Jail/prison

[Blueman]

And that's why people drink drive...cos they only get a ban at worse.

Suppose he hit another car or pedestrian and hurt or killed them...a ban would not have been ok then would it? It is only luck that meant this did not happen.

No sympathay ... the bloke admitted to drinking and says it reacted with the pain killers he takes... everyone knows that alcohol and painkillers do not mix.
To drive in that state makes him a **** imho cos he could afford a ****ing chauffeur let alone a cab.

He is lucky he did not seriously hurt or kill someone.

This isn't the 1970s...EVERYONE knows the dangers of drink driving so there is no excuse.

I have no sympathay either mate.

 

[Tobes]

Bird for refusing a breath test?

That's ridiculous!

It will be quashed on appeal, as I cannot imagine that there are any aggravating factors to justify a custodial sentence. The driving ban is sufficient.

Depends if he’s got any previous.

It’ll likely get suspended on appeal anyway.

 

[brb]

Bird for refusing a breath test?

That's ridiculous!

It will be quashed on appeal, as I cannot imagine that there are any aggravating factors to justify a custodial sentence. The driving ban is sufficient.

Had to check this one as it seemed unusual, but by holding a drivers licence that in itself commits you to agreeing to a breath test. Failure to do so can result in 3 months prison in some situations 6 months imprisonment. Basically you have got to be pretty mentally challenged to refuse a test, without a very good medical reason.

 

[Commachio]

Had to check this one as it seemed unusual, but by holding a drivers licence that in itself commits you to agreeing to a breath test. Failure to do so can result in 3 months prison in some situations 6 months imprisonment. Basically you have got to be pretty mentally challenged to refuse a test, without a very good medical reason.

Usually in a work place, you refuse a test, you may as well hand your notice in.

 

[brb]

Usually in a work place, you refuse a test, you may as well hand your notice in.

The guy is an idiot. Just take the test and argue about it afterwards. That way you avoid prison.

 

[Commachio]

The guy is an idiot. Just take the test and argue about it afterwards. That way you avoid prison.

Luckily he didn't hit anyone. So if he had just took the test.

He was fooked anyway, but would have just got a fine, points, or maybe a ban.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Had to check this one as it seemed unusual, but by holding a drivers licence that in itself commits you to agreeing to a breath test. Failure to do so can result in 3 months prison in some situations 6 months imprisonment. Basically you have got to be pretty mentally challenged to refuse a test, without a very good medical reason.

A lot of offences heard in the Magistrates Court carry a “maximum” immediate custodial sentence, as well as a fine. The rule is that a custodial sentence is to be used only if there are aggravating factors AND an immediate custodial sentence is justified.

The lower end of this particular sentence is a fine.

The desire of this power-crazed Mag to make an example of the defendant is not an aggravating factor.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Depends if he’s got any previous.

That is not an aggravating factor, unless he committed the new offence less than a year after a previous offence.

There is no mention of a previous offence.

It’ll likely get suspended on appeal anyway.

Which is what I said.

It should really be quashed.

 

[Stan]

That is not an aggravating factor, unless he committed the new offence less than a year after a previous offence.

There is no mention of a previous offence.



Which is what I said.

It should really be quashed.

Quashed? So no punishment for refusing to do the breathalyser?

 

[Sucky]

Quashed? So no punishment for refusing to do the breathalyser?

He's a ****ing lawer Stan wind ya neck in yeah

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Quashed? So no punishment for refusing to do the breathalyser?

The fine and a ban are the starting points.

A custodial sentence should then be considered only if there are aggravating factors. Real ones, not ones invented by the judge because he doesn’t understand sentencing law.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

He's a ****ing lawer Stan wind ya neck in yeah

Stan knows everything about the law, Sucky.

I’m always cautious when Stan wades into a discussion on law.

 

[Stan]

Stan knows everything about the law, Sucky.

I’m always cautious when Stan wades into a discussion on law.

Draw your bottom lip back in Chubby. The only discussion you and I have ever had about the law was related to s106 and, quite frankly given what I now know about your actual profession, your understanding of it was laughably ****e.

