The law is the law... unless you have a good story

[Jim Goose]

Well time and time again we see magistrates who give out light weight fine for drink driving... but this surely takes the cake.

If you can make the magistrate have a good cry about how you had a crappy week you can get away with anything.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/n...-1226530771379

Lynnette Turner blew 0.2 but kept her licence

Vanda Carson
The Daily Telegraph
December 05, 2012 11:00PM

A MAGISTRATE found a mother's tragic story of why she chose to drive while seriously drunk so compelling she allowed her to keep her driver's licence.

Waverley Local Court magistrate Jacqueline Milledge said her decision to allow Lynnette Turner to keep her licence was "agonising" because every day she saw in her court the damage caused by drink drivers.

The 43-year-old from Mascot blew a reading of 0.208 at a random breath testing site on Harris St in Rosebery on September 14. Usually high-range drink drivers lose their licences for several months and are slapped with heavy fines.

Ms Turner's lawyer said she chose to drive while drunk in an attempt to rescue her close friend who had an emergency about 11.30pm.

Ms Turner made the fateful decision to drive just three blocks and was caught.

The court heard Ms Turner, an executive assistant with accounting firm PWC, was a super-mum who always cared for others before herself - and she had had a horror week. The mother of two had learned her foster daughters' mother had been diagnosed with cancer and was trying to comfort her. She had also quit her job because she had been bullied at work.

"I'm going to do what I've never done in 16 years as a magistrate, to give you a chance to hold on to your licence," Ms Milledge said.

"I'm convinced that this was a one off in your life ... you made a doozy (of a mistake)"

Ms Milledge said she recognised that Ms Turner had been trying to help her close friends and family and had found herself in an "awful circumstance".

She said Ms Turner clearly had a "real and pressing need to be in the car that night".

Ms Turner was placed on a two-year good behaviour bond.

High range drink driving is any reading over 0.15.

For a first offence, high-range drink drivers can be disqualified from driving for up to three years, but normally they are off the road for a minimum of a year. They can also be fined up to $3300 and in extreme cases can be sent to jail for up to 18 months.

The guidelines for magistrates on high-range drink driving were set by former Supreme Court judge Roderick Howie, who retired after he was caught drink-driving when he was an acting Court of Appeal judge last year.

Justice Howie blew 0.168, considered high range, after a serious collision last year but was convicted of mid-range drink driving after the level of alcohol in his blood fell to 0.121 about 30 minutes later.

So now the next person who fronts this magistrate can have a big cry saying.. "oh I had a really bad week!!!"

[LG17]

Obviously the woman didn't (or couldn't) think of getting a cab!

What a pile of BS - there is no excuse, particularly at that level.

[302 XC]

0.208, youd be lucky to stand up

Theres no way this woman could walk the 3 blocks to rescue a friend, let alone comprehend a conversation on a fone
It amazes me there are always those who higher up societies ladder seem to eleviate the common laws use people have to deal with

2 bottles of OP home brewed bourboun drank over a few hours will yeild a high level DUI
0.208 , she was on the wagon all day or droppin em down pritty hard for awhile
How do judges expect people to take them serious when dishing out exception rulings like that
Do the crime, do the time, other people do and have

[flappist]

There is no excuse to drive drunk?

Your child has just been bitten by a snake.
There is a sudden flood or fire heading towards you.
There is an armed intruder trying to rob/kill/rape you or your family.

quod est necessarium est licitum

Maybe you all might like to read the criminal code before continuing to make your plans to invade Poland......

[cs123]

I find it's difficult to form an opinion based on one reporters view of what transcribed in a court proceeding. They have distilled x-number of hours or days of discussion into a few paragraphs and then put their spin on it.

Judges are not stupid, they are not softies. They are chosen to do that job because the are deemed to be the best qualified.

It seems wrong, but it's impossible to say if there was some exceptional thing that happened in this case.

[2011G6E]

Yes, for gods sake, people have good reasons for breaking laws in extremely serious ways and should be let off if they have a good excuse...

Look at Kerry Packer...he paid only $14,000 income tax one year when he made tens of millions in income, and said when challenged that only an idiot doesn't use a clever accountant to minimise tax. The same man also had a loaded unlicenced pistol in a desk drawer unsecured, yet faced no criminal charges as "he was an important person who might need to defend himself one day", when you or I would have been in jail.
Then there are the high speed charges against well-to-do people in expensive European cars who get off by saying "the car was designed to go that fast so it's safe"...

Excuses are great...if you can find a clever lawyer to formulate one good enough to get you off...

[5.8]

Originally Posted by flappist

There is no excuse to drive drunk?

quod est necessarium est licitum

I don't think that her friend "having an emergency" mean't that she had no other choice but to drive.I'm sure there would have been a lot of other solutions to the problem. At the high reading she was I wouldn't think she would have been too capable of doing too much anyway.

