Melbourne Protest Rally

Remember the news story about a week ago about the rider killed by a
drunk motorist? The one where the magistrate let her keep her license
as she needed it for work (at least until the case was tried)?

Melbourne riders have got a protest rally together for tomorrow down
in Melbourne.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,11256509%5E2862,00.html

Thread with call to rally, including the poster advertising it
http://www.netrider.org.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3233&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

VMU are the ones organising it.

http://www.vmu.org.au/

Brad

 

Brad said....

What's Netrider's role in this? I got the impression that it was the
mover behind this.

 

I don't see why she can't drive... if she loses her license in the court
case aren't they doing that as punishment (i.e. if she loses it now or
months later she'll still lose it for the same period)? Surely if a
magistrate felt she can drive to work then it is a first offence....

It gives both sides a chance to prepare properly so the magistrate can give
her a punishment suitable for her crime.

I'm not saying what she did wasn't a terrible act but considering someones
dead because of her actions she wont repeat the incident and will get
appropriately punished when the time is right.


Gareth

 

Read the forums Martin.

 

Erm
She was caught drink driving (instant disqualification last time I
checked) and she killed a person because of her drunk driving.
WHY the **** is she allowed on the road after that at all?

She can still front the court but with her license disqualified.
Amazing what a well paid lawyer can do for you.

 

And that's a good thing then Paul?

 

Isnt it auto disqualification for DUI?

 

paulh wrote:

I don't thing you _really mean that, do you?

regards,
CrazyCam

 

If drink driving is instant disqualification then the Magistrate is a fool
otherwise its a case of innocent until proved guilty

 

The best lawyer money can buy.
Yep thats a "good thing"
NOT!

 

She admitted her guilt by telling the police she hade quite a few drinks.
Therefore innocense is not the issue here.
The issue is she wanted to keep her license.
She was tested and found positive.
She had an attack of the guilts in the end and voluntarily handed in her
license today so I think the protest had some merit.

 

I can,
I prefer the french system personally.

 

SmeeR11S said....

She was charged with driving under the influence. That doesn't require a
blood test or breath sample, which is required for a drink driving
charge, usually exceeding 0.05. And the magistrate has the option to
suspend the alleged offender's licence pending the court case.

Same applies for crooks accused of murder who get bail. Innocent til
proved guilty.

Still, I'm not happy about it. But it's the law as it stands, and it's a
basic tenet of law in democratic and western societies.

The government actually put forward a proposal to cancel licences on the
spot for such offences. But for whatever reason, the RACV, Victoria
Police and the legal fraternity were opposed to it.

And I've read that in NSW, if you get done for excessive speed, you're
walking from that point. Be handy for coppers with a thing against
riders, or those looking to boost their quotas....

 

I think I would always prefer to have a good lawyer....

I agree that there are inherent problems with the adversarial system,
but under the French inquisitorial system, "a good lawyer will give you
a better chance of being treated 'fairly' under the law. A bad one may
let things through."

Besides, I have an inherent dislike of the way the french do things.
(Owning a Citroen didn't help).

Moike
(I suffered a crisis of conscience this morning when I discovered that
the french overwhelmingly preferred Kerry in the US erection debacle.)

 

Smee wrote:

Try saying that next time you find yourself being shafted by the
police/bureaucracy etc.

You of course would go for the cut-price "slightly imperfect" lawyer......


Moike

 

You would rather justice was not done?

or would you rather we didn't rely on the law, but trusted to judicial whim?

Moike

 

Well... if you are talking about preventing further damage (which is
what bail is all about) I doubt that this particular person will be
anything but a very sober, very careful driver for a long long time.

If you are talking about punishing her for her crime, the tradition in
this country has always been to await a formal conviction. Parts of the
world where punishment is meted out by the mob are not renowned for
their compassion.

Moike

 

Pah! If it wasn't for bleeding heart liberals like you
we could punish people before the crime was even committed!

-----sharks (bring back hanging and go into rope ...)

 

I have been shafted before by the bureaucracy.
We had the best lawyer we could afford.
Fat load of good it did.
I really have a problem with the rich being able to afford better "justice"
There is a real problem there.

 

I'm talking about her preventing further damage by not being allowed to
drive as part of her bail conditions.
I'm talking about the impact on the victim's family because of the
knowledge she is still allowed to drive after admitting to drink driving
and killing someone under the influence.
I'm talking about the legal system where driving under the influence is
supposed to be instant dismissla/suspension but it appears that some
people get away with it while most do not.
I'm NOT talking about punishment for the offender.
That will come up later in court.

The protest was not about the offender but about the magistrates bail
conditions and getting the wheels in motion to fix a flaw in the legal
system.

At least the offender had the presence of mind to willingly hand in her
license after all the hoohah which will only be a favourable consequence
when she fronts up for court to face her "punishment"


Remember this protest was not about punishment. It was about silly
magistrates decisions.