Bleats

It's Not Legal To Wee On Your Car But Australia Still Has Plenty Of Weird Crimes On The Books

Sorry, weird law lovers, you've been fibbed to.

There are a lot of laws out there, and a lot of the time they just sit there until someone goes “hey, this is a bit weird, we should get rid of that.” And one that gets brought up a lot is that you can wee on your car in public.

Sadly, however, a lot of the weird laws in Australia turn out to be no entirely correct – almost as though you shouldn’t turn to the internet for random legal advice.

One that gets brought up relatively often is that it’s illegal to be drunk in a pub in Australia. And that’s sort of true: it’s illegal to serve someone who is visibly drunk under Responsible Service laws

And yes, you can absolutely be fined in South Australia for singing rude songs in public: it’s covered under the Summary Offences Act.

“But officer, I genuinely WAS on the good ship Venus…”

It’s also illegal to interrupt a wedding or funeral in SA, thanks again to the Summary Offences Act (section 7A). Which is just one of the reasons why The Graduate and My Best Friend’s Wedding weren’t set in Adelaide.

And yes, it is actually illegal to own more than 50kg of potatoes: at least, in WA where the the Marketing of Potatoes Act 1946 is still in application.

Another popular one is that that it’s illegal to walk on the left hand side of the road, which is sort of true – but only sort of.

If a road has no footpath or nature strip, or if it’s not practical to use said footpath or nature strip, the law says that pedestrians must walk facing the traffic as a road safety measure.

Depressingly, some of the most hilarious laws cited as being weird Australian laws are either no longer current (for example, in Victoria it was technically illegal to change your own lightbulb unless you were a qualified electrician, but that law was changed in 1998) or just plain made up.

For example: that you can wee in public as long as you are urinating on the rear left tyre of your own car. Police would like to advise that no, that’s not a thing and please stop doing it, you will definitely be arrested. You’ll even get a $500 on the spot fine for it in WA.

Another one is that it’s illegal to wear pink hot pants in Victoria on Sunday afternoons. It’s on dozens of “can you believe this crazy law?” sites with many questions about what could possibly have inspired such specific legislation, and the answer is simple: nothing. As far as anyone can ascertain, it doesn’t and have never existed.

Nor, sadly, is there a law forcing Queensland taxi drivers to carry hay bales, or any legislation demanding bikini sizes on Gold Coast beaches (or demanding neck-to-knee bathers in Melbourne).

Some things are just too good to be true.

What Are Your Rights When Carrying Out A Citizen's Arrest?

When the situation calls for a crateload of justice, what's the legal situation?

As reports of multiple people being stabbed in Sydney’s CBD flooded news feeds, busy streets went into lockdown and social media went into overdrive.

And even as the full story unfolded we saw the footage of the alleged assailant being pinned down by members of the public with chairs and a milk crate until the police arrived.

Which immediately raised a bunch of questions. For example: while you might enthusiastically applaud the actions of the brave people who restrained the man, is it legally permissible?

Could they be also be charged? Actually, what happens if I crate someone in the street myself?

And these questions have answers.

Can you even carry out a citizen’s arrest in NSW?

Short answer: yes.

The longer answer is in Section 100 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002: “Power of other persons to arrest without warrant”.

(1) A person (other than a police officer) may, without a warrant, arrest a person if:

(1) A person (other than a police officer) may, without a warrant, arrest a person if:

(a) the person is in the act of committing an offence under any Act or statutory instrument, or

(b) the person has just committed any such offence, or

(c) the person has committed a serious indictable offence for which the person has not been tried.

(2) A person who arrests another person under this section must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, take the person, and any property found on the person, before an authorised officer to be dealt with according to law.

…so the people that crated that fellow up were acting within the law to carry out a citizen’s arrest.

Today, we are all crate fans.

But if it turned out that they got the wrong guy (or he’s released without charge) then the person in the crate could sue for unlawful imprisonment or even level assault charges, so you really do want to be pretty confident about the situation.

