Govt. sell on behalf scheme?

[MD13 494]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/77904864/seized-72-ford-gt-sells-for-60k-after-dunedin-owner-loses-burnout-appeal

So to sum up... If you have a momentary lapse of judgement the courts can seize and sell your car!

So not only do you get punished, community service, fine and loss of license, you have your car sold for cheap (auction, minus court costs, minus any other fine, minus auction fees etc).

This all seems a little much to me!

[KwS 2425]

seems VERY excessive to take and sell the car. There must be more to the story, had he already had two past "strikes" or something?

At least he gets something back from the sale of the car (or in this case looks like the debt was wiped), so all isnt lost like when they crush "boy racers" cars.

[gjm 3258]

70 hours community service is pretty steep for a 'sustained loss of traction'... How sustained was it? How does the law define 'sustained' in this situation?

If it was 20 yards of 'sustained', there may be justification, especially if the person in question has previous. As for a button clutch making the car uncontrollable - should the car be on the road? </Devils's Advocate>

We're not told enough to make any sensible judgement... Usual media reporting, really.

[KwS 2425]

Yeah, see thats the info this article is missing. Useless media.

[Matth5 471]

I don't think taking people's (legally obtained) property is the right way for the law to deal with offences. A burnout is far from the worst thing someone can do with a car, worthy of a fine at the most unless he loses control and swerves around traffic/pedestrians.

One previous conviction, we don't know the full circumstances there.

NZ really has weird ways of dishing out justice. Relatively little punishment for thefts and violent crime, but will take away a $60k car for doing a burnout, crazy.

His excuse sucks, yes, I'll bet it was an intentional burnout and he's BS'ing his way out, but I still think the punishment is poorly thought out and excessive.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Matth5

[Ron K 7]

Thought it was pretty rough yeah. Licence suspension would've caused him enough grief to not do it again. I guess at least he got some money back.

[gjm 3258]

Thought it was pretty rough yeah. Licence suspension would've caused him enough grief to not do it again. I guess at least he got some money back.

Licence suspension doesn't atop him doing it again, or even stop him driving the car. Removing ownership does.

Still, does seem harsh (especially in light of punishment meted out for other, far more serious crimes), but for a repeat offender it may be the only way to deal with them.

[m325i 709]

Couldn't you buy the car back at auction considering you get the proceeds? (or shill bid it up for a good profit?)

[Matth5 471]

Those are extreme cases and should be resulting in people being locked up though. Someone with 29 convictions shouldn't even be walking freely!

Like I said, NZ has a weird way with justice.

[KwS 2425]

cant say i have heard of them selling the car of anyone caught doing 200kph+, but they do impound it for 28 days. Skids or high speeds, its obvious which should hold the higher penalty.

[gjm 3258]

cant say i have heard of them selling the car of anyone caught doing 200kph+, but they do impound it for 28 days. Skids or high speeds, its obvious which should hold the higher penalty.

Maybe speeding isn't as serious as we've been led to believe?

[MD13 494]

I didn't see that he had a prior conviction, but even so I don't understand the logic here. With regard to Ron's comment - sure gun could equal car as a deadly weapon and if you shot someone I would expect you to lose the gun and your license. But in this case they sold his 'historic vehicle' and gave him some of the money back. He can and most likely will buy another car and that right is unaffected.

On second thought the gun analogy is not sound - a gun is a weapon with no real other purpose (people will argue this but hopefully we don't have too many nra card holding Americans on this site). A car is a means of transport foremost and I think there's a fairly big difference from doing a little skid and pointing a gun at someone.

[Matth5 471]

I didn't see that he had a prior conviction, but even so I don't understand the logic here. With regard to Ron's comment - sure gun could equal car as a deadly weapon and if you shot someone I would expect you to lose the gun and your license. But in this case they sold his 'historic vehicle' and gave him some of the money back. He can and most likely will buy another car and that right is unaffected.

Yup, the intention of taking the car away was clearly as a punishment and not as a way to prevent him from driving.

