dangerous and culpable driving

rationalisation of the relevant laws? The laws were expanded only 2
years ago to include the charge of which he was convicted. Previous to
that he probably would have received a much more lenient sentence.

Why doesn't it make sense? If you ask me it makes a lot more sense to
have different laws for different offences than one law to cover a wide
range of offences and penalties... which in the case of your example
could range from a $200 fine to 20 years in gaol.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Or create jobs for the boys to write them up

 

Course the 'reported fact' are exactly the same as what the jury heard....

If you had listened to the Judge giving instructions to the Jury after
having listened to the entire case, then you might be in a position to offer
an informed opinion rather than a 'media' opinion.

P

 

The test is more like 'if the average person of that age, gender, socio
econmic group etc' would have reasonably been expected to know it was wrong
or dangerous with a genuine likelihood of causing death or injury to
someone, then you can assume the defendant knew it was wrong and therefore
is blameworthy. If not (read the case in another sub thread where many
jurors thought "shit that could be me... not guilty") then the defendant is
not blameworthy.

If the defendant is not blameworthy according to that definition, he must be
found not guilty. That would seem, on the 'media' face of it to be what
happened. The number of people injured by the vehicle, whilst emotionally
dramtic, and sensational news, is of little actual relevance to the charge.

P

 

I am so too real!!!!
Moike

(nice one Theo)

 

As Zebee pointed out: The Crimes Act in NSW has one regulation
(Dangerous Driving). It contains 4 offences, with penalties ranging from
7 years to 14 years. But they left in the separate regulation of
Injuries By Furious Driving Etc, where if you injure someone you only
get two years (although this may be restricted to horse riders).

Then, to confuse matters further, the Road Transport (Safety And Traffic
Management) Act contains another one: Negligent, Furious or Reckless
Driving, with penalties ranging from a something-hundred dollar fine to
18 months in jail if you kill somebody while driving negligently.

And you want to argue this sort of thing makes sense?

 

If you were there and heard all this, then please inform so that things can be
understood
Otherwise, don't try to chastise people who only have what information the media and
the police tendered for release

 

Sorry Paul, but your whole sentence makes no sense

 

Yes, there is even a sign which says this section of the highway is maintained by the
local lions club

 

Common assault/AOBH in one instance, manslaughter/murder in the
second. Simple. (or then again, maybe not).

Bill

 

Never said it was...

Oh good.

So, was his driving blameworthy? Yes or no? That's all I'm debating
here.

And for how long? And what non-parole period? But being a
card-carrying hoon yourself, paul, you'd probably feel sorry for him
and dismiss it all as an unfortunate "accident" for which he ought to
bear no responsibility at all, eh?


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

So, tell me, Peter, in your own words, was his driving blameworthy of
causing deaths, or wasn't it? And if it was, why not charge him with
culpable driving?


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Well, if he was'nt responsible, who was? All this crap about
"degrees" of responsiblity... He WAS responsible. Period.

Was he driving recklessly/dangerously/hoonishly?

Was anyone other than him responsible for his driving?

He was effing RESPONSIBLE !!! End of...

Why do so many here condone the legal hair-splitting designed to get a
hoon a lesser sentence, eh? Oh that's right, in the Church Of
Motorcycling, hooning is not seen as a sin, but as a revered virtue.
All hail The Hoon!!!

Tossers...

Onya bike...

Gerry

 

His driving was 'somewhat blameworthy' of causing deaths.

They did charge him with culpable driving.


G-S

 

Somewhat... that's the answer to your question.


G-S

 

Not me.

I'm just being a pedant. I like to see t's crossed and i's dotted and
the exact charge relating to a particular offense being used.

Hence my point about Victoria not actually having that exact charge on
it's books.


G-S

 

And I'm somewhat pregnant...

Then the charge ought to have stuck. The DPP ought to appeal the daft
jury's verdict.


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Your worship, my client is only SOMEWHAT pregnant...

Onya bike...

Gerry

 

The correct charge exists. There ought to be a firing squad waiting
for juries who get it wrong. This will all change when I become
Dictator Of Australia, you make my words, you can write that down,
you, you, you... By golly yes...


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

You would...

No, disgusted...

Any enjoyment you derive from irresponsibly endangering other road
uses on public roads marks you as a bleeding eejit.

I enjoy riding my bike. I can enjoy riding responsibly. And given
that I only require a 2500cc chookie to enjoy riding, I don't see how
it's draining my wallet anywhere near at the rate hoons' wallets are
being drained, dorkfeatures...

Yeah, buckets and buckets of purple piss...


Onya bike...

Gerry