Anti Hoon Laws Unconstitutional

[purnong]

South Australia's Chief Justice has ruled the state's anti-hoon legislation is unconstitutional and has overturned an order for a Port Pirie man to forfeit his car.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-1...tional/4319234

It will be interesting to see where this goes, Of course the state gov will appeal the ruling but will it be successful
Reminds me of the overturned anti bikie laws

[eyes87]

Awesome precedent

[homersdaman]

double punishment is standard for australia ( even though they say it isnt )
example of this is when a p plater loses his/her license on demerit points for speeding , they appeal and lose , RMS gives them 3 months for first offence then the magistrate will also give 3 months suspension - the RMS suspension starts when the magistrate imposed sentence expires - so the courts suspend you then the RTA suspends you , is that not unconstitutional being punished twice ? answer is actually no one cared ( this actually happened to me a few years ago ) 1 offense being punished by 2 different authorities - even a criminal can not be punished twice for any crime no matter how many appeals they make yet drivers can be and are routinely treated this way when they appeal a fine , the RMS thinks its some sort of god like entity

[2011G6E]

I'm actually surprised they took any notice of the constitution at all...not many people even know Australia has a constitution. Not that it bears much resemblance to something like the Yank one. It's been said that the American Constitution is written in language that is easy to read, written by good men wanting to be free...ours is quite plainly written by lawyers...
The government here pretty much ignores most of what's actually in there...

For instance, my favourite, Section 100 of the Constitution...

Australian Constitution - Section 100 - Nor abridge right to use water
The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.

...keep that in mind every time a farmer gets in trouble and fined heavily for using river water for irrigation or people are prohibited from using a river for fishing or recreation...

[pottery beige]

they would prise my car from my cold, dead hands...

[Nikked]

Mad max style, rigged with a bomb.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

they would prise my car from my cold, dead hands...

"Your Proposal is Acceptable....."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp0I9qLE0VA

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I'm actually surprised they took any notice of the constitution at all...not many people even know Australia has a constitution. Not that it bears much resemblance to something like the Yank one. It's been said that the American Constitution is written in language that is easy to read, written by good men wanting to be free...ours is quite plainly written by lawyers...
The government here pretty much ignores most of what's actually in there...

For instance, my favourite, Section 100 of the Constitution...


...keep that in mind every time a farmer gets in trouble and fined heavily for using river water for irrigation or people are prohibited from using a river for fishing or recreation...

This SA outcome is absolutely appropriate and I am surprised this wasn't tackled earlier.

That people don't know their constitution, is not a fault of the Constitution. I appreciate your post re water btw, you never know.

[steve.zissou]

actually, state constitutions cover most of our day to day stuff - like the water issue (federal constitution just says the Fed govt can do this or that).

Most state constitutions can be changed without a public referendum - Look at the history of the QLD constitution. If a court ever found a law to be unconstitutional at a state level the govt simply changes the constitution.

Also, the fed can black mail states into doing stuff on their behalf - like the water or gun laws. If you dont do this we wont give you tax revenue -

but it sounds like a good win for the guy in SA.

to put it in perspective - whats worse a guy doing a couple of burnouts (gets $50,000 car chrushed) or the drunk guy that glasses someone and gets a $1200 good behaviour bond??????

[Keepleft]

I certainly like our NSW Constitution, sometimes though - I'd love to get rid of Canberra and the Australian federation (Constitution).

I could then raise the NSW Light Horse Regiment and invade Viktoria in order to bring about decent road traffic law and safety management practice:-)

Federally, we permit the creation of new states, so I am tempted sometimes by a 'New England State' (Tamworth region). Its Constition would ensure private gun ownership, unless by way of quack one is found mentally ill/or permiting 'confiscation' when reported for domestic voilence or armed criminal offences - and hence barred thereafter. it permit no bolshie agenda, and for motorway and rural highways would be derestricted by default. It'd enshrine Citizens Initiated Referenda too....

Meow...

[pottery beige]

fine me, punish me, take my license whatever..

but you are not taking my stuff..

my stuff represents twenty plus years of hard work..

you are not taking my stuff..

/end

[Auslandau]

I think everyone knows about the constitution ...... just no one knows how to use it or whats it all about!

If you have watched 'The Castle', then you know all about the Constitution.

"Its about the Constitution, its the vibe, its justice, its Marbo, its the law, its the vibe ..... and no, that's just about it ..... its the vibe!"

[mik]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I'm actually surprised they took any notice of the constitution at all...not many people even know Australia has a constitution. Not that it bears much resemblance to something like the Yank one. It's been said that the American Constitution is written in language that is easy to read, written by good men wanting to be free...ours is quite plainly written by lawyers...
The government here pretty much ignores most of what's actually in there...

For instance, my favourite, Section 100 of the Constitution...


...keep that in mind every time a farmer gets in trouble and fined heavily for using river water for irrigation or people are prohibited from using a river for fishing or recreation...

very true mate, and without naming names , the powers that be have been working to undermine and make our constitution null and void in the continuing fight for more power, one of the other forums i frequent not unlike this one has some very cluey people,........... but in in the law area.
i reckon most of the problem is the average punter just is`nt up with all the law jargon(me included) and unless it`s explained to them in laymen terms it might as well be mandarin , and because of that we can be walked over by the powers that be..

[pottery beige]

thats what its all about man.. we are being walked all over in the name of being seen as doing something....

adequate laws and punishment were already in place........

