Anti Hoon Laws Unconstitutional

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Post of the thread. The constitution of Australia is exceptionally vague and doesn't place concrete, unambiguous restrictions on the powers of the states and the federal governments. Unlike the US, their constitution has distinct separation of powers and places limits on what the government can't do.

What passes as a justice/legal system in Australia is a joke and needs to be overhauled from top to bottom.

It kinda does... it gives powers to the state by form of recognission of its laws.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 118
Recognition of laws etc. of States

Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.

However it also says this:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 109
Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

In regards to power to seize items which are used in criminal offences... thats a hard one as I still cant find the relevent Federal law. (if there is one).
If there is no relevent federal law, then the states can do (as i see it) as they please basically.

The only part of the article posted by the OP which makes sense as to why the ruling was over turned is this part:

Chief Justice Chris Kourakis ruled in Mr Bell's favour, saying the so-called anti-hoon legislation took away the discretion of the courts and applied a double punishment to offenders.

Which is all fine and good.... but this then also sets a precedence to other criminal cases where the crown tries to take away property used in SERIOUS CRIMINAL activity such as drug running etc...??

If a person is a habitual offender, then what is the solution?
(an example was shown on that new aussie police show where a L plate motorbike rider was caught doing 178kmh in a 100zone riding a bike too big for his licence category.... 6 weeks later 110kmh in an 80zone... both times his bike was taken away. clearly he didnt learn his lesson, and clearly having the bike taken away didnt work!)

There will always be bogans with low IQ who will continue to offend no matter what the punishment dished out.

Frankly ban them for life from ever owning a vehicle and having a licence if they are too stupid to learn.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

It kinda does... it gives powers to the state by form of recognission of its laws.



However it also says this:



In regards to power to seize items which are used in criminal offences... thats a hard one as I still cant find the relevent Federal law. (if there is one).
If there is no relevent federal law, then the states can do (as i see it) as they please basically.

The only part of the article posted by the OP which makes sense as to why the ruling was over turned is this part:



Which is all fine and good.... but this then also sets a precedence to other criminal cases where the crown tries to take away property used in SERIOUS CRIMINAL activity such as drug running etc...??

If a person is a habitual offender, then what is the solution?
(an example was shown on that new aussie police show where a L plate motorbike rider was caught doing 178kmh in a 100zone riding a bike too big for his licence category.... 6 weeks later 110kmh in an 80zone... both times his bike was taken away. clearly he didnt learn his lesson, and clearly having the bike taken away didnt work!)

There will always be bogans with low IQ who will continue to offend no matter what the punishment dished out.

Frankly ban them for life from ever owning a vehicle and having a licence if they are too stupid to learn.

Good theory, mien Herr.

So you have a late teens, early twenties person who does silly stuff with little or no regard for their personal safety (which is why the military is full of such people).

They do something silly so you black ball them for life.

THERE IS NOT ONE MEMBER OF THIS FORUM WHO HAS NEVER DONE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BREACH THE CURRENT "HOON LAWS" including YOU (and me).

So why don't you walk the walk rather than just talk the talk and hand in your license for the heinous crimes you have committed but were never caught?

Or are you now a bit different to how you were when you were a teenager. I know I am.......

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

If a person is a habitual offender, then what is the solution?
(an example was shown on that new aussie police show where a L plate motorbike rider was caught doing 178kmh in a 100zone riding a bike too big for his licence category.... 6 weeks later 110kmh in an 80zone... both times his bike was taken away. clearly he didnt learn his lesson, and clearly having the bike taken away didnt work!)

There will always be bogans with low IQ who will continue to offend no matter what the punishment dished out.

Frankly ban them for life from ever owning a vehicle and having a licence if they are too stupid to learn.

Ban for life and ban licence? Won't work, just like your example used!

[Jim Goose]

If a person doesnt get caught... there is no lesson to be learnt is there?

I have been caught speeding when I was younger (never more then 20kmh over the limit) at least 4 times by mobile radar and once by speed camera over a period of 10yrs until i hit 28yrs of age.... I was never stupid enough to do 178km unlicenced on a busy road like the example i gave.

