Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1847 ..

All maps are current to at least December 2000. Maps with significant change occurring between December 2000 and April 2001 are current to April 2001.

Yes, action commenced in April 2003 to update all maps. It is anticipated the updated maps will be available via the website by 30 May 2003.

Motor vehicles-recovery

(Question No 666)

Mr Pratt

asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, upon notice,

on 7 May 2003:

In relation to the recovery of stolen vehicles:

When a vehicle has been reported stolen to police what is the correct process then followed by police in finding and recovering the vehicle.

If police don't make contact with the owner of a stolen vehicle after one phone call should police try to phone again or try an alternate number if an alternate number has been provided.

Why would there be the circumstance where a resident reported their vehicle stolen on 7 March 2003 and was recently contacted by a friend who works next door to a wreckers and told that their vehicle was in the wreckers yard on 28 April 2003, but the owner of the vehicle had not been contacted by police.

Given that:

Upon calling police to notify them that the stolen vehicle was at a wreckers the owner of the vehicle was told that an officer did try to contact her when the vehicle was found on 8 March 2003.

Documentation at the police station reveals that only one phone call was made to her home number.

On this day she was interstate for a wedding.

The owner of the vehicle left her home phone number, her mobile number, her partner's home number and partner's mobile number.

Why did police only make one phone call and only try one of the four numbers supplied, is this an acceptable response.

Given that:

After a month of not hearing from police about the vehicle she decided to get another car at some expense, but has also gone to the wreckers to get her original car back at a cost of $155.00 (parts had been stolen from the vehicle).

This resident would not have been forced to get a new vehicle had police tried to call one of the mobile phone numbers or if police had phoned more than once.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .