Lawyer escapes drink-driving charge

[mashman]

Crush his car and get Crusher Collins to kick him in the bollocks on the 6pm news. Could get massive viewing figures and if you put adverts either side of the kick, you could generate lots of revenue. Win win.

[Glowerss]

This is a big problem IMO. You can ban them all you like but it doesn't seem to stop them getting pissed and driving.
Short of locking them up for life or cutting their hands off, I dont know how it can be stopped.

Stiffer and genuine penalties. Drink Driving back home is less common then it is here, despite there being roughly 3x the people because they do not fuck around with drunk driving.

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/ill.php

Third offence is 3-7 years jailtime, as its considered a felony offence (3 felony offenses and you're considered a recidivist offender and will up for lifetime in prison) whopping great big fines and a minimum of a 10 year license suspension.

The penalties get to be truely ridiculous (as well they should be) If you're drunk driving with somebody under the age of 16 in the car.

Fine – Mandatory $25,000 - Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)

Compared to New Zealands maximum penalties for third offenders being suspended for a year ( ) up to two years in jail and a fine up to $6000. Considernig NZ's history of the judicial system giving wet slaps on the wrist, those penalties are likely to be far, far less severe.

If you want to stop people from driving home drunk, make it hurt.

[mashman]

I still think the breathaliser before starting the engine is the way to go. Not to stop the engine, but to turn on a light on top of the car to alert those around them that a person is DIC. It'd probably save more lives and the small fortune we spent on barred housing... but no, let's ban and fine them 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc... times and eventually we'll throw them in jail, maybe, possibly, depending on how good their lawyer is.

[Edbear]

Stiffer and genuine penalties. Drink Driving back home is less common then it is here, despite there being roughly 3x the people because they do not fuck around with drunk driving.

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/ill.php

Third offence is 3-7 years jailtime, as its considered a felony offence (3 felony offenses and you're considered a recidivist offender and will up for lifetime in prison) whopping great big fines and a minimum of a 10 year license suspension.

The penalties get to be truely ridiculous (as well they should be) If you're drunk driving with somebody under the age of 16 in the car.

Fine – Mandatory $25,000 - Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)

Compared to New Zealands maximum penalties for third offenders being suspended for a year ( ) up to two years in jail and a fine up to $6000. Considernig NZ's history of the judicial system giving wet slaps on the wrist, those penalties are likely to be far, far less severe.

If you want to stop people from driving home drunk, make it hurt.

Now there's a novel idea! Now we just have to convince TPTB that it might be worth a try...

[Jantar]

I thought it was more pursuit related. ie, they initiated the stop prior to him entering private land, and were therefore able to proceed....

That is where the matter of law comes into play. There was no pursuit, they had no reason to believe he had committed any offence, so were carrying out a random stop, and as the law says, they may only carry out random stops "on the road". If the police had noticed an offence, then they were legally entitled to pursue him onto private property, but not to do so merely for a fishing expedition.

[Banditbandit]

The police have been able to do random stops since 1982 - they don't need a reason.

My comment about not being able to stop people "on a whim" was straight from the judge's commtns in the original story

''Constable Sherie was intent on beginning breath-testing procedures because the decision to do so had been made before he entered on to Mr Taffs' property. He did not consider whether he could go on to the property or not,'' Judge Behrens said.

He dismissed the charge, saying public interest did not outweigh privacy, particularly on a police officer's whim ''with absolutely no grounds for a belief ... that a motorist has been driving with excess alcohol on his breath''.

Random checkpoints are a whole other thing ...

[imdying]

Meh, David Bain walks amongst us, so there's bigger issues in the legal world IMO.

[Genestho]

Stiffer and genuine penalties. Drink Driving back home is less common then it is here, despite there being roughly 3x the people because they do not fuck around with drunk driving.

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/ill.php

Third offence is 3-7 years jailtime, as its considered a felony offence (3 felony offenses and you're considered a recidivist offender and will up for lifetime in prison) whopping great big fines and a minimum of a 10 year license suspension.

The penalties get to be truely ridiculous (as well they should be) If you're drunk driving with somebody under the age of 16 in the car.

Fine – Mandatory $25,000 - Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)

Compared to New Zealands maximum penalties for third offenders being suspended for a year ( ) up to two years in jail and a fine up to $6000. Considernig NZ's history of the judicial system giving wet slaps on the wrist, those penalties are likely to be far, far less severe.

If you want to stop people from driving home drunk, make it hurt.

The problem is (and the general public still fail miserably to see how the justice system works.)
Offenders, have rights, poor dears don't have enough money to pay a huge fine, they need their licenses for work.. defence lawyers exploit these and use the processes to get the best outcome for their clients.
Judges make certain considerations in sentencing.

Most drink drive offences will usually get off on technicalities, true story.
The only thing to do is to rewrite the human rights law so that offenders don't have rights. Hahaha. Problem is, that EVERYbody has rights now.
Welcome to the justice system and how it 'works' in NZ.

[Zedder]

The problem is (and the general public still fail miserably to see how the justice system works.)
Offenders, have rights, poor dears don't have enough money to pay a huge fine, they need their licenses for work.. defence lawyers exploit these and use the processes to get the best outcome for their clients.
Judges make certain considerations in sentencing.

Most drink drive offences will usually get off on technicalities, true story.
The only thing to do is to rewrite the human rights law so that offenders don't have rights. Hahaha. Problem is, that EVERYbody has rights now.
Welcome to the justice system and how it 'works' in NZ.

Well there's ya problem, it's not called the justice system at all but rather the legal system. The rights thing appears to have got way out of control though.

[Genestho]

Well there's ya problem, it's not called the justice system at all but rather the legal system. The rights thing appears to have got way out of control though.

Yeah exactly, I was trying to think of a quote regarding law and the justice system, something about them not being the same - it still eludes me, Hehe.

[PrincessBandit]

Despite his record, the man is still a lawyer and would be only too well-informed about how to weasel his way out of a situation which could result in ending up in hot water. (Even better informed of how to go about this while still remaining on the right side of the law). A dumbarse he might be, but a dummy he ain't.

[scumdog]

Most drink drive offences will usually get off on technicalities, true story.

I think you meant "most drink drivers who get off do so on a technicality"

'Cos most drink drivers DON'T get off at all...

[Genestho]

I think you meant "most drink drivers who get off do so on a technicality"

'Cos most drink drivers DON'T get off at all...

Indeed I did, sorry mate, I'm shattered and I did get distracted as I was typing!!!

[jasonu]

Yes, 30,0000 drivers were prosecuted for drink driving last year. .

Really? Is that 30,000 in NZ alone? That is about 115 DIC prosecutions a day, 5 days a week.
I dunno (or care) what the stats are here but that sounds like a lot to me.

[unstuck]

Really? Is that 30,000 in NZ alone? That is about 115 DIC prosecutions a day, 5 days a week.
I dunno (or care) what the stats are here but that sounds like a lot to me.

Nah, thats just southland, Speights drinking muppets.