And no im not saying i dont speed over the limit now, but there is a time and place for everything. And if i get caught legitimately, then ill cop it on the chin... like I did when I was a teenager.

[AWD Chaser]

I don't agree with confiscating peoples cars (permentantly) - will be interesting to see if the goverment has to pay back the people who they took cars from and sold them...

But on another note, can't NSW Police confiscate number plates? You don't own them....

And maybe while they are overhualing the Hoon Laws, they can put a legal difinition on the word "Hoon"..

[flappist]

Historically when a group is constantly diminshed by another group eventually they rebel most often violently.

In Sydney right now there are quite a number of unregistered cars with fake plates and armed drivers who do not stop for Police or anything else.

These people are criminals and by treating ordinary people the same way you are enticing them act in the same.

One day maybe after the "Ocker SS" and "Social experimenters" push just that bit too hard they might find that THEY are now the minority.

You think it can't happen, ask Anna Bligh.......

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by flappist

Historically when a group is constantly diminshed by another group eventually they rebel most often violently.

In Sydney right now there are quite a number of unregistered cars with fake plates and armed drivers who do not stop for Police or anything else.

These people are criminals and by treating ordinary people the same way you are enticing them act in the same.

One day maybe after the "Ocker SS" and "Social experimenters" push just that bit too hard they might find that THEY are now the minority.

You think it can't happen, ask Anna Bligh.......

So very true, but the mass "majority" don't understand that you can't get someone to behave in a way they like by beating them with ever-increasing sticks/fines/penalties.
Once you take away everything, then they have nothing to lose. That is a very dangerous situation

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

That's the thing though...our Constitution has no "bill of rights".

People assume that we have the right written in stone to do this or that, but we don't...we have whatever rights the government of the day decides to allow us to have.
Your property isn't your own either...myself along with hundreds of thousands of other perfectly law-abiding gun owners back in 1996 had to turn up to hand in what had, until shortly before then, been legal weapons because the government suddenly decided they were illegal.

With cars, they could, with the stroke of a pen, make, for instance, any privately owned passenger vehicle with an engine over 4 liters illegal or not eligible for rego...for environmental or safety grounds, and there's nothing you could do about it.
If you have anything to do with the old car fraternity, you will know there is a huge push on to keep being allowed to drive old cars. Most of you will remember at least a couple of the "suggestions" by, oddly, big car makers (fancy that) telling the government that "for safety reasons" cars older than five years or whatever should be banned from the roads...but for safety reasons...not to sell more new cars...no, not that...
That has been going on since the eighties...I think the last "suggestion" was from Mazda, but a lot of the big car guys have come out with the brilliant idea in the past. The government has given it serious consideration in the past, and with todays green-leaning politicians, next time it is brought up it will receive possibly more serious consideration.

Your house isn't your own either...you're just minding it until the government, state or federal, decides it needs your property for something or other...a highway, a bypass, a national park...whatever. Look at the people down the Gold Coast who had been in their home for fifty years and were kicked out for a highway.
I know exactly what you're going to say..."I'll just dig in my heels and demand a million dollars!!"...no, you won't. They only have to offer fair market value...here's the cheque, bugger off, don't let the door hit you on the way out...and there's literally nothing you can do about it.

They can't do that with cars? No? Ask any P plater who is restricted in what cars he is allowed to drive...they are dictating what a P plater can buy. No reason at all they can't expand that to everyone else as well if they could come up with a safety reason that the gullible public would swallow...

I remember as a kid in year 10 writing an English essay on the then-new gun control legislation in 1996 and I argued vehemently against the government's right to take people's property away, and that it was no more than a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy at Port Arthur (got a pretty good mark for it too, even though the teacher commented that she disagrees with my view). I would make exactly the same argument about property seizure and confiscation laws - they are unjust.

Everything you said is legally correct. As a law student now, I understand that we don't actually have rights enshrined in the Constitution, and yes, the government can take away people's houses if fair compensation is paid. I don't assume anything. But that doesn't mean I have to like it ...

