2 September 2011

Leading the cops home

2 September 2011 | By johnboy

A 22-year-old Latham man will face court later this month after being caught twice for drink driving in the space of two hours and leading police on a chase through Belconnen suburbs this morning (Friday, September 2).

About 12.01am police conducted a random breath test on the driver of a white Holden Rodeo utility travelling on Bowman Street in Macquarie.

The driver returned a positive result and was taken to Belconnen Police Station for a breath analysis. The man recorded a reading of 0.065 and was released after being informed he would be summonsed for the offence.

Police were on mobile patrol about 1.20am when they observed the same white Holden Rodeo utility travelling on Bowman Street, Macquarie. Police activated warning lights and siren in an attempt to stop the car, however the driver accelerated away.

A pursuit, reaching up to a maximum of 120km/h, ensued from Catchpole Street, Macquarie, and ended near O’Loghlen Street in Latham, when the driver pulled into the driveway of his home. He ran from police to the rear of the house and was located shortly after inside the home.

Police arrested the 22-year-old and took him to Belconnen Police Station where he underwent a breath analysis, returning a reading of 0.039. The man is subject to a 0.00 limit.

He was conveyed to the ACT Watch House where he was charged with being an unlicenced driver, drink driving, dangerous driving and failing to stop when directed to by police. He was later released on Watch House Bail and will attend the ACT Magistrates Court on September 16.

Courtesy ACT Policing]

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

Tooks11:59 am 06 Sep 11

buzz819 said :

dvaey said :

farnarkler said :

‘Yawn’ why bother posting this? We all know the judiciary is pathetic when it come to dealing with habitual drink drivers. The whole legal system needs a complete overhaul so that the police can take this clown’s car and crush it, making him watch as it’s reduced to a cubic metre.

Then next time, when he steals/borrows a car and goes on a chase while drunk, do we crush the car then too? Would you feel the same if it was your car that was borrowed/stolen? That you should have it crushed because your crystal ball didnt tell you it would be used for that?

Tooks said :

frank2112 said :

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Why do they give them their keys back? If they get caught they should impound their car until the next day when they can collect it after sobering up.

Good ideas. Too bad they’re both illegal.

Hang on a second. You mean if someone goes to a club or party, then leaves while drunk and drves home, the club or host is held responsible…. but if someone is arrested for DUI and gets taken to the copshop, its illegal for you to prevent them from driving drunk?

Maybe the responsible service of alcohol laws that the clubs and parties are required to abide by, should be extended so that law enforcement is held to the same accountability?

If you let someone drive drunk, whether youre the one who served the drinks (or own the premises they were consumed on), the law holds you accountable.

Really? Where in any piece of legislation does it say that? The Liquor Act…. Nope…. The Criminal Code or Crimes Act…. Hmmm Nope… How about any of the Roads Transports Act… Not there either, so where is this fantastical law you speak of that allows Police to charge, pubs and nightclubs that allow their patrons to drive drunk?

I think dvaey’s skipped his meds again.

buzz8198:34 am 05 Sep 11

dvaey said :

farnarkler said :

‘Yawn’ why bother posting this? We all know the judiciary is pathetic when it come to dealing with habitual drink drivers. The whole legal system needs a complete overhaul so that the police can take this clown’s car and crush it, making him watch as it’s reduced to a cubic metre.

Then next time, when he steals/borrows a car and goes on a chase while drunk, do we crush the car then too? Would you feel the same if it was your car that was borrowed/stolen? That you should have it crushed because your crystal ball didnt tell you it would be used for that?

Tooks said :

frank2112 said :

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Why do they give them their keys back? If they get caught they should impound their car until the next day when they can collect it after sobering up.

Good ideas. Too bad they’re both illegal.

Hang on a second. You mean if someone goes to a club or party, then leaves while drunk and drves home, the club or host is held responsible…. but if someone is arrested for DUI and gets taken to the copshop, its illegal for you to prevent them from driving drunk?

