Finn. Posted June 7, 2022 Share Posted June 7, 2022 (edited) Finn.'s Court Booking Application ID #10669 Submitted on 06/07/22 at 05:39:35 PM ---------------------- Plaintiff Steam Name ollie ---------------------- Plaintiff Name Dazza Mahogany ---------------------- Defendant Name New South Wales Police Department (NSWPD) ---------------------- Claim Claim: Vehicle Strike with no evidence/record My client is requesting removal of a vehicle strike on a Jeep Trackhawk, number plate: VEGEMITE. This vehicle previously had the plate: OLLIE. This strike is invalid as there is no evidence/record or charges at all relating to this strike. In addition to this, my client was not told the vehicle was striked at any point. The reason this strike is only being contested now is because my client was unaware of the strike on this vehicle up until the 28/05/2022 (11 days ago) in which he then proceeded to contact myself for legal representation. This claim also has some precedent, given the fact that the case of Martial vs NSWPD ended in the removal of a vehicle strike due to lack of evidence for the strike and a clerical error. This claim is a civil claim against the NSWPD in regards to the financial losses my client has endured due to the strike decreasing the value (by at least $100,000) of the vehicle if he wishes to sell it in the future. My client is not requesting finanical compensation however and is only requesting removal of the strike from the vehicle (Jeep Trackhawk) Date of Strike: 21/04/2020 ---------------------- Do you confirm all information provided is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Yes Edited June 7, 2022 by Finn. updated claim/typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killercroc Posted June 18, 2022 Share Posted June 18, 2022 Hello, The vehicle in question was striked 2 years ago under a previous owner. The PD is in no case liable for your client purchasing a vehicle that had an existing strike. It is pure negligence by the plaintiff to go two full years not knowing there was a strike on his vehicle, hence the NSWPF request the case be immediately dismissed. Regards, Police Prosecutor Assistant Commissioner Jake Pawar New South Wales police force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Danmct Posted June 18, 2022 Executive Share Posted June 18, 2022 Dear Mr Madgwick. I have alerted the NSWPD Prosecution department of your court booking, I expect them to be in touch in the coming day or two. If you have not heard from anyone within 48 hours of this notice, please contact me and I will move things along for you and your client. Regards Oswald Goose AFP COMMANDER NSW Interim Judge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn. Posted June 18, 2022 Author Share Posted June 18, 2022 Dear Mr. Pawar, @Killercroc The vehicle in question was purchased by my client before the strike date, how could a strike (the only one) be given to a previous owner. The PD is in fact liable because the strike was given after my client purchased the vehicle and when he was in possession of the vehicle itself. In addition, given the fact that my client was not notified of a strike on his vehicle or on his own criminal record, he had no reason and no need to check if his vehicle had been striked or not. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution when handing out a vehicle strike, charge or fine etc. If there is no evidence of a vehicle strike, the strike therefore, should be removed; this is also in accordance with previous precedent. How can NSW Police Officer's hand out strike's without evidence and expect the plaintiff to prove with evidence each time that the strike was unlawful. I find it highly unlikely that the police prosecution team gave their full efforts to respond to this case given the booking was sitting here for a week and only received a reply after an alert from a NSW Judge. My client is only seeking a single vehicle strike removal as stated. Regards, Aiden Madgwick LS Legal - Interim Managing Partner / Chief Lawyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killercroc Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 The plaintiff questions the prosecutions teams efforts and integrity which is highly unprofessional, the prosecution team always conducts itself to the highest standard. The case at hand is simple, the vehicle was striked under previous ownership therefore all liability rests with the plaintiff and not the defence. We have ample evidence which shows the vehicle was striked when under the ownership of the prior owner. Because of this the pd requests that the case be dismissed immediately. The claims by the plaintiff are nil founded and have no evidence to support them what so ever. To confirm this statement the defence ask the courts overlook the history of the vehicle in question, plate "VEGEMITE" to where they will see it was originally striked on the 21/04/2020 under a previous owner. On a final note Mr Madgwick as a legal professional you should know it is frowned upon to make bold claims with no backing. There was never any reason for you or your client to believe the vehicle was striked with no evidence, if you and your client had followed the appropriate channels and submitted a PTD this would have been settled in a much more civilised manner. The pd will no longer respond to this booking however will monitor it for the judges decision on the matter. Kind Regards, Police Prosecutor Assistant Commissioner Jake Pawar New South Wales police force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn. Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 Dear Mr. Pawar, We questioned the prosecution team's efforts as the booking had been sitting for over a week, if the case at hand was so simple, it should have been quite easy to reply to as you have done so after a week, not waiting for a judge to inform you of such. In addition, there have been previous court bookings which you have responded to within a couple of days. If you have the ample evidence in which you claim, then it wouldn't be hard for it to be entered into discovery as per normal court procedure if we do proceed, we believe you do not have the evidence to prove it was striked under previous ownership. Not only that, but that the strike had no log or record. Therefore, we have wished to continue to fight this claim in court, hence the booking. The Plaintiff also asks the court to look over previous police impound (strike) records/logs as well as the history of the plate "VEGEMITE" in order for the courts to see whether or not the strike was given under a different owner as the defence says or any owner at all. My client had a completely valid reason to make this claim as he believes there is no evidence, I also attempted to follow this up at the police station with a member of AFP as well as a member of Police Command before putting in this court booking. I don't think a PTD report would have been that necessary/benefical for a strike that has no log/evidence. We will also await the Judge's decision on this matter. Kind Regards, Aiden Madgwick LS Legal Managing Partner / Chief Lawyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
