Drunk driver cop gets off on technicality

[KiWiP]

NZ Herald article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10746487)

I am absolutely livid that this guy has got off. The arresting officers did their bit but made a slip up in the provision of 10minute quiet time. No one, including offender denies he was over the limit. Despite this he suffers no legal consequences. I only hope the internal police board he has to face kick him out of the force.

Cars don't kill people. The drunks who drive them do...

[Winston001]

Crown Law don't like bad precedents such as this so it might be appealed. Apart from that I don't give much for his future career chances.

[TOTO]

He is fucked any way. Good, we settled it then.

Now to move on. Whats the penalty for assaulting a police officer ?

[Virago]

...Now to move on. Whats the penalty for assaulting a police officer ?

Usually falling down the stairs. Repeatedly...

[Blackshear]

Usually falling down the stairs. Repeatedly...

I almost fell down the stairs just by WATCHING a cop tackle some random in the city. :mellow:

[TOTO]

Usually falling down the stairs. Repeatedly...

better have all your gear and a back protector. What do you think is a better protection against falling down the stairs - Qmoto or 1Tonne ?

[Blackshear]

better have all your gear and a back protector. What do you think is a better protection against falling down the stairs - Qmoto or 1Tonne ?

I smell shit stirring.

I might be getting a a new one myself. So, any suggestions? :wari:

[marty]

Crown Law don't like bad precedents such as this so it might be appealed. Apart from that I don't give much for his future career chances.

it's not a precedent. was only district court. this kind of 'get off on a technicality' happens every day in a court near you. i'd be surprised if anyone on here, on being told by their lawyer that there was the chance they might get off, wouldn't try the same thing if it meant avoiding a conviction?

having been in this very position, i squarley blame the cops that should have known better when they processed him.

[TOTO]

I smell shit stirring.

I might be getting a a new one myself. So, any suggestions? :wari:

why would you need gear, its not like you gonna crash :)

[\m/]

I wonder how long before this law gets changed to remove the loophole.


better have all your gear and a back protector. What do you think is a better protection against falling down the stairs - Qmoto or 1Tonne ?
Dainese.

[idb]

Good grief, every job has its perks!
I go home with the odd pen or ream of paper from time to time.

[FJRider]

it's not a precedent. was only district court. this kind of 'get off on a technicality' happens every day in a court near you. i'd be surprised if anyone on here, on being told by their lawyer that there was the chance they might get off, wouldn't try the same thing if it meant avoiding a conviction?

having been in this very position, i squarley blame the cops that should have known better when they processed him.

So it's the cops fault a cop got off the charge ... funny that ... :lol:

[Blackshear]

why would you need gear, its not like you gonna crash :)

That's a low blow, mate. :baby:

EDIT: Who keeps telling you this stuff, anyway?

[Winston001]

it's not a precedent. was only district court. this kind of 'get off on a technicality' happens every day in a court near you.


We'll just have to disagree. :D This decision can be referred to in future District Court cases and the Judge is going to have to find a reason not to follow it. Granted, it isn't binding, but it is persuasive.

And yes, there are a few cases dismissed weekly because the prosecution missed a step or relied on the wrong sub-section of the relevant Act - but in no way is it common. Most defendants get convicted.

[Scouse]

I wonder how long before this law gets changed to remove the loophole.Its not that a loophole needs closing its more that the officer proccessing the aleged drunk driver needed to tighten up on his following of corect proccedure. a simple restart of the 10 minute period after the phone call would have sorted this out. you can more or less bet good money on the fact that now this has come out into the news that this type of mistake wont happen again.

[tigertim20]

better have all your gear and a back protector. What do you think is a better protection against falling down the stairs - Qmoto or 1Tonne ?
LOL!

Usually falling down the stairs. Repeatedly...
:Police:

it's not a precedent. was only district court. this kind of 'get off on a technicality' happens every day in a court near you. i'd be surprised if anyone on here, on being told by their lawyer that there was the chance they might get off, wouldn't try the same thing if it meant avoiding a conviction?

having been in this very position, i squarley blame the cops that should have known better when they processed him.
I agree withthe first part. If you're accused of something and have the chance to avoid some repurcussions that might affect your job or your life negatively - like losing your license, most people, myself included, would look for a loophole. of course there is the 'do the crime do the time' aspect, but if theres a way to do the crime and avoid the time, well, fuckit.

as for blaming the cops, why? theyve mentioned how they dealt with this issue in the past, by starting the 10 minutes over again. By the precedent that has been set, I could get processed, then during myten minutes yell out, oh god, im dizzy and ive slipped and banged my head,I needa doctor, and their legally required attention would have me off the charge.
Its a cops job to catch the guy and provide evidence. they did that. its a lawyers job to prosecute the guy, or write letters to government to appeal bullshit loopholes like this one, and its governments job to make legislation that lets us nail cunts like this guy.
so there you go, its allfucking National's fault.
leave the coppers alone!

