Officer charged over motorcycle crash

[spudchucka]

He'll be found guilty and fined. He will not lose his license.

Dangerous driving has a mandatory 6 month suspension.

[spudchucka]

You Can be a cop even with a drink driving charge these days or other minor convictions

EBA convictions almost always cost a cop their job, the Mokau incident is the only recent exception that I'm aware of.

[spudchucka]

Dangerous driving causing injury is a more serious offence than dangerous driving. Penalty up to 5 years gaol, $20000 fine, and mandatory disqualification for at least one year unless there are special reasons relating to the offence (Land Transport Act 1998 S36, 81). I imagine the courts will bend over backwards to find special reasons.

Although I must say that dangerous seems harsh, careless or at most reckless I would have thought. Not that the prick gets any sympathy after his "you were speeding " shit.

Its up to the defendant to prove special circumstances, not the courts.

Traffic offences in order of seriousness are Careless, Dangerous & Reckless.

[spudchucka]

Where's the 28 day instant loss?

For a crash resulting in a dangerous charge there isn't a 28 day suspension.

[spudchucka]

Thats funny, the last cop I talked to about this said the penalty was the same for reckless and dangourous, but reckless was far harder to prove.

Because you have to prove the intent (Mens Rea) aspect.

[Mikkel]

Dangerous driving has a mandatory 6 month suspension.

Well, not that mandatory. A mate of mine got stung on a DD charge (and it was bullshit btw) and went to court. So he paid the fine, and got convicted of dangerous driving but they let him keep his license...

And for the love of dog, try and collate your replies into one, or two tops, posts!!!

[jafar]

Why? Just because they are a Police Department they protect their own? When i joined the Police i wondered what it was like - now that I have been in a while I can tell you they certainly don't. People don't want to hear that though. They want to hear that the Police look after their own, that they have horns growing out of their head and they would screw their grandmother over to get a ticket Makes it easier to slam them when they do something people think they shouldn't or work in a way people don't agree with.

Nothing could be further from the truth, in all honesty New Zealand Police are probably still the least corrupt and have the highest integrity compared to an International standard. Almost every story in the media i have read that i have personally known about has had a side that is a lot less sensational but would most likely change a lot of peoples minds.

But hey the truth never got in the way of a good story.

Police do shield their own to a certain extent, same as members of any group will try to protect their own, getting off the odd ticket comes to mind.
I would have to agree that the NZ cops are a pretty good bunch, I can't recall meeting one that wasn't straight up in his dealings with me or my mates.
The old MoT traffic cops were a different breed though

[TOTO]

the most gonna happen is he gonna get a fine and possibly receive counceling/training and thats all.

When are we going to know the outcome ?

[pritch]

EBA convictions almost always cost a cop their job, the Mokau incident is the only recent exception that I'm aware of.

That was rather special circumstances and like most hereabout I have no problem with the outcome there at all.
(By "hereabout" I mean the Naki not KB :-)

[98tls]

No doubt this thread would be just as long if the guy that did the u-turn wasnt a cop.I think not.

[Toaster]

People seem rather misguided about coverups and the details of the law.

The police are very heavily policed by their own and face not only the same laws as the rest of the population but also internal disciplinary measures as well.

Every example I saw of this when in the job was dealt with both professionally and severely. The cops do not get off anything lightly and professional standards go them big time investigating their own if they slip up and make a mistake.

[Toaster]

A mate who was in the police crashed his car on my watch one night.

He faced multiple charges including drink driving and dangerous driving causing injury x 3.

His career was over the moment he decided to get in that car and drive home drunk.

Bloody idiot.

[98tls]

People seem rather misguided about coverups and the details of the law.

The police are very heavily policed by their own and face not only the same laws as the rest of the population but also internal disciplinary measures as well.

Every example I saw of this when in the job was dealt with both professionally and severely. The cops do not get off anything lightly and professional standards go them big time investigating their own if they slip up and make a mistake.

There not misguided Toaster they just have the advantage of owning there very own crystal balls,dont ya know.

[spudchucka]

Well, not that mandatory. A mate of mine got stung on a DD charge (and it was bullshit btw) and went to court. So he paid the fine, and got convicted of dangerous driving but they let him keep his license...

And for the love of dog, try and collate your replies into one, or two tops, posts!!!

35Contravention of section 7, or section 22 where no injury or death involved

(1)A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)Operates a motor vehicle recklessly on a road; or

(b)Drives or causes a motor vehicle to be driven on a road at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person; or

(c)Without reasonable excuse, contravenes section 22 by failing to stop and ascertain whether any person has been injured, after an accident where no other person has been injured or killed.

(2)If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1),—

(a)The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and

(b)The court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.

(3)The imposition of a mandatory disqualification under this section is subject to section 81.

Section 35(2)(b) is highlighted. The word "must" means that the court does not have discretion to not disqualify on a dangerous conviction.

The only discretionary offence is careless in regards to disqualification. The only exception to this is where the defendant can prove that there were special circumstances and then it will almost always result in a discount on the disqualification period.

If I knew how to collate or could be bothered finding out how to I would, but I can't be stuffed so I won't.

[Rashika]

that seem a bit strange then cos his boss says 'if' he loses his licence (altho he does also say 'if' he's convicted as well) and according to that paragraph he will definately lose it for a minimum of 6 months? (if convicted that is of course)

It is true what they say about the police complaints eventually trying to make right tho.
A friend of mine who lost her son in a work related driving incident where he was an unfortunate victim (several years ago now, so system is still far too slow), has finally had an apology from a bigwig officer after they brought a complaint, where the police basically cocked up the whole investigation by simply not breathtesting or blood testing the driver.
The good thing to come out of it is that now testing is meant to be done as standard in every work related/or driving/ or both, death. I was incrediably surprised that is wasn't normal practice. So maybe something good may come out of this mess.

Hope the guys are recovering ok, and at least the officer will get his day in court, something a whole heap of kbers were very doubtful about.
And I for one think 'Dangerous' is the appropriate charge: in those circumstances, on that road, a specialist driver who is responsible for moderating others behaviour (which is what his job is), should know better.