Taking away people's cars without any form of compensation (other than what is left over from the sale of the vehicle after all the storage fees and other incidental expenses is paid) is blatantly unjust.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by NX74205

Taking away people's cars without any form of compensation (other than what is left over from the sale of the vehicle after all the storage fees and other incidental expenses is paid) is blatantly unjust.

A few flaws in that arguement....

The car is being taken away as a punishment (as opposed to having your home resumed to build a road, you are compensated and yes sometimes the compo is not enough but thats another discussion).

In the same way drug dealers, fraudsters etc have their property away because it is a procede of crime, or used in a crime, or the property is illegal to have (like unregistered guns, drugs etc)....

An item no matter what it is, if used in an offence is up for grabs by the crown. I really cant see the arguement that if your convicted you need to be compensated because they punished you by taking away your property??

The arguement in the article is that its double dipping..

Chief Justice Chris Kourakis ruled in Mr Bell's favour, saying the so-called anti-hoon legislation took away the discretion of the courts and applied a double punishment to offenders.

[DJM83]

Had a mate in Vic just today. Pulled up at the lights, checks phone to make sure he is going to the right address for a meeting, knock on the window $282 and 3 points, what a load of steaming poo that is

[2011G6E]

At the time of the introduction of gun laws, John Howard said to a Liberal conferance about the laws: "We are about to pass laws that we know will upset and affect a large number of people, people who have never and will never break the law".

There was also the fact that the laws were rushed through very quickly in parliament...the statements at the time were that "we can't dither and let people sit too long and think about the subject to deeply, we must pass them NOW".

This is a worry...we are seeing the same "logic" with "hoon laws". They are rushed through, usually taking the opportunity of striking while the public is upset about some very visible accidents so that they won't think too deeply about the issue and go "hey...wait a minute..."

Laws of any kind rushed through in an emotive frenzy, "strikig while the iron is hot", are not good laws. Any major change to any laws, especially ones that can result in people having legally owned items take away from them, should be carefully thought about, after long consultation periods and public submissions. Rushing things through smacks of just trying to control people in a dictatorial manner...

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

In the same way drug dealers, fraudsters etc have their property away because it is a procede of crime, or used in a crime, or the property is illegal to have (like unregistered guns, drugs etc)....

That is entirely a different story. If somebody obtains title to some property using money (or other form of payment) they hadn't legitimately earnt, then it should never have been theirs in the first place (incidentally, I believe proceeds of crime laws should have the onus of proof reversed, that the prosecution have to prove the property was obtained from the proceeds of an illegal activity rather than the property owner having to prove that it wasn't, but that's a different story).

With regards to the car confiscation laws, the law is taking away legally owned property that is paid for by legitimate means. There HAS to be compensation if it is to be taken away.

I do not support the confiscation laws at all. I don't care how many times the driver has been convicted of reckless driving, their car is their car. What the law can do is take away their licence, but they cannot (or at least should not) take away legitimately obtained property, whether it be for punishment or not.

[mik]

Originally Posted by SPArKy_Dave

Sounds interesting. Definitely worth following up.
Can you point me in the direction of the forum?

There's so much good info in our Constitution.
It should be taught in schools, as a part of the basic curriculum structure.

pm sent.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

How does one create a new state? Lots and lots of money? Surprised that over in WA with the money they've got, they haven't just gone and created a new state (or country) entirely?

A new country is not permissible constitutionally, HOWEVER, if Australia was to vote for a republic, in theory 'a state' that did not so vote, - could go it alone and not be part of that change, hence independent but reminaing a Constitutional monarchy.

AUS Constition allows for the creation of separate 'states' with usual full state responsibilities.

Can't see WA dividing itself, but can see WA departing a republican OZ. (So some WA folk say).

My 'New England State' name-call - is simply based on 'feeling' you can get from locals in that region. Old RTA recognised this political aspect by issuing "NEW ENGLAND" number plates; not that they - as a NSW GovCo/state agency were advocating that.

Funny isn't it?! - We see EU agenda pushing independence for Scotland and Wales; the result would be an end to GB and its flag, they'd fall back to the English flag once again, and the idea is for EU Belgium to then run things as one big country with parliaments in Scotland, Wales etc and so on - for 'state matters'.