What can’t you do?

Anything other than detain them until the police arrive, really. You don’t have the right to search them or their property, and you have to ensure that the person is detained but safe. More on that in a second.

The police would also rather you didn’t do citizen’s arrests for the most part, since the chances of you or someone else being hurt in the process are pretty high and on balance they’d rather you didn’t make things more complicated. That includes legally, as you’ll see.

Are you liable if the person you’re detaining gets hurt?

Yes. You have a duty of care for the person you’ve detained, exactly as the police do, and can only use “reasonable force” which is a hard thing for a citizen to estimate – which is another reason why the police don’t like people doing arrests.

Detained people can – and do – sue for civil damages or even allege criminal assault, so it’s a high risk strategy.

Oh, and if you carry out a citizen’s arrest you also have a duty of care if you let them go before the police arrive – so if you do detain someone, commit to doing so until the authorities arrive.

Here Are The Video Games The Australian Government Won't Let You Play

Won't everyone always think of the children?

Here in Australia the government are pretty willing to decide what video games you play.

DayZ is the latest game to be denied a classification from the Australian Classification Board, meaning that it’s effectively banned here (although if you rush you might be able to download it from Steam before it’s pulled, should you wish to).

Mind you, it’s far from the first game to a non Australia’s notoriously persnickety censors, or for video games to be blamed for things governments have decided to take a stand against. Hey, remember that time when then-attorney general Phillip Ruddock had a Marc Ecko skateboarding game banned because it glorified graffiti? Oh, what a time to be alive!

Pictured: SOCIETY CRUMBLING.

And dozens of other games have made the authorities sad in their banning-place.

Why? Well, here are a few examples of video games you couldn’t play – at least, for a while…

Mortal Kombat (2013)

Reason: oh, the violence

This kind of started the whole R-rating for games in Australia, with the super-explicit gore of the various fatalities being pure censor-bait. When the ratings were changed in 2015 was eventually released, two years after its initial release. Thanks a bunch.

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004)

Reason: pixels doin’ it

There are many, many, many things about the GTA series which are deeply questionable and which aren’t easily glossed over with “it’s a satire, man, it’s not meant to be real!” Like, you know, getting a health boost from hitting a sex worker, who you can then rob and murder. Satire!

Bizarrely, though, that wasn’t the issue with GTA: San Andreas.

It was something that wasn’t even in the game, but was buried deep in the code: the “hot coffee mod” that would have been a sex-themed rhythm game. The fact that it wasn’t even in the actual game didn’t stop censors forcing a recall in 2005.

The Witcher 2: Assassins Of Kings (2011)

Reason: consent-related curiousness

Thanks, I’m good.

Specifically, the ratings board had a problem with the playable character being offered to accept or reject sex as a reward for a quest – which you know, isn’t entirely unreasonable since there’s something undeniably icky about the commodification of sex.

However, the game was deemed fine when the developers removed the choice and just made the sex an automatic reward. So… so negotiated sex is unacceptable, but when it happens without choice that’s fine? That seems to raise more questions than it answers.

South Park: The Stick of Truth (2014)

Reason: dildos

Look, you know what you’re getting, surely?

The idea that a South Park game would be gleefully tasteless is hardly a shock, but Australian players were denied levels where characters had their butts probed by aliens (not a surprise) and where characters impregnated with alien foetuses have them aborted (which… that seems more sinister).

We Happy Few (2018)

Reason; drugz

It’s a strong look.

We Happy Few was massively anticipated for its stylised artwork and a plot which suggested a fascinatingly British flavour of fascist dystopia. However, the plot device of the populace being kept docile via a drug called Joy (shades of soma from Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’) meant it fell afoul of the censors.

However, the developers argued that the drugs were not shown in a positive light and that the player was actually encouraged not to use them in-game, and the ban was overturned.

And then Australia learned that the game was a bit rubbish. So… yay?

#Trending

Show More Show Less

Follow Us