In this instance I bow to your superior knowledge that Saunders should be rewarded with a pat on the back and a free ticket to one of your gigs for getting lashed up and going out for a drive.

 

[remembercolinlee]

That is not an aggravating factor, unless he committed the new offence less than a year after a previous offence.

There is no mention of a previous offence.



Which is what I said.

It should really be quashed.

Why? Cos he was lucky enough not to hurt or kill someone?

Genuinely do not understand your anger/outrage/shock/sense of injustice or whatever it is for a **** who chose to drive a car when he was intoxicated.

Drink driving is a totally ****ish thing to do. People are well aware of the consequences of drink driving and of drinking while using medication. It is well known that you are a massive danger to others if you do this, that your judgement, road awareness, ability to judge distance and speed are all greatly diminished. Yet he did it anyway.

For him then to refuse a breathe test is an act of utter stupidity and arrogance.

 

[brb]

A lot of offences heard in the Magistrates Court carry a “maximum” immediate custodial sentence, as well as a fine. The rule is that a custodial sentence is to be used only if there are aggravating factors AND an immediate custodial sentence is justified.

The lower end of this particular sentence is a fine.

The desire of this power-crazed Mag to make an example of the defendant is not an aggravating factor.

I agree with your last sentence reasoning. However, the reason I looked it up, was because I always remember never refuse a breath test. It was after looking it up, that I realised a prison sentence applied. They will have grounds for appeal, on the mags wording/application, assuming the media are reporting it correctly. Having said all that I also believe, if you can't do the time, don't commit the crime, and aside from drink driving, an arrogant drink driver is even worse. Do I believe he had more than two pints, yes - why? because otherwise he would have taken the test. As I said, he could have argued his case afterwards. So yeah he's an example to EVERYONE, do not refuse a breath test, even if you suspect you are over the limit.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Draw your bottom lip back in Chubby. The only discussion you and I have ever had about the law was related to s106 and, quite frankly given what I now know about your actual profession, your understanding of it was laughably ****e.

I’ve negotiated and drafted more section 106 agreements than you’ve had hot dinners, Stan. Some of them for major (city redevelopment) projects.

You are typical of the barrack room lawyer mentality, who just because he “once got involved in a land deal” thinks he knows everything about planning.

 

[Stan]

I’ve negotiated and drafted more section 106 agreements than you’ve had hot dinners, Stan. Some of them for major (city redevelopment) projects.

You are typical of the barrack room lawyer mentality, who just because he “once got involved in a land deal” thinks he knows everything about planning.

Shall we dig that thread out Hilary?

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Genuinely do not understand your anger/outrage/shock/sense of injustice or whatever it is for a **** who chose to drive a car when he was intoxicated.

Outrage?

I’m discussing the law.

Quite frankly, I couldn’t give a toss either way.

There are bankers and insolvency practitioners out there, responsible for stealing billions from people, who should be in prison. The harm they’ve done to many thousands of families makes what Saunders did pale into insignificance.

So, he made a car brake sharply, big deal! There are old duffers round my way who make me do that all the time. Most of them shouldn’t be on the road, but I wouldn’t want to lock them up.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Shall we dig that thread out Hilary?

Yeah, if you want to embarrass yourself.

CIL payments have done away with the need for section 106 payments on most small projects. That is a fact, and your excruciating ignorance on the subject isn’t going to change it.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

I agree with your last sentence reasoning. However, the reason I looked it up, was because I always remember never refuse a breath test. It was after looking it up, that I realised a prison sentence applied. They will have grounds for appeal, on the mags wording/application, assuming the media are reporting it correctly. Having said all that I also believe, if you can't do the time, don't commit the crime, and aside from drink driving, an arrogant drink driver is even worse. Do I believe he had more than two pints, yes - why? because otherwise he would have taken the test. As I said, he could have argued his case afterwards. So yeah he's an example to EVERYONE, do not refuse a breath test, even if you suspect you are over the limit.

As I said, a lot of offences carry a custodial sentence in the Mags Court, but it should only be applied in the most serious of incidents of that particular offence.

For refusing a breath test, the punishment is a driving ban, and usually a fine.