A LEttrr to KB

[spudchucka]

spudchucka,
On another note, is there any way people can report redlight runners?

Pick up the phone, they will send you out a Road Watch form to fill in and post back or go to the nearest cop shop.

[Ixion]

Pick up the phone, they will send you out a Road Watch form to fill in and post back or go to the nearest cop shop.

being teckonologicacal clued up Johnnies, we can also fill it in online Here

But if you want them to investigate with a view to prosecution (as opposed, I guess, to sending a letter saying "bad boy"), you have to take it to the cop shop


I must admit I am a bit hesitant about this sort of thing, because it is inviting the Interchangeable Mabels to start filling them out everytime they see a biker doing something they don't approve of (ie doing anything at all )

I would suggest some restraint in their use. But I suspect that red light runners are habitual and maybe if the police started receiving dozens of reports about the same person they might "have a word"

[spudchucka]

sorry, I need to rewrite it with capital letters in the right place.


Judges are completely free to make court decisions.
The Law is the complete sum of all court decisions, Statutory laws and a variety of minor things.

Judges can't change Statutory laws. They can however change the Law due to their court decisions having legal precedence in lower courts. Thus any court decision made in the high court (sneakers aren't allowed to be worn inside the court room) holds true in all lower courts. However if the Supreme court or previous Privy court decisions were of else (you must wear sneakers in court) then that would overrule previous court decisions and come into effect in lower courts (district courts).

So there would be nothing to stop the Judges as long as there wasn't a higher court decision made (and it's in the High court so only Privy, Supreme and previous High court decisions would count) from saying that you must always been in complete control of you vehicle at all times.

You are talking about case law. Case law binds lower courts to the higher courts interpretation of the law. No decision in a court directly changes the actual law, only the way the law is interpreted, you've heard of the courts setting precedents, this is what case law is all about.

A higher court can overturn a decision from a lower court and then in future cases the lower court is bound by the decision of the higher court.

The decisions made in any court must be made within the laws of the day and although case law affects outcomes it doesn't change the written law.

[ManDownUnder]

Pick up the phone, they will send you out a Road Watch form to fill in and post back or go to the nearest cop shop.

Spuddy,

Out of curiousity, what actually happens after that form has been give to the cops? I've doe a few in my time but never really found out the rest of the steps...

Cheers
MDU

[Ixion]

You are talking about case law. Case law binds lower courts to the higher courts interpretation of the law. No decision in a court directly changes the actual law, only the way the law is interpreted, you've heard of the courts setting precedents, this is what case law is all about.

A higher court can overturn a decision from a lower court and then in future cases the lower court is bound by the decision of the higher court.

The decisions made in any court must be made within the laws of the day and although case law affects outcomes it doesn't change the written law.

Pretty much. Judges can only interpret the law. If a bigger judge decides a junior judge interpreted something wrong in the past he (boss judge) can change the interpretation. Which from the point of view of peasants like us is effectively a change to the law.

But judges can't actually change a statute. If the statute is clear and unambiguous (hah! some chance ) even the most senior judge can't change what it says (at this point I think I better go into hiding - Ms Elias is gonna come after me)

Special case is the Common Law. Some bits of the law have never actually been made into statutes (statutes being the "laws" passed by Parliament) . They are the body of the Common Law, "which hath existed since time immemorial" . Since the Common law is not based on statute it is precisly what a judge declares it to be. And a more senior judge can declare that the first declaration was wrong.

But there is (alas) not much of the Common Law left now. There used to be an even better sort of law called Equity, which was based on the strange and totally un-lawyer-like notion that things ought to be fair. Equity, like the Common Law, was what a judge said it was. However , alas, the lawyers managed to get rid of equity about 50 years ago. So don't waste time or breath nowadays expecting the legal system to be fair.

[spudchucka]

With respect, and having re-read the whole thread, I don't think anyone was slagging off the police.

OK, maybe I'm a little over sensitive in that area. The letter writer is clearly venting against the police, which is fine if they feel that way, I'd just like people to have a little better understanding of the issues involved before they fly off the handle.

The quotes below indicated to me that people can't take their emotional googles off and look at this from any perspective other than the, "The Law Is An ARSE" one.

The Police, or shall we say The Ignorant Police, have charged this lady with Reckless Driving, no other charges are planning on being laid as they say she is a Young Inexperienced Driver on a Restricted License with no previous convictions...

My friend leaves behind many close friends and a loving wife who only wishes justice but is resigned to see this girl walk out with a hit over the palm with a wet blanket thanks to the Police.

