Scanner in car fine. Victoria

[Mike Alpha]

Just opening a can of worms.....

http://www.standard.net.au/story/482768 ... urt/?cs=72

ANDREW THOMSON
2 Aug 2017, 9:30 a.m.

A DENNINGTON man caught with a scanner in his car has been fined $1200.

​Michael Debono, 52 of Tylden Street, pleaded guilty in the Warrnambool Magistrates Court to being an unlicensed person in possession of a scanner.

​​Magistrate Cynthia Toose ​said it was concerning that Debono had the scanner when he had a prior court appearance for possession of a hand gun.

She said listening to police communications was a serious offence.

Debono said the hand gun was only an imitation pistol.

He said the scanner was a present and he used it to listen to the drivers when he went to the speedway.

Police found it in Debono's car when he was parked in Wanstead Street on February 8 last year.

The device started repeating police communications while officers were talking to Debono.​

Vague as vague can be.

Mike

[Bigfella237]

Nah it has to be a wind-up, or a reporter who has their facts extremely wrong? For one thing, I thought all VICPOL comms were encrypted these days?

And last I heard there was no licencing system in place for receivers, surely a judge can't just make up their own laws?

Unless the laws have changed recently, where would we go to confirm?

Andrew

[Longreach]

Nope the country stuff is still analog.

[Mike Alpha]

The fine for having a scanner in his car could have to do with his criminal activities. So the scanner is an instrument of crime (burglary tool), just as a crow bar or knife or replica pistol is.

The licensing thing is a mystery though.

I've been told there is some chat on other forums about this and one person suggests he was repeating police transmissions over CB radio.

Mike

[Bigfella237]

So whose judgment call is it as to whether a scanner is an "instrument of crime" or simply an enthusiast pursuing his or her hobby?

According to any copper I've ever talked to, all "police scanners" should be illegal. If this sets a precedent then anyone found with a scanner could be arrested, and what's worse, have their scanner confiscated (and possibly destroyed) before they even get to court?

Andrew

[Longreach]

Google the bloke he's no angel.

[citabria]

The Radcoms act was changed a a few years ago to make it illegal to have a receiver. Section 46 Part 1 (b)

Anything that is not covered by a class license, apparatus license, or spectrum license is illegal. Be it a transceiver or receiver.

He wasn't repeating transmissions over CB radio or any other such nonsense - that was just some poor wording by the reporter, that was misinterpreted by someone on social media who spun it into something it isn't.

[rustynswrail]

The Radcoms act was changed a a few years ago to make it illegal to have a receiver. Section 46 Part 1 (b)

Anything that is not covered by a class license, apparatus license, or spectrum license is illegal. Be it a transceiver or receiver.

He wasn't repeating transmissions over CB radio or any other such nonsense - that was just some poor wording by the reporter, that was misinterpreted by someone on social media who spun it into something it isn't.

That is all well and good, but you cannot look at that section of the legislation in isolation. The definition of a radiocommunications devices has to be examined, as well as the intent of the legislation. Unless a scanner has specifically been included in the definition of a radiocommunications devices then it is excluded.

Generally speaking it would be necessary to see the Act and Section under which this person was charged before considering, as Matt stated, the "poor wording by the reporter, that was misinterpreted by someone on social media who spun it into something it isn't."

R

[citabria]

I think it was covered in section 48 - but that's a big maybe. The Act itself should have definitions as you say, rusty.

I also believe that provisions like this one aren't in there to hammer the average Joe - I'd be willing to bet this guy was up to no good and this was another charge they knew they could make stick. He has previously had vehicles confiscated, been charged with possession of a handgun amongst other things.

As a high patrol officer once told me, "You'll very rarely see police book someone for 10kmh and under, over the speed limit. It's in there so that if we need to throw the book at someone for something else, we can add it in as an extra charge, but its very rare for it to be used on its own as police will use discretion and commonsense."

[frankc]

I think it was covered in section 48 - but that's a big maybe. The Act itself should have definitions as you say, rusty.

I also believe that provisions like this one aren't in there to hammer the average Joe - I'd be willing to bet this guy was up to no good and this was another charge they knew they could make stick. He has previously had vehicles confiscated, been charged with possession of a handgun amongst other things.

As a high patrol officer once told me, "You'll very rarely see police book someone for 10kmh and under, over the speed limit. It's in there so that if we need to throw the book at someone for something else, we can add it in as an extra charge, but its very rare for it to be used on its own as police will use discretion and commonsense."

I believe said device may have been a VHF Transceiver programmed with VKC Frequencies and TX enabled hence the "Unlicenced User"