Any driver involved in a police pursuit can be charged with a serious offence under the Crimes Act. One of the pivotal issues is whether the Driver knew or ought to reasonably know, or have reasonable grounds to suspect that he/she is being pursued and required to stop.
Often a pursuit may commence from a police vehicle being a long way behind. For example, a police vehicle being in hiding and pursuing a speeding motorist who has gone past. If it involves a highway patrol vehicle it is imperative to view the in-car video which can illustrate whether any indication existed from the driver’s actions supporting the police contention or any other relevant matters that might emerge from the video that can assist the preparation of a defence.
THE DANGERS OF “DOING A RUNNER” POLICE PURSUITS
It used to be that for a multitude of potential reasons people on occasion would knowingly or unknowingly do a runner. It has to be said from the outset that these actions are in no way condoned and the risk to members of the public very high.
However the circumstances that can result in one being charged can be initiated by quite innocent and explainable circumstances in cases.
It would often mean that on apprehension the driver if identity could be established would be charged with drive manner/speed dangerous or fail to stop offences. This all changed as a result of a death in a police pursuit in 2009 and as a result Skyes law was born.
CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 51B
Police pursuits
51B Police pursuits
(1) The driver of a vehicle:
(a) who knows, ought reasonably to know or has reasonable grounds to suspect that police officers are in pursuit of the vehicle and that the driver is required to stop the vehicle, and
(b) who does not stop the vehicle, and
(c) who then drives the vehicle recklessly or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to others,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
(a) in the case of a first offence--imprisonment for 3 years, or
(b) in the case of an offence on a second or subsequent occasion--imprisonment for 5 years.
There is also an automatic disqualification of 3 years with a minimum of 1 year.
Even though police may be quick to charge drivers/riders with this serious offence it is difficult to prove. For the prosecution to prove their case they must establish:
1 That the driver knew or ought reasonably to have known, or had reasonable grounds to suspect that police were in pursuit, and required to stop
2 The driver did not stop the vehicle,
3 The driver subsequently drove the vehicle recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to others.
The prosecution therefore bares a considerable onus in trying to establish all of those elements but it doesn’t stop people being charged under this legislation because for whatever reason they have not stopped. I have had clients who have been unaware that police have tried to stop them or that they are being pursued for various factual reasons such as they were driving with the sun in their eyes when an officer jumped out of no where and was unseen by the driver or when the officer stuck out his board there were many vehicles on the multilane highway and the driver/rider thought that they meant the car in the adjacent lane. Or on a motorbike where visibility behind is limited they were merrily speeding along unaware that police were flying down the freeway after them.
Defences to this charge are:
1 The driver/ rider did not know that police were pursuing or required them to stop,
2 The driver did not drive the vehicle recklessly or at a speed or in a manner dangerous’
3 Duress,
4 Necessity
The first two points are important the person must know that they are being pursued. Therefore if highway patrol are hiding in the bushes and then decide to get in their car to pursue you that may not be sufficient.
Secondly and as important is once you know police are pursuing you is that your driving has to be reckless or at a speed or manner dangerous. So arguably someone who is travelling at the speed limit who does not stop may successfully defend the charge by virtue of not doing anything that would contravene the above. Similarly passing a vehicle over double unbroken lines where the road is straight and visibility good would be different to carrying on the same maneuver with traffic heading straight at you and them having to take evasive action.
These are very serious charges so definitely talk to a lawyer before saying anything to police at any stage.
The article as written is for your information and interest only. It is not intended to be comprehensive, and does not constitute and must not be relied on as legal advice. Please be aware that every case is different and the matters I am raising may not be of specific relevance to your situation but may have a general application and you must seek specific advice tailored to your circumstances. I will also gladly talk to anyone on the phone if confused or want clarification.
Chris Kalpage
Kalpage and Co Solicitors
kalpageandcosolicitors.com.au
0418211074
Kalpage & Co 24/7 Solicitors - 24/7 Legal assistance for all driving and criminal matters. Call now if you've been arrested or need legal help. Call Chris Kalpage on 0418 211 074.
