Karl Noseda, 53, loses appeal against driving conviction

A Colac hoon who told a court he chased “little ice junkies” in his car has had his appeal rejected.

Karl Noseda in 2015. Picture: Facebook.

A Colac man who claimed his driving record was largely the result of “falsified evidence” has had an appeal dismissed in Geelong County Court.

Karl Noseda, 53, appeared in Geelong County Court on Friday, more than a year after he was convicted on three charges including dangerous driving, losing traction and failing to comply with a notice to surrender his vehicle in July last year.

He was fined $2000 and costs in Colac Magistrates Court and disqualified from driving for 12 months.

The court heard that the charges related to an incident in May 2020, where Noseda was seen doing a burnout near the intersection of Hill St and Queen St in Colac and chasing a pedestrian in his car, after the pedestrian “threw a stubby” at it.

Noseda was served a notice to surrender his vehicle by May 25, but he refused.

He had appealed both his conviction and sentence, however, a key witness for the prosecution was unavailable.

Noseda had already served his driving suspension the court heard, but he still cannot drive after being banned from driving for two years in May this year over another matter.

After discussion with judge Michael Tinney, Noseda agreed to drop his appeal of the conviction, and proceed with just his appeal against the sentence.

Representing himself, Noseda told the court there were “three little ice junkies” who had been giving him trouble outside his home.

Noseda said he had tried to have police intervene and admitted to chasing them in his car, but denied driving dangerously.

The court heard that Noseda had prior traffic offences, including for careless and dangerous driving.

Noseda told the court that “90 per cent” of charges in his driving history could be attributed to “falsified evidence” and he’d “never had an accident” that was his fault.

Mr Tinney said he accepted that Noseda had a “particular view” but he couldn’t pass Judgement on the evidence behind prior convictions.

“From the court’s perspective, you have a relevant driving history,” he told Noseda.

Asked why he refused to surrender his vehicle, Noseda said it was unnecessary for “eight officers” to have been present when he was serviced the notice to surrender his car.

“It’s intimidation. There was no proof at that stage. There needs to be evidence,” he said.

Mr Tinney advised Noseda against using “sovereign citizen type arguments” as they “don’t pass muster as a matter of law”.

“They’re complete and utter nonsense,” Mr Tinney said. “They sound good, but those types of arguments have got people into horrible tangles because they’re not valid.”

Noseda told the court he was asking for leniency on the fine as had been unable to earn an income due to losing his licence and had been “sitting at home playing video games”.

“I haven’t worked … I’ve had no income at all,” he said, noting he owed $11,000 in taxes.

“I’ve been prejudiced (against) ... all this has been about is destroying my business.”

In sentencing Noseda, Mr Tinney said he “laboured under the illusion that he can make his own Judgement” and suggested against bringing up “nonsensical strawmen”.

Mr Tinney found the charges proven and upheld the conviction and $2000 fine.

Originally published as Karl Noseda, 53, loses appeal against driving conviction