NSW Police drop case against Aysha Mehajer over defect notice
NSW Police have dropped their case against sidelined Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer's wife over a car defect notice.
Aysha Mehajer, 29, was prepared to mount a court challenge and sue the police after refusing to pay a defect fine issued to the couple's brand new Mercedes in October last year.
The case was due to come before Burwood Local Court on Tuesday, but the prosecutor advised the registrar the matter had been withdrawn.
Auburn council deputy mayor Salim Mehajer is faces the possibility of losing his job. Photo: 7 News
An inquiry into Auburn council is questioning whether councillors have misused their position to benefit themselves. Photo: 7 News
Mrs Mehajer was pulled over by officers in October last year while she was driving the luxury car.
Police officers allegedly told the former beautician to 'walk home' after officers issued the defunct notice saying that the side exhaust did not meet Australian standards.
Cr Mehajer told media that NSW Police withdrew the notice after the threat of a court challenge, and that he never stopped driving the car.
The Mehajer couple has constantly been in the pubic eye since their high profile wedding last year and he is currently defending himself against numerous civil and criminal proceedings.
Most recently Cr Mehajer was suspended from office by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal because he failed to disclose his financial interest in a property, he has appealed the decision to the NSW Supreme Court.
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal found Cr Mehajer had breached local government pecuniary interest laws on three separate occasions between November 2012 and December 2013, when he failed to disclose a stake in a property that was the subject of a proposal before council.
The councillor first made headlines in August with his luxurious wedding. Photo: 7 News
The suspended councillor voted in favour of the proposal, which is said to have added up to $1 million to the value of the commercial property at 3 Mary Street.
His barrister Michael Finnane QC argued the wording of the legislation invoked by the tribunal did not explicitly require that a councillor who stood to benefit financially in some way from a decision absent himself from a vote.
"It doesn't matter if the floor-space ratio changed, or the company of the plaintiff stood to make a million dollars, because the use of that property did not change," Mr Finnane said.
"It may have had a financial consequence ... but if the legislation wanted to prevent what the government or the department says happened, it should have done so by clear words."
Justice Peter Garling said he would reserve his decision, it is expected within the next few weeks.