POLICE PURSUIT OR IS IT?
I have previously published an article on police pursuits and will give you a recent case I was involved in where the officer thought he was pursuing my client whilst clearly not.
My client had ridden his BMW adventure bike from his home on the central coast doing a circuit through Kulnurra where he stopped for a break and then travelling through the Watagan State Forest back to his home. A trip he had done many times before and the bike was designed to travel over the rough terrain.
As he was on Great North Road a couple of kilometers from Laguna, he passed a police vehicle and thought nothing of it. He was traveling along Watergan Creek Road when pulled over by the highway patrol officer who stated to my client that he had called in a police pursuit which was a total surprise to my client. He was subsequently charged with the following:
Police Pursuit which carries 3 years jail for a first offence and disqualification of 3 years with a minimum of 1 year
Drive speed manner dangerous disqualification of 3 years with a minimum of 1 year
Exceed speed over 30 with a 3-month disqualification
When I was retained the first thing, I did was attend the police station and observe the In Car Video (ICV).
This was a revelation. It appeared to show my client travelling past the police car over 10 kmh over the speed limit, nothing to get excited about. So why the fuss and a police pursuit. A closer examination of the ICV indicated that after the bike went past the police vehicle the police vehicle did at least a 5 point turn on a short straight between two corners over double unbroken lines which consumed about 10 seconds and possibly about 13 seconds since the bike past the police vehicle.
As I have previously written the speeds that a police vehicle has to get to with that kind of delay are considerable. Furthermore, the police vehicle had shot past the right hand turn to Watergan Creek Road and had to reverse to turn into that road adding to further delay.
As part of the preparation of the case for a hearing I had a scientific expert prepare evidence as to where the bike would have been based on the delay in making the u turn and overshooting Watergan Creek Road. Based on the time the bike went past to when it was pulled over a calculation could also be made on the average speed.
More importantly evidence was given that the allegations by the officer that the bike dived whilst braking after he had passed the police vehicle, and then the rider looking down and to the right mirror and the bike squatting under acceleration were also debunked. The nature of this bike’s braking system and suspension would not allow for diving forward under braking and squatting under acceleration. Further being an adventure bike, the seating was upright with high handlebars and mirrors also at eye level. So, unlike a sports bike no need to look down and to the right.
Further the officer in his statement maintained that as the motorcycle was near the front of the police vehicle, he activated the red and blue LED light bar on the roof and front grill lights, again my examination of the in-car video illustrated that the lights were activated only when he was doing the five point turn over double unbroken lines well after the bike had gone past. Further whilst doing the u turn it would be unlikely, he was looking at the bike and more likely trying to make the five-point turn and ensuring that he was keeping an eye to his left for oncoming traffic that he was obstructing between the two curves.
The officer further alluded to travelling at high speed but couldn’t catch up with the bike and therefore the bike must have been doing at least that speed again debunked by the delay in going after the bike and the calculated speed of the bike.
A final argument that the speed on Watergan Creek Road was 50 or 70 kmh was debunked by evidence obtained from Transport for NSW that it was 100 kmh.
Once the defence evidence was established fruitful negotiations were undertaken with the prosecutor, the highway patrol supervisor and the police officer concerned. Based on our argument the two serious charges were withdrawn and a plea of guilty was entered to a speed over 20 which resulted in no loss of licence and was consistent with the time distance evidence of the scientific expert.
The article as written is for your information and interest only. It is not intended to be comprehensive, and does not constitute and must not be relied on as legal advice. Please be aware that every case is different and the matters I am raising may not be of specific relevance to your situation but may have a general application and you must seek specific advice tailored to your circumstances. I will also gladly talk to anyone on the phone if confused or want clarification.
Chris Kalpage
Kalpage and Co Solicitors
kalpageandcosolicitors.com.au
0418 211 074
Kalpage & Co 24/7 Solicitors - 24/7 Legal assistance for all driving and criminal matters. Call now if you've been arrested or need legal help. Call Chris Kalpage on 0418 211 074.