Supreme Court Case against youth rejected by judge

Press, 8 December 1976, Page 5

Supreme Court Case against youth rejected by judge

A youth was dischargedby Mr Justice Somers in the Supreme Court yesterday on alternative charges of theft and unlawfully taking a 1965 Bonneville Pontiac car valued at SI2OO, the property! of Ronald Bruce Hobbs on May 27. The youth. Anthony John; Shipley, aged 20, a' fitter,' who pleaded not guilty to both charges, was represented by Mr D. C. Fitzgibbon. Mr G. K. Panckhurst appeared for the Crown. I he jury was discharged! from giving a verdict after his Honour ruled after hearing legal argument in cham-j bers, that the car had never been the property of Mr Hobbs because another per-! son involved with the car had infringed the Hire Purchase Credit and Stabilisation Regulations. Opening the case for the Crown, Mr Panckhurst said that Mr Hobbs, a car wrecker, had purchased the Pontiac for a consideration of Sl2OO. A week later it, disappeared from outside his! yard in Dyers Road. Two witnesses would give' evidence that they were, with Shipley when he took the car, which orginally! belonged to him, from Dyers Road on May 27. It was;

Taken to an address in Greers Road where it was recovered by the police. Evidence was given that in November last year Shipley needed $lOOO and he approached David Leighton Diggs, a director of Diggs Barker Car Sales, Ltd. Mr Diggs agreed to advance Shipley the money and the Pontiac car was used as the security for the hirepurchase agreement, arranged through the Leasco : Finance Company. After there were arrears in repayments by Shipley the car was repossessed and lit was sold by Mr Diggs to Malcolm John Dean, a car .cleaner employed by him, for $l2OO. Shipley had asked Mr Diggs to try and sell the car for $2995. Mr Dean paid for the car with cash. Mr Diggs said that he never had any dealings with Mr Hobbs concerning the car. ! To Mr Fitzgibbon, Mr Diggs said that when Shipiley wanted to borrow the $lOOO in November, 1975, : the market value of the car -was between $2OOO and $3OOO. Witness did not know anything about Shipley spending more than $lOOO ;on parts and 300 hours in

'labour on the car before it . I was repossessed. He lent ; Shipley a total of $lOBO on I the car. Shipley had paid for the advertising when the car I was offered for sale at; $2995. Mr Diggs said that her knew nothing about the Credit Stabilisation Regu-, lations. He denied that he had ever altered the real price of cars to defeat the regulations. 1 Malcolm John Dean said that he purchased the car ■from Mr Diggs for $l2OO. !Six days later he traded the icar to’Mr Hobbs for a 1966 ; HR Holden and a beach i buggy. After hearing legal sub- 1 missions, his Honour said that evidence had been given that when Mr Dean had pur- ; chased the car from Mr - Diggs for $l2OO he had paid a deposit of only $6OO. Counsel had submitted that that infringed the Hire Pur- ' chase Credit and Stabilisation Regulations which required a 60 per cent deposit. The effect was that the car had never become the property of Mr Hobbs and because the trial had reached such an advanced stage in fairness to then defence he was not prepared to amend the charges, said his Honour.