First car crushed under 'unlicensed laws'


The first vehicle confiscated under Western Australia's unlicensed driver laws was crushed today.

Police and Road Safety Minister Rob Johnson said police had successfully applied to the courts to have the 1989 Mitsubishi Galant hatchback permanently confiscated after its owner was caught for unlicensed driving offences on three occasions in less than a year.

Mr Johnson said he hoped today's crushing would send a clear message to anyone driving without a licence.

"My message to unlicensed drivers is simple - if you get behind the wheel, you will be caught and you will lose your vehicle," he said.

"While most drivers do the right thing and use our roads responsibly, there are some who continue to snub their nose at the law and at the safety of others.



"Unlicensed motorists, along with hoon drivers, put lives at risk and do not deserve to be on our roads."

Mr Johnson said the vehicle was crushed due to its low-value.

The vehicle's engine and gearbox were donated to students to use in their mechanical studies at the Swan TAFE Carlisle Campus.

In November 2009, the vehicle of a repeat reckless driver was the first car to be crushed under the state's hoon laws.

Under the unlicensed driver laws, if a person is detected driving without a valid licence, police can impound the vehicle on-the-spot for 28 days.

If a person is caught for their third offence, the Police Commissioner can apply to a court to have the offender's vehicle permanently confiscated.  It is then crushed or sold, with proceeds going to road safety projects.

From July 2009 to August 2010, police have impounded 10,333 vehicles under the legislation.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 3:25pm:



No, not "1 in 5 crashes are caused BY unlicensed drivers"  it actually says  "1 in 5 unlicensed drivers will be involved in serious crashes"....

True, but you need to think about 'why' these people are unlicensed too....

No, not "1 in 5 crashes are caused BY unlicensed drivers"  it actually says  "1 in 5 unlicensed drivers will be involved in serious crashes"....

In my book it's theft. They have absolutely no right to steal a person's property, beit unlicensed or hoon drivers.

They really need to look at other measures which don't encroach upon our basic rights.
Maybe the requirement of a license to purchase a vehicle might be an idea worth looking at, but stealing a person's property is just plain wrong.

A middle-aged businessman hit with a $750 fine after being found with cannabis plants for his own use faces having his family home seized by the State Government in the latest test case of WA's criminal property confiscation laws.

The State's move to confiscate the Warnbro house he shares with his partner and young child comes despite a magistrate ruling his offence was not worthy of a criminal record.

Lawyers said yesterday the case showed the confiscation legislation was being used disproportionately by the Director of Public Prosecutions to satisfy a "lust for money".

The man's lawyer, Shash Nigam, told _The West Australian _his client had pleaded guilty to one count of simple cultivation on the basis that the 10 cannabis plants were meant solely for his personal use, an argument accepted by the prosecution.

But despite the court ruling the offence deserved only a spent conviction and a fine, the man's bank accounts and property remained frozen for confiscation by the State.

A spokeswoman said the DPP was reviewing the confiscation, which is believed to be the first involving an offence for which a spent conviction was granted. The DPP's policy stated that one of the goals of confiscation was deterrence and that "undue hardship" was avoided.

She said the man's property had been frozen while he faced the more serious offence of cultivating to sell or supply and before police accepted the lesser charge.

Australian Lawyers Alliance WA president Tom Percy said the mere possibility it could go ahead "should send a chill down every person in Western Australia's spine" because it showed how out of control and disproportionate the laws were.

"There is a glaring need for the Act to be amended to reflect that, because otherwise the Act facilitates outrageous injustices," he said.

Mr Nigam warned that if his client's home was confiscated, anyone convicted of an offence with a maximum penalty of two years jail or more would be open to losing their home regardless of what penalty they actually received.

"It just seems like a perverse way to deal with a matter where someone has received a spent conviction and fines," he said. "It would seem that it's a lust for money and basically they just want to get it from wherever they can even when they know they are not rightfully entitled to it."

His client had a previous conviction for dangerous driving and two charges of drug possession from almost 20 years ago. Spent convictions can only be granted if the court is satisfied a person is unlikely to reoffend and is of good character, or the crime is trivial.

Mr Nigam said he was preparing legal action to end the confiscation process.