3 point turn cop on trial

**HenryDorsetCase** · 30th March 2009, 16:49

Originally Posted by Nasty

They won't be eligible ... under the ACC system there is a thing about not being able to sue blah blah ... but if the auckland woman suceeds in suing the corrections department over the release of Williem Bell there may be an "in" with that precedent if it is set.

not really applicable here: Bell was a complete sociopathic ticking timebomb, and I think its clear that this guy was just careless or reckless. Corrections knew or should have known that Bell would go mental and hurt or kill someone, yet did nothing to stop it. Here the guy was careless, but I dont think it has been established he went "A ha, I will do my best to kill these motorcyclists" big difference. Also Susan Couch is suing in negligence (civil) and this is a criminal matter: different standards and burdens of proof, and remedies available.

the clue (for non-lawyers) is the phrase "duty of care": that means negligence i.e. civil.

**sunhuntin** · 31st March 2009, 08:22

really glad the jury came back with the correct answer. id love the guys to be able to get compensation, but whether they will or not is a different story.

**Beemer** · 31st March 2009, 08:26

Story from the Press this morning - http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...in-gorge-crash. The Dominion Post also had a story that mentioned the victims' injuries but they don't appear to have it online. One lost part of a finger or thumb, and it sounds like both are still suffering the effects of the accident.

Very pleased to see the cop was found guilty as there didn't seem to be any doubt he was totally in the wrong.

**MSTRS:Me** · 31st March 2009, 09:29

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

No no no no no no no

Have we learned nothing? The lawyer did what lawyers do: there is no moral imperative here at all. The lawyer would arguably have been negligent to have said do anything other than deny.

It does my head in, it really does.

I wonder how much difference it would make if lawyers did not get paid in a lose situation. By that, I mean - advise to plead not guilty and defend, then found guilty. At least in cases where the 'not guilty' is offered in hopes of a 'technicality'.

**R1madness** · 31st March 2009, 10:57

Justice done? The man has been found guilty but what will his punishment be???

**Winston001** · 31st March 2009, 13:11

Originally Posted by sunhuntin

really glad the jury came back with the correct answer. id love the guys to be able to get compensation, but whether they will or not is a different story.

ACC will take care of earnings compensation (yeah right) and insurance for the bikes - actually the taxpayer since a Crown employee caused the loss.

He might be ordered to pay a bit of reparation to the guys.

Lets keep things in proportion here. A dangerous driving conviction is very common - happens every day somewhere in a NZ court. Nothing special is going to happen to this ex-cop, in fact he's at the low end of the sentencing scale. No speed, no alcohol, probably got a clean record, mature man, acting in his capacity as a police officer, momentary misjudgement yadda yadda. Its possible to be discharged without conviction.

**Winston001** · 31st March 2009, 13:13

While on the subject of compensation, didn't notice anyone calling for the dead Triumph rider's family/estate to pay out for those he killed on Banks Peninsula. That was a far far worse and deliberate case of dangerous driving than here.

**Skyryder** · 31st March 2009, 18:46

I was listening to the radio yesterday (30-3-09) and one of bikers was being interviewed. He was asked if he was speeding and he replied he was doing over the hundred K limit.
So it appears that the cop was right in that the bikes were speeding.

I don't know the law on this but I would suspect that we have not heard the last of this.

Skyryder

**Katman** · 31st March 2009, 18:58

Originally Posted by Skyryder

He was asked if he was speeding and he replied he was doing over the hundred K limit.

If that's for real (would love to hear the soundtrack), it would rank as one of the dumbest foot in mouth moves ever.

**Katman** · 31st March 2009, 20:34

Suddenly everyone seems lost for words.

**98tls** · 31st March 2009, 20:38

Originally Posted by Katman

Suddenly everyone seems lost for words.

seems so.

**Katman** · 31st March 2009, 21:07

Originally Posted by 98tls

seems so.

Oh how we chortled.

**BMWST?** · 31st March 2009, 21:16

Originally Posted by ynot slow

Skimmed over this,but as said doing U turn,make sure all is clear,but with pursuit happening,the cop can accelerate the turn,something we can't do for losing the car with boy racer traction rules.The onus on the cop is he can do a U turn quicker than normal traffic drivers due to the no loss of traction legislation not applying to them in pursuit,so obviously he thought yep they are close,but if I accelerate I'll beat them,then he stuffed the turn up.

he didnt stuff up the U turn.The gorge is so narrow he had to do a 3 pointer

**scumdog** · 31st March 2009, 21:26

Originally Posted by Skyryder

I was listening to the radio yesterday (30-3-09) and one of bikers was being interviewed. He was asked if he was speeding and he replied he was doing over the hundred K limit.
So it appears that the cop was right in that the bikes were speeding.

I don't know the law on this but I would suspect that we have not heard the last of this.

Skyryder

No shit?

Now THERE'S a surprise.....