[SPArKy_Dave]

Originally Posted by mik

one of the other forums i frequent not unlike this one has some very cluey people,........... but in in the law area.
..

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.

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

I certainly like our NSW Constitution, sometimes though - I'd love to get rid of Canberra and the Australian federation (Constitution).

I could then raise the NSW Light Horse Regiment and invade Viktoria in order to bring about decent road traffic law and safety management practice:-)

Federally, we permit the creation of new states, so I am tempted sometimes by a 'New England State' (Tamworth region). Its Constition would ensure private gun ownership, unless by way of quack one is found mentally ill/or permiting 'confiscation' when reported for domestic voilence or armed criminal offences - and hence barred thereafter. it permit no bolshie agenda, and for motorway and rural highways would be derestricted by default. It'd enshrine Citizens Initiated Referenda too....

Meow...

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?

[robbyj]

a little off topic, but his 3rd drink driving charge? i would feel no sympathy for him if they took his car, no matter how unjust it is.

[XP6]

I personally know this bloke well, I dont think he deserves to have his car crushed but I dont think he should be allowed have a license he's a serial offender and will offend again.
Plenty of people are like this, cant help themselves


"Rumor mill has it" his ute was impounded then released to him after paying the release fee's, a few days later the cops come around and tried to impound it again... clerical error apparently!

[NX74205]

Fantastic news.

I always thought it was only a matter of time before someone would challenge the constitutional basis for the forfeiture legislation. I know I absolutely would do so if it were my car being forfeited. I'd rather part with however much money it takes to win the case rather than to let my car go.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I'm actually surprised they took any notice of the constitution at all...not many people even know Australia has a constitution. Not that it bears much resemblance to something like the Yank one. It's been said that the American Constitution is written in language that is easy to read, written by good men wanting to be free...ours is quite plainly written by lawyers...
The government here pretty much ignores most of what's actually in there...

For instance, my favourite, Section 100 of the Constitution...

reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation


...keep that in mind every time a farmer gets in trouble and fined heavily for using river water for irrigation or people are prohibited from using a river for fishing or recreation...

And there lies the problem with a lot of our constitutional wording.

"reasonable" use is subject to legal interpretation.

You can only win if you have the money to have it tested in very expensive court rooms.

Clearly he succeeds in not having his car crushed ($3k worth?)

yet the legal bill would be what...40-50k?

[Elks]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

they would prise my car from my cold, dead hands...

I like your car, If that's all it takes, look out

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by XP6

I personally know this bloke well, I dont think he deserves to have his car crushed but I dont think he should be allowed have a license he's a serial offender and will offend again.
Plenty of people are like this, cant help themselves


"Rumor mill has it" his ute was impounded then released to him after paying the release fee's, a few days later the cops come around and tried to impound it again... clerical error apparently!

Then we shall find another constitutionally appropriate way of handling such things; wheel clamping/impounding/interlock etc and so on - not hard to come up with ideas that don't include stealing private property and cutting off judicial oversight.

As for a person with regular drink issues - ditto.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by XP6

I personally know this bloke well, I dont think he deserves to have his car crushed but I dont think he should be allowed have a license he's a serial offender and will offend again.
Plenty of people are like this, cant help themselves

Thirty years ago, we simply locked these people up - and it worked too; for as while they were inside they didn't offend.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by Ugg

You can only win if you have the money to have it tested in very expensive court rooms.

No only that, if it's before the supreme court you have to have a barrister, not a solicitor.

[Jim Goose]

Sadly a lot of people seem to think our "rights" are enshrined in the constitution.
This is incorrect. The only personal rights in the constitution is freedom of religion!

Now in regards to taking away property, there is no reference in the constitution about taking away a person property... so i cant see how its "unconstitutional".
The only reference which could be used it seems is maybe this one:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 117

Rights of residents in States

A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.

Our rights are enshrined in common law.... and a State Law can never over rule a Federal Law (or be more restrictive).

[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...

[Jim Goose]

An interesting article here about property seizure.... and hows it going the wrong way:

Seizure and confiscation offence legislation operates in all States, in the Territories and in Commonwealth legislation.

In most cases, you can have your property and assets seized for offences with the potential of a sentence of two years or more.

Note, that is not where the convicted person must be actually sentenced to two or more years behind bars: no, the laws merely state that the convicted person could have been sentenced to two years or longer.

http://www.cla.asn.au/0805/index.php...lia-s-property

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Sadly a lot of people seem to think our "rights" are enshrined in the constitution.
This is incorrect. The only personal rights in the constitution is freedom of religion!

Now in regards to taking away property, there is no reference in the constitution about taking away a person property... so i cant see how its "unconstitutional".
The only reference which could be used it seems is maybe this one:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 117


Our rights are enshrined in common law.... and a State Law can never over rule a Federal Law (or be more restrictive).

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.

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...

You raise very good points Jim. It highlights how we don't actually own anything, but merely pay rent for the things we have been hoodwinked into believing we own. If we did truly own our house and land, no one anywhere would have any right to force us to move when a highway or whatnot was going up. Land tax and all of the other taxes associated with land ownership would be unlawful, no matter how hard govco tried.

[steve.zissou]

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.

yeah, but who would do this overhaul - I guess lawyers would - Doh - back to where we started.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by steve.zissou

yeah, but who would do this overhaul - I guess lawyers would - Doh - back to where we started.

Thats where I'd begin, run the parasites off immediately. Laws written in clear, unambiguous English which everyone can understand will negate the need for a legal industry.