VIC Car impounded on the basis of claims by pedestrian

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Rory Simmons

26 March 2018
Last saturday my car was impounded for 30 days and towed away after a man called the police having witnessed me doing skids in an empty gravel car park (I am 18 and have had my red Ps for roughly six months). I left the carpark before before the police arrived (I was unaware they had been called) so the man who reported me chased me down in his car to a nearby McDonald's where the Police arrived soon after. The Police took a statement from the man and then interviewed me. In the interview I responded 'no comment' to every question except whether I had been driving that day which I admitted to. Outside of the interview I admitted to 'bashing' around the carpark and driving through muddy puddles in response to the Police's questions as to how my car got dirty. I was charged with careless driving and fail to keep proper contol of car and told I would recieve a summons in a few months time.

Anyway, my question is: How are the Police able to impound my car merely on the claims of some random guy? I mean, he could've made it up, having some kind of personal vendetta against me. I'm 90% certain he had no videographic or photographic evidence. I could see him making his statement about 30 metres away from me and never did I see him pull out his phone as if to show anything to the Police. How can the burden of proof be so low that a random pedestrain's claims can result in me losing my car for a month and having to appear in court?

Rob Legat - SBPL

LawTap Verified
16 February 2017
Gold Coast, Queensland
Probably because you weren’t co-operating with the police officers’ questions and they didn’t like your attitude. It could be as simple as that.


LawTap Verified
27 May 2014
Welcome to the world of increasing police powers.

The police have a witness account who identified your car. You also admitted you were driving the car (silly thing to do). BTW, there is no 'outside the interview' if the copper doesn't want it to be.

I'd say you failed the RAT test so were not given the option of a warning. Issuing of a warning is solely at the discretion of the attending police so if they are having a bad day you're done anyway, but if they are in a good mood, a warning can be an option if the RAT test is passed.

Remember respect can go both ways.


Well-Known Member
6 April 2016
Yep, when it comes to traffic law, the policeman is your judge jury and executioner in one! And he is not burdened by the requirement of proof to charge you. YOU are burdened by the requirement of proof to refute the charges.

All these Radar and substance testing devices give people the impression police actually 'need' evidence, but it is totally false, because there is a wide variety of things police can charge you with just on a hunch and a whim and tough s**t for you.