Thing is, EU sits in Belgium, and the Flanders folk of Belgium wish to push for independence too, not happy with having to support the lesser wealthy and work ethic frankophiles of Belgium south. THAT would disturb the seat of EU parliament somewhat. :-)

Can't see that ending well.

I am all for states rights here in OZ over a bloating and ever greedy Canberra, and am not at all happy about our states lacking ability to independently raise funds, but thats just me.

As person of partly Prussian ancestory, I'd apply the same outlook to EU;- rack the centralist bolshies off, and fall back to a position of supreme nation-states, united in road transport standards insofar engineering and vehicle construction, and trade, -WITH border controls reinstated, and finally with national currencies once again. Euro currency may yet fail, it could be saved IF Germany were to leave it, and that won't happen, of course.

I have always resisted moves by the state to take private property, unless fully compensated by market rates (in the case of road construction etc). Jims example above, you target the person and not the property, UNLESS that state can absolutely prove the property was solely paid for by, in this example, drugs.

But even then, goal the person in the first instance. Should open another thread re all this.

[flappist]

The topic is Hoon laws and legal rulings not drugs, murder, terrorism or even jay walking.

[darryloflife]

From a Constitutional view the Hoon laws in Victoria are INVALID. All laws within the State of Victoria since 1975 created by the Parliament are INVALID. Why I here you ask, well look at section 106 of the Commonwealth Constitution and you will read the words,"The Constitution of each State", note the singularity of the word "Constitution", well Victoria has 2 Constitutions the first being the original which was Royally assented in 1855 and then the Parliament of Victoria decided that it was too awkward and decided to pass the Constitution Act 1975 which gave them a new slate to work off and as such all legislation in Victoria has been based on.
The predominant Commonwealth law clearly instructs we the people to treat any inconsistent State law as INVALID, so there in lies our obligation as law abiding people.

[NX74205]

There is a big, big difference between a 'privilege' and a 'right'. The ability to hold a driver's licence is a 'privilege'. The ownership of property is a right. I'm arguing for no more than the protection of the rights of all citizens and the basic jurisprudential principle of the rule of law.

By all means, take away a convicted hoon's privilege of being able to operate a vehicle on public roads, but their property rights are indissoluble and inviolable. Punishment is about the removal of privileges. It is not about arbitrarily removing the rights of others.

English jurist John Locke wrote in The Second Treatise of Government that "whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people ... they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience ..."

The confiscation of motor vehicles for hooning offences is not a just law, and natural law principles dictate that when a law is not a just law (i.e. not founded on moral justice), then it is no law at all.

[darryloflife]

Due process of law applies especially to those in the Public SERVICE and when those we have entrusted with the role of law making and they openly abuse that role then the law quite clearly instructs the people to strip those guilty parties of their assets, return those assets to the public purse and then trie them under common law. In fact in our Bill Of Rights section 12 states," That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures to all persons before conviction is illegal and void."

[BHDOGS]

where can i read about these bill of rights for australia?

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by darryloflife

From a Constitutional view the Hoon laws in Victoria are INVALID. All laws within the State of Victoria since 1975 created by the Parliament are INVALID. Why I here you ask, well look at section 106 of the Commonwealth Constitution and you will read the words,"The Constitution of each State", note the singularity of the word "Constitution", well Victoria has 2 Constitutions the first being the original which was Royally assented in 1855 and then the Parliament of Victoria decided that it was too awkward and decided to pass the Constitution Act 1975 which gave them a new slate to work off and as such all legislation in Victoria has been based on.
The predominant Commonwealth law clearly instructs we the people to treat any inconsistent State law as INVALID, so there in lies our obligation as law abiding people.

WRONG.... reread what it says.
If you copied the section out on full it says

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 109
Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid

where can i read about these bill of rights for australia?

Yes im sure we all would like to read these... since we dont have any

[flappist]

OK ENOUGH

The topic was the hoon laws in South Australia and the legal ruling.
It appears that there is nothing more constructive to be added.