So it's the cops fault a cop got off the charge ... funny that ... :lol:

:laugh:

[BoristheBiter]

And yes, there are a few cases dismissed weekly because the prosecution missed a step or relied on the wrong sub-section of the relevant Act - but in no way is it common. Most defendants get convicted.


If a few cases a week isn't common then what do you class as common then?

[Eyegasm]

I got off this morning...

...She told me too!!!

[oneofsix]

I got off this morning...

...She told me too!!!

I also got off this morning...

...sitting on the bike in the car park gets boring.

[Winston001]

If a few cases a week isn't common then what do you class as common then?

Consider for a moment that more than 6000 charges per week are laid in our Courts, from all prosecuting authorities. Of those, 6% get Diversion (which means they admit the offence), and 20% are withdrawn or dismissed = Not Guilty. That equates to 1200 unsuccessful charges per week.

There is a common misunderstanding about "technicalities". Where the law requires particular steps or specific elements as part of the proof, a charge will fail if they do not occur.

The rationale is to protect citizens from over-zealous police officers.

Nevertheless few prosecutions are actually dismissed because of "technicalities". The simple reason is the police are experts at their job, they have check sheets, and they don't muck up very often. But they are human, and it happens.

[Winston001]

I'm no expert on this stuff but I understand the police regard the 10 minute wait as a time during which the offender can do as he likes. Call his mum, toilet, whatever. Except - if he wants to phone a lawyer, that stops the 10 minutes, which has to start again afterwards.

We now have an uncertainty: does a toilet break require a restart? What about Tigertim's dizzy spell? How about a good spew?

[BoristheBiter]

Consider for a moment that more than 6000 charges per week are laid in our Courts, from all prosecuting authorities. Of those, 6% get Diversion (which means they admit the offence), and 20% are withdrawn or dismissed = Not Guilty. That equates to 1200 unsuccessful charges per week.

There is a common misunderstanding about "technicalities". Where the law requires particular steps or specific elements as part of the proof, a charge will fail if they do not occur.

The rationale is to protect citizens from over-zealous police officers.

Nevertheless few prosecutions are actually dismissed because of "technicalities". The simple reason is the police are experts at their job, they have check sheets, and they don't muck up very often. But they are human, and it happens.

But we are not talking all cases we are discussing an EBA case.

There is no issue here apart from the fact that another drink driver has got off with it because his lawyer knew what to look for.
This is the same for any member of the public.

[DMNTD]

But we are not talking all cases we are discussing an EBA case.

There is no issue here apart from the fact that another drink driver has got off with it because his lawyer knew what to look for.
This is the same for any member of the public.

...apart from the fact that any member of public does not nab people for doing such things as part of their job.
We all know better but a Policeman should know betterererer :Police:

[scumdog]

But we are not talking all cases we are discussing an EBA case.

There is no issue here apart from the fact that another drink driver has got off with it because his lawyer knew what to look for.
This is the same for any member of the public.

And after all, it's JUST another EBA case - a victimless crime, there is no victim to lament - except for the poor sod 'getting done' for DIC....



Well that seems to be the opinion of an awful lot of people out there...

"Oh, he's alright, good sort, never done nothing wrong except got picked up a couple-a-three times for DIC and only one of them was recently, they must have had it in for him 'cos he's never crashed or anything.."

[BoristheBiter]

...apart from the fact that any member of public does not nab people for doing such things as part of their job.
We all know better but a Policeman should know betterererer :Police:

What they do for a job is completely irrelevant as all should be done for drink driving.
Everyone should now better.

[BoristheBiter]

And after all, it's JUST another EBA case - a victimless crime, there is no victim to lament - except for the poor sod 'getting done' for DIC....

Well that seems to be the opinion of an awful lot of people out there...

"Oh, he's alright, good sort, never done nothing wrong except got picked up a couple-a-three times for DIC and only one of them was recently, they must have had it in for him 'cos he's never crashed or anything.."

Unfortunately you are correct, until they, or their family, get hit by one then it is kill all drunk drivers.
It's a pity it takes that for people to change and then some just never will.

[DMNTD]

What they do for a job is completely irrelevant as all should be done for drink driving.
Everyone should now better.

OK wires crossed then...100% agree