[blueoval]

If it was a real emergency, why wasn't the police or ambulance called instead? What kind of emergency are we talking about anyway? Life threatening, or a case of 'my pet gold fish died and I need consoling?'

Something stinks here.

[Kable72]

The bottleo was about to close.

[xisled]

I went to court under the hoon legislation.
There were 26 of us on the same day that go caught in a blitz on an illegal meet a few years ago here in Melbourne.

Basically I paid a huge amount for my solicitor, my solicitor is very well known in the legal and court system.

Everyone got 8 to 12 months; the lowest was 8 months licence suspension. Except me, I got 2 months. My solicitor said only reason I got 2 months was because it was a high profile media case and he would have got me off any other time.

If you pay enough you can get off anything, basically it sounds like the woman had a great solicitor who persuaded the magistrate to let her off.

[Kable72]

So did that count as a victory then xisled? Haha

[Bossxr8]

Did she have to tell the court the reason for her friends so called "emergency", and provide evidence?

Or was it just made up.

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Did she have to tell the court the reason for her friends so called "emergency", and provide evidence?

Or was it just made up.

Would have to had evidence supporting her claims.

Like everything....There is 2 sides to every story....A journalist ain't going to write about the favourable things in this case.....It'd get in the way of a good story.

[Jim Goose]

A bit like when someone kills someone and then fronts court and gives a sob story about a poor upbringing... crappy parents.. took drugs when they were 13... starting drinking at 14....... right?

I see why society is going backwards.... standing up for peoples "rights" (right to drink drive) has become a national passtime.

[5.8]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

A bit like when someone kills someone and then fronts court and gives a sob story about a poor upbringing... crappy parents.. took drugs when they were 13... starting drinking at 14....... right?

I see why society is going backwards.... standing up for peoples "rights" (right to drink drive) has become a national passtime.

I agree whole heartedly. It's never the offenders fault Jim, always somebody elses!
Bull ****!!!!

[xtremerus]

Happens all the time.
If you have a clean record, and it is a first offence, you can get off on a Section 10 something??. It must have been a RBT, and not an accident.

The reporter is not telling the whole story.

[wrongwaynorris]

" Judges are not stupid, they are not softies. '

Obviously you dont live in Australia or if you do NEVER watch or listen to the news .

[wrongwaynorris]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Would have to had evidence supporting her claims.

Like everything....There is 2 sides to every story....A journalist ain't going to write about the favourable things in this case.....It'd get in the way of a good story.

Oh F F S , It's someone who has blown over 4 times the limit and has walked away with her licence ( to kill ) intact .

[superyob]

Originally Posted by flappist

There is no excuse to drive drunk?

Your child has just been bitten by a snake.
There is a sudden flood or fire heading towards you.
There is an armed intruder trying to rob/kill/rape you or your family.

quod est necessarium est licitum

Maybe you all might like to read the criminal code before continuing to make your plans to invade Poland......

Hardly realistic scenarios. Ambulance/Ses/Police if needed. There is no justification for endangering the lives of others...

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by superyob

Hardly realistic scenarios. Ambulance/Ses/Police if needed. There is no justification for endangering the lives of others...

They are all very realistic scenarios. If you live on a farm in the middle of QLD, and your kid is bitten by a snake, how long do you think its going to be before an ambulance arrives, lol.
Flappy, you, like I, have had your mention of legislation ignored. I could point them to the exact section if I felt like it, but part of me thinks that it wouldnt be read, or understood anyway.
The world could learn so much, and understand things so much more if only they would crack open a book and read it.

[mikeeman_ford]

The only thing i can think of is that she really needs her licence, she has shown true remorse.

im not defending any of this as we dont know the full story BUT

She is a foster mother. The kids in her care may need to go back into the system (for 6 months) if she is unable to drive them to school and sports etc?? Maybe they looked at the things that were going to be effected becuase of one silly mistake and figured, why punish everyone else because of one silly mistake.

Drink Driving is the worst thing in my opinion. But the judge would have had many reasons why the punishment wouldn't fit the crime.

i personally think she should have lost her licence. But what are the conditions? go to the police station once a week and check in? community service? she already fosters children? who knows

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by blueoval

If it was a real emergency, why wasn't the police or ambulance called instead? What kind of emergency are we talking about anyway? Life threatening, or a case of 'my pet gold fish died and I need consoling?'

Something stinks here.

The proximity of emergency assitance or hospitals is for people in the burbs
My local doctor works 3 days a week,ambulance is half hour away at least, closest hospital is 80 Ks away and open certain hours, the closest 24 hour hospital is 100 odd Ks away, there is however if you rang 000 an on call local person who can assist in an emergency if she is either home or in fone coverage,yeah even fone coverage is pritty ruff
If a person or persons near me was injured and needed emergency assistance and id had a few and there was no other option,id jump in the car and get them somewhere
Any body would do that, your child got bitten by lets say a snake , you had an hour max to get them to a hospital,ambos were more than an hour away and youd had a few beers , youd be in the car in a flash

When i had my crash a few years ago,i rang ambos and police,the earliest any of them got there was 2 hours ....
Lucky noone was seriously injured

[flappist]

Originally Posted by superyob

Hardly realistic scenarios. Ambulance/Ses/Police if needed. There is no justification for endangering the lives of others...