Maybe the responsible service of alcohol laws that the clubs and parties are required to abide by, should be extended so that law enforcement is held to the same accountability?

If you let someone drive drunk, whether youre the one who served the drinks (or own the premises they were consumed on), the law holds you accountable.

Really? Where in any piece of legislation does it say that? The Liquor Act…. Nope…. The Criminal Code or Crimes Act…. Hmmm Nope… How about any of the Roads Transports Act… Not there either, so where is this fantastical law you speak of that allows Police to charge, pubs and nightclubs that allow their patrons to drive drunk?

dvaey7:49 am 05 Sep 11

farnarkler said :

‘Yawn’ why bother posting this? We all know the judiciary is pathetic when it come to dealing with habitual drink drivers. The whole legal system needs a complete overhaul so that the police can take this clown’s car and crush it, making him watch as it’s reduced to a cubic metre.

Then next time, when he steals/borrows a car and goes on a chase while drunk, do we crush the car then too? Would you feel the same if it was your car that was borrowed/stolen? That you should have it crushed because your crystal ball didnt tell you it would be used for that?

Tooks said :

frank2112 said :

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Why do they give them their keys back? If they get caught they should impound their car until the next day when they can collect it after sobering up.

Good ideas. Too bad they’re both illegal.

Hang on a second. You mean if someone goes to a club or party, then leaves while drunk and drves home, the club or host is held responsible…. but if someone is arrested for DUI and gets taken to the copshop, its illegal for you to prevent them from driving drunk?

Maybe the responsible service of alcohol laws that the clubs and parties are required to abide by, should be extended so that law enforcement is held to the same accountability?

If you let someone drive drunk, whether youre the one who served the drinks (or own the premises they were consumed on), the law holds you accountable.

Tooks2:40 pm 03 Sep 11

frank2112 said :

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Why do they give them their keys back? If they get caught they should impound their car until the next day when they can collect it after sobering up.

Good ideas. Too bad they’re both illegal.

frank21121:58 pm 03 Sep 11

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Why do they give them their keys back? If they get caught they should impound their car until the next day when they can collect it after sobering up.

Rawhide Kid Part312:02 pm 03 Sep 11

KeenGolfer said :

Rawhide, they have no legal grounds to seize a vehicle for drink driving or a pursuit. It’s in the Road Transport (safety and traffic management) Act 1999. You can view on the ACT legislation website.

Can be seized for burnouts, races, speed trials or menacing driving. For menacing driving though a court order has to be obtained.

Laws can be changed…..

Deref8:21 am 03 Sep 11

There’s an article in the Canberra Crimes today about the repeat drink-driver issue.

KeenGolfer5:43 am 03 Sep 11

EvanJames said :

screaming banshee said :

So he wasn’t charged with being an unlicenced driver at first, only after he was caught the second time?

Yeah, I was puzzling over that too. Unless they nicked his licence after the first one? But I think you have to go to court before they can get your licence. Most odd.

If he was a P plater (or other person applicable to a 0.00 limit) he has a limit of 0.00 and if he blows over 0.05 (which he did), then he would recieve an immediate suspension notice not to drive for 90 days and his licence would be taken. Hence why he was suspended the 2nd time and not the first time.

Full licence holders recieve an immediate suspension notice if they blow 0.1 or over.

screaming banshee11:23 pm 02 Sep 11

farnarkler said :

‘Yawn’ why bother posting this? We all know the judiciary is pathetic when it come to dealing with habitual drink drivers. The whole legal system needs a complete overhaul so that the police can take this clown’s car and crush it, making him watch as it’s reduced to a cubic metre.

From the inside

p110:52 pm 02 Sep 11

EvanJames said :

screaming banshee said :

So he wasn’t charged with being an unlicenced driver at first, only after he was caught the second time?

Yeah, I was puzzling over that too. Unless they nicked his licence after the first one? But I think you have to go to court before they can get your licence. Most odd.

Pretty certain the police would have issued licence suspension on the spot at the time that they booked him.

That would also be why when they caught him the second time, he was subject to a 0.00 BAC.