicle? Most likely, so there's further evidence something has happened. Who saw the OP's vehicle? Is it the other driver, or an independent witness? How do you/we know…

                                        You are bashing on Police based on no evidence of what evidence they have, yet believing the OP is honest in their word based on a single post saying so… I'm so glad your (hopefully) not a Police officer.

                                        The Police have evidence to investigate a collision, being the driver version/statement by the initial complainant.

                                        Regardless whether there was an actual driver or not, there is an allegation involving the OP's vehicle. The OP, being the registered owner of the vehicle is obligated under the Road Transport Act to supply Police the details of the person driving that vehicle. This must be done in writing (not over the phone) with what is referred to as a Form of Demand.

                                        Because Police have informed the OP that he may receive a fine for not complying, the Police have 'threatened' the OP? Yet if Police didn't inform the OP of the fine, then Police would be seen as the bad for not informing… lose lose situation. Everyone interprets things differently, was it an actual threat of legal action or was it 'informing'… I don't know, we weren't there. Perhaps the OP's attitude/refusal of complying has cause Police to escalate their means?

                                        If the OP fails to comply with the Form of Demand, the OP is committing an offence and liable to monetary or criminal(? not sure of this) action, plus will receive a fine for failing to exchange particulars after a motor vehicle collision. The evidence for this is the lack of written version from the OP, nothing to do with the actual collision. Civilly, the OP will probably be deemed at fault too, as the OP has provided nil evidence (i.e. FOD statement) to rebut the initial complaint. This would be a civil thing.

                                        It is in the best interest for the OP to comply. Go to your local Police station and provide the statement, it will be quicker and less painful than having to go to court multiple times to get a hearing etc, then fight it civilly with the insurance company

                      • GrueHunter on 13/05/2020 - 22:23

                        @[Deactivated]: District attorneys? Did you mean Crown prosecutors, perhaps?

                        Yes, we have this thing called evidence. It comprises things that can be entered into evidence in court.

                        Things like witness statements, and records of interviews. I wonder who collects those? I think it starts with a P.

                        You want due process? The police saying "we need to talk" is due process. They tend to err on the side of "let's have a chat to see if there's anything to this' before they decide to play out your I-watch-too-much-CSI fantasy and tracking down CCTV footage, bank records and satellite imagery.

                        But hey you do you and keep up the whole sovereign citizen thing. It goes well with you thinking our public prosecutors have US labels.

                        • [Deactivated] on 13/05/2020 - 22:27

                          @GrueHunter: Oops, I used an American spelling/term again. Point invalid. You're correct, civil liberties and rights are a terrible thing. Police are beyond reproach.

                          My mistake.

            • harthagan on 10/05/2020 - 09:29

              @whooah1979: I said they were trying to force me into it.

              • Euphemistic on 10/05/2020 - 10:59

                @harthagan: That might just be your perception. Somehow your vehicle was identified incorrectly. They want to get to the truth and to them it appears you are not telling the truth.

                You need to respond to the allegations, formally. Ignoring it will not help.

                • brendanm on 10/05/2020 - 11:06
                  +4

                  @Euphemistic: Op has gone to the police station and called already.

                  • Euphemistic on 11/05/2020 - 06:43
                    -2

                    @brendanm: And yet the process is obviously not completed to the satisfaction of the law. The OP needs to complete the process.

        • TheMindsetTraveller on 10/05/2020 - 10:21
          +3

          threat of a 'frivolous' fine

    • Mechz on 10/05/2020 - 09:06
      +20

      Hardly refusing the request when op made an appt for ths cop to come get details then after they didn't turn up went to another cop shop and waited for the officer who still didn't give op the time of day. Not sure op really needs to put in any more effort.

      • whooah1979 on 10/05/2020 - 09:11

        OP could’ve easily given their statement to basically any officer working at the desk that day.

        • harthagan on 10/05/2020 - 09:22
          +1

          I wasn’t told that until days later by the original officer who contacted me again

        • Mechz on 10/05/2020 - 09:37
          +1

          You'd think the officer on the front desk would have enough brains to not waste ops time then.

          • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 11:20
            -1

            @Mechz: We have no idea what the OP said when they went into the station. Going in with a chip on your shoulder? Demanding to see the officer, refusing to tell desk officer why? We have no idea.

            Also we have no idea why officer wasnt there, were they delayed because of a local indecent, murder, shop lifting, car accident.

            Given the OP's attitude frankly they arent making the situation any better.

            Sounds even more like someone really wanting to make an issue out of this

            • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 14:25
              +4

              @RockyRaccoon: OP must be guilty. Should jail him/her and a big fine for that attitude.

              Why are we even talking about attitudes.

              Cop asks for OPs details. OP refuses initially but later invites cop to home to get what they need.

              Cop doesn't show up.

              OP presents to the station on request of the cop.

              Cop wasn't there.

              We can fill in the blanks to include OP potentially pissing in the potted plants to justify the cops dicking someone around but it is irrelevant.

              • RockyRaccoon on 10/05/2020 - 20:16

                @[Deactivated]: On these points I agree that doing all that would piss me off, but like split milk etc, this is a legal situation. Its not going to help the OP by protesting about the inconvenience caused the the cop not showing up.

                I had surgery cancelled because an accident victim came in and they needed treatment. Not only that I went to the back of the queue, further 4 week wait. I am pissed off. Do I cancel surgery to piss the doctors off? No I need the surgery.

                The OP needs to have their evidence presented, again I totally sympathise.

                They asked

                Is there a law saying that I must comply with this request?

                And the real answer is that based on the evidence the police have, they will fine the OP.

                This then means in our justice system that the courts will decide not the police.

                • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2020 - 20:23
                  +1

                  @RockyRaccoon: In this case, the police wants the statement.

                  In your case, you want the surgery.

                  This then means in our justice system that the courts will decide not the police.

                  Precisely. The police are also free to issue fines but if they consistently issue fines inappropriately, their discretionary powers will be limited.

                  Right now, the police aren't laying charges, they are not issuing a summons, they are threatening a fine… They are essentially trying to have everyone comply without being in a position to cop any fallout. At the same time, if the OP makes a mistake with the report, they may be liable for more inconvenience or potentially incriminate themselves.

                  Cooperating is a no win scenario for OP at the same time presents the police with a convenient and no lose scenario. That's entirely one sided.

  • burningrage on 10/05/2020 - 08:39
    +11

    Cops…. what are they good for?

    • whooah1979 on 10/05/2020 - 08:42
      +7

      Enforcing hit and runs.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join