This whole case is weird.

The appeals court also found the magistrate made an error of law by finding the offence occurred “at night”, which is considered an aggravating factor in the offence. The offence occurred at 8.35pm. Under the statutory definition used in such cases, “night” begins at 9pm.

So an aggravated… non-offence? As the police weren’t exercising an actual power or acting on a reasonable suspicion when they decided to stop the vehicle.

These clowns should be sacked, especially the Magistrate.

The police attempted to stop the vehicle by activating their lights and sirens. The vehicle did not stop.

The officers contacted other police officers in Aurukun, who set up a tyre deflation device about 5km from the community. A vehicle drove across the tyre deflation device and continued for about 2km, where it was abandoned. There was no sign of the driver.

So he’s guilty as fuck, but the courts overturned his conviction and are letting him walk. Unfortunately this seems typical of our judicial system.

So you just ignored this part?

he usually left the keys on the wall of his home and that the car was accessible to more than 20 extended family members.

And the fact that the magistrate was displaying very obvious bias and behaving illegally by preventing the justice process from playing out properly? And that the police failed to adequately explain his rights, and charged him on the basis that he had not exercised them correctly?

The evidence was exceptionally weak, and justice clearly was not done in the first instance.

No I didn’t. In Australia the registered owner of the car is legally responsible and assumed to be driving the car unless they nominate the person who was.

The evidence was exceptionally weak

How is a car running from police, getting its wheels blown out, continuing to run for another few kilometres, and then being abandoned “exceptionally weak”? The police had his car. If he can’t name who was driving it, he is responsible. That’s literally the law.

If you leave your car at home and one of your kids takes it and gets a speeding fine, parking fine, it red light camera fine and none of them will own up and you can’t figure out who it was, guess who takes the rap for it? YOU. Saying you don’t know who it was isn’t a get out of jail free card.

Read the article ffs

they are required to provide a statutory declaration naming the person they believe was driving, or alternatively giving as much information as possible about the location of the vehicle and who had access.

Police told Ngakyunkwokka: “If you don’t do the stat dec [statutory declaration] and name a person, you can be charged”. He was not told that he had to complete the statement even if he could not nominate the driver.

The police lied to him about what he needed to do. He acted on the advice they gave him.

Your hypothetical is both irrelevant and not correct, based on the information in the article that you refuse to actually read.

You are not smarter or more knowledgeable in the law than a district court judge.

The police didn’t lie to him. Those are what he had to do if he didn’t want to be charged.

What part do you think is a lie?

Read it again. It's not my job to educate you. Especially not if you're being wilfully ignorant.

Which part do you think is a lie? The police were right.

Police told Ngakyunkwokka: “If you don’t do the stat dec [statutory declaration] and name a person, you can be charged”. He was not told that he had to complete the statement even if he could not nominate the driver.

FFS if you're going to continue being this much of a fuckwit and/or idiot I'm done with this conversation.

Where’s the lie? He was told he had to do the stat Dec and name a person, and that if he couldn’t name the person then he could be charged. That’s legally and factually correct.

Again - where’s the lie?

Wrong

Why won’t you answer the question?

Where is the lie in what they said?

Read the fucking comment you fucking turd.

I even went to the effort of bolding the relevant section for you.

There's no lie in the bolded part though lol. He was told what he had to do or he could be charged. That means that if he doesn't do it, he can be charged.

Again - what lie did the police tell?