If he was a real menace with a car I'd expect him to be banned from having a car at all. Taking a car away should only be done when extreme measures are needed and the person needs to be banned from driving/car ownership. But those would be the kind of cases that warrant jail time anyway I think.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Matth5

[e30ftw 410]

This isn't the first time, at least in this instance the car was not crushed, most likely to attempt to recover unpaid fines. This will all be under the vehicle confiscation 3 strikes in 4 years for previous driving offences so there will definitely be more to the story.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2009/0042/latest/DLM2095708.html

[zero 1162]

If you don't wanna do the time, don't do the crime.

He knew the laws and yet he broke them anyway.

We only hear his side of the story, and I'm sure the other side will reveal all.

Probably had history with police and heaps of fines.

[MD13 494]

Ok agree that the person in this instance was probably not a model citizen. Still it was just a little skid - selling the car seems a step too far to me.

Ron - lets not get too pedantic. You didn't mention 'sports' in your original gun analogy. Yes there are target shooting sports whereby people who may never have killed anything with a gun compete. Bottom line though - a gun is a weapon. A car may be used as a weapon but it's primary function is transport.

[polley 916]

Won't be the first time he has been caught, and there will be more to the story.

Edited March 16, 2016 by polley

[M3AN 4016]

I agree with most here, even if he was a recidivist offender the punishment doesn't match the crime. Judith "Crusher" Collins is a National shame (pun intended).

I bet he was being a dick but far, far more serious crimes are dealt with far less severely and this is entirely disproportionate. On that basis alone this is neither justice nor justified. No analogies are required to work this one out.

Edited March 16, 2016 by M3AN

[M3AN 4016]

Dave it simply comes back to what the penalty provisions are in the act under which the party is charged and the court has to be able to withstand scrutiny - he could have appealed , but I doubt any one in the legal fraternity would have seen an opportunity for appeal.

I don't disagree that the letter of the law was probably applied here. But I don't think it's reasonable (the law) and I believe it can be easily proven to be disproportionate.

That's why I mentioned that stupid bitch.

[M3AN 4016]

Error, in logic Dave, if it were easily proven then he would have won his appeal, He Lost we can only speculate , but the judge HAS to get it right or an appeal will be successful and when judges err appeals are (successful) .

My god you're contrary.

My logic is fine. If you compare the penalty for this "crime" against other, more serious crimes, then the punishment here is clearly and obviously disproportionate.

I'd already stated that the penalty was supported by law and I'm not arguing it isn't. I'm stating the legal penalty is disproportionate. And that's easy to prove.

[polley 916]

I think 3pedals is a poorly programmed bot sent here to troll us.

[M3AN 4016]

Bangs head against brick wall - must the dutch 'Kaas kop' coming out ? let it go Dave --- YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS = you cant prove it at best you can simply express a subjective opinion

(The judges do have the facts )

He was convicted , he appealed new judges heard it he lost - laat mar

Dude. For the last time I'm not (that means "not") saying the penalty is unlawful. I'm saying the penalty doesn't match the crime because there are worse crimes with lessor penalties.

Take a deep breath and think about my words, not your emotional reaction to my post, and you'll eventually work it out.

You're arguing against the wrong thing into empty space.

[zero 1162]

Ok agree that the person in this instance was probably not a model citizen. Still it was just a little skid - selling the car seems a step too far to me.

We don't know that it was 'just a little skid'.

Thats what he claims but I'm sure the truth is much more interesting.

[zero 1162]

My logic is fine. If you compare the penalty for this "crime" against other, more serious crimes, then the punishment here is clearly and obviously disproportionate.

You have to include his history as well.

What if he has thousands and thousands in fines, has constantly had his licence removed and yet still drives, and is a constant drink driver?

The little sob story piece only tells his side of the story?

[zero 1162]

Bangs head against brick wall - must the dutch 'Kaas kop' coming out ? let it go Dave --- YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS = you cant prove it at best you can simply express a subjective opinion

(The judges do have the facts )

He was convicted , he appealed new judges heard it he lost - laat mar

I cant believe it, but I agree with Ron.

First time for everything I guess.