Leading the cops home

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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…..

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

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.

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

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.

as