Why not murder, if i pulled the trigger of a gun while pointing it at a crowd this is what i would be done for is it not??

running a red light is the same as pulling a trigger, making an active decision to disobey a safety device resulting in someones death, and this should not be swept under the carpet like this over and over again.

She should have been charged with murder.

I actually agree with peoples sentiments but think it would be helpful to all if we all had a little better understanding of the limitations of the law.

[spudchucka]

Spuddy,

Out of curiousity, what actually happens after that form has been give to the cops? I've doe a few in my time but never really found out the rest of the steps...

Cheers
MDU

Not all stations run the same way but in my experience all the traffic complaints go over a Senior Sergeants desk. If the Senior thinks the complaint has merit a file is created and it is assigned to a Constable to be investigated.

These complaints usually result in the offending driver being warned or issued a ticket. If it is a more serious matter, Dangerous Driving etc, then the informant would be required to attend Court as a witness. For these matters police usually require more than just one witness before taking the matter to court.

[Ixion]

OK, maybe I'm a little over sensitive in that area. The letter writer is clearly venting against the police, which is fine if they feel that way, I'd just like people to have a little better understanding of the issues involved before they fly off the handle.

Well, yes, the letter writer was a bit anti. But the letter writer was (presumably) not actually a KBer. I was looking more at the comments from KBers.

I guess that it's understandable, they have seen someone they love killed (rather horribly from the sound of it), and perceive that the culprit is "getting away with it". The police are (for better or worse) the "public face" of the justice system, so they cop the flak. A lot of the grief and anger gets channelled down into that. Goes with the territory (or the uniform) I'm afraid.

[R6_kid:Me]

is there anyway i can get the details of the court hearing. I would actually really like to be there to hear what kind of bullshit the accused comes up with.

IN FACT!
Why doest a large contingent of us show up in full biking gear to get the point accross. She deserves to pay for what she has done, running a red with no good reason, hitting another persons vehicle causing personal injury to an innocent by stander and then running them over. WHAT THE FUCK?!?!? how can you NOT be responsible, must be another case of "the car has a mind of its own..." (remember the film "christine")

[Zapf]

is there anyway i can get the details of the court hearing. I would actually really like to be there to hear what kind of bullshit the accused comes up with.

IN FACT!
Why doest a large contingent of us show up in full biking gear to get the point accross. She deserves to pay for what she has done, running a red with no good reason, hitting another persons vehicle causing personal injury to an innocent by stander and then running them over. WHAT THE FUCK?!?!? how can you NOT be responsible, must be another case of "the car has a mind of its own..." (remember the film "christine")

I think you can find out by ringing the court... but it pays to have the name of the defendent.... I won't mind listening or seeing what its about as well.

[Pixie]

Ahh once again our super efficient Boys in Blue do a wonderful job.(of cocking up the charges)

[Kickaha]

Ahh once again our super efficient Boys in Blue do a wonderful job.(of cocking up the charges)

And of course you can prove that can you?

[Pixie]

I'd want at least manslaughter if it were me.

Saying it's just because of "incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced " is a cop-out.

She was wilfully negligent, and is also apparently completely remorseless.

Even someone who has never driven a vehicle in their life knows stop on red, and would stop after hitting someone .

If it were me, yes, I'd hang her. Society doesn't need people like that. And , yep, I'd pull the lever.

Emotionally I agree,but after consideration you have to see it from the police and the establishment's point of view.
As Lou pointed out she wasn't speeding and therefore wasn't driving unsafely.
She only killed a motocyclist.
And when the cop interviewed her ,her eyes were probably welling up,which explains the light charges.

[TonyB]

...she was 50m away from the lights when the light turned red. So it has to be deliberate. She hit a Ford Falcon, which in turn hit my mate of his bike. She did not stop there, she continued to drive, and ran over my mates head - giving him injuries which were not survivable.

This post is a bit late in coming- haven't been able to get online reliably.

Firstly, my sincere condolences to all involved.

Two things. Pretty much EVERYONE from the age of about three and up knows that you stop for a red light. There is no way in hell you can get a licence in this or any other country without knowing this fact. Basic common sense and human decency mean that every man, woman and child on the face of the earth knows that driving a vehicle over the top of another human being is a despicable act. What difference then does it make that she is young, inexperienced or has no previous convictions? I've never fired a 105mm artillery piece, but I know it would be a bad idea to fire at an occupied building if I ever got the chance!!!! I can accept that she may have panicked. I would have thought that in any situation, if you panicked and did something that could only result in the death of another human being, then the only charge available would be manslaughter.

[Pixie]

And of course you can prove that can you?

No,but I do have one leg shorter than the other ,and the arse hole who caused the injury was charged with careless driving.The injury was ,apparently, inconsequential.