I have personally seen the first one.

People around Grantham and other places experienced the second.

You do realise that the vast majority of Australia is not in the suburbs of a major city don't you.......

[5.8]

Originally Posted by The Monty

They are all very realistic scenarios. If you live on a farm in the middle of QLD, and your kid is bitten by a snake, how long do you think its going to be before an ambulance arrives, lol.
Flappy, you, like I, have had your mention of legislation ignored. I could point them to the exact section if I felt like it, but part of me thinks that it wouldnt be read, or understood anyway.
The world could learn so much, and understand things so much more if only they would crack open a book and read it.

Agreed, the situation may arise on a farm in the middle of QLD or any isolated area for that matter. However, we are commenting on the OP. Her child wasn't bitten by a snake, she didn't live in the outback or even out of the suburbs. I don't believe that "quod est necessarium est licitum" applies to a woman from Mascot driving in Rosebury at a reading of 0.205 to help a friend in an "emergency" somehow. We all have choices and we all are responsible for our decisions.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by flappist

I have personally seen the first one.

People around Grantham and other places experienced the second.

You do realise that the vast majority of Australia is not in the suburbs of a major city don't you.......

Snake bite first aid requires the victim to be immobilised and calm until first aid arrives.

Grantham was a freak occurrence, most people are warned about impending disaster either by sight or sound and don't feel the need to get ****ed before they flee.

Potential rape or bashing victims are probably more inclined to run as any attempt to find their keys and navigate a safe pathway to their car is a cognitive process that at that present moment is not available to them.

Yes, I am aware of Australia's geography...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by 5.8

Agreed, the situation may arise on a farm in the middle of QLD or any isolated area for that matter. However, we are commenting on the OP. Her child wasn't bitten by a snake, she didn't live in the outback or even out of the suburbs. I don't believe that "quod est necessarium est licitum" applies to a woman from Mascot driving in Rosebury at a reading of 0.205 to help a friend in an "emergency" somehow. We all have choices and we all are responsible for our decisions.

Interesting.

You have seen none of the evidence, heard none of the testimonies and based on your posts, I suspect, have very little, if any, legal experience yet you are absolute in you disagreement with findings of a Magistrate who did see all the evidence, hear the testimonies and has significant legal experience including 16 years on the bench.

[superyob]

Page 14, 'Your Law - a course in legal studies'; Currie, Cameron; 3rd edition 2000.

"What distinguishes a law is that, in simple terms, it applies to everyone..."

After 16 years, a magistrate should get this right...

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

The proximity of emergency assitance or hospitals is for people in the burbs
My local doctor works 3 days a week,ambulance is half hour away at least, closest hospital is 80 Ks away and open certain hours, the closest 24 hour hospital is 100 odd Ks away, there is however if you rang 000 an on call local person who can assist in an emergency if she is either home or in fone coverage,yeah even fone coverage is pritty ruff
If a person or persons near me was injured and needed emergency assistance and id had a few and there was no other option,id jump in the car and get them somewhere
Any body would do that, your child got bitten by lets say a snake , you had an hour max to get them to a hospital,ambos were more than an hour away and youd had a few beers , youd be in the car in a flash

When i had my crash a few years ago,i rang ambos and police,the earliest any of them got there was 2 hours ....
Lucky noone was seriously injured

You make some good points, but I just think most of us here are making huge assumptions without knowing all the facts. Could be many a reason why she got in the car, but with that alcohol level Im surprised she even found her car let alone get in it and know where to go.

[EgoFG]

IMHO the deal is that Laws achieve order, and sometimes coincidentally safety.

The slower speed is not always the safer speed.
An experienced driver over the alcohol limit may be safer than an old driver driving legally.

This is why we have a legal system, and not just a "prove the fact" system.

The bummer is that "prove the fact" is cheap. and the legal system is expensive.

[5.8]

Originally Posted by flappist

Interesting.

You have seen none of the evidence, heard none of the testimonies and based on your posts, I suspect, have very little, if any, legal experience yet you are absolute in you disagreement with findings of a Magistrate who did see all the evidence, hear the testimonies and has significant legal experience including 16 years on the bench.

Nor have any of us I suspect, just commenting on the information contained in the original post. Sorry if my opinion caused offence to you. My posts related to others stating it was ok to drink and drive to save a child or if you were in a remote area and were bitten by a snake etc, which going by the newspaper article, wasn't the case in this situation. I didn't realise you had to research the matter first and have legal experience to post.