Woman walks free after biker's death

Be interesting to know how mounting a median strip, crossing to the wrong
side of the road and killing someone can't be at least 'driving without due
care' (mechanical failure, illness???!!!)

from
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17172935-1246,00.html

A WOMAN accused of causing the death of a motorcyclist by dangerous driving
yesterday walked out of the District Court after a jury acquitted her of the
charge.

Jennifer Anne Worth, a mother of three and a grandmother, had been on trial
for allegedly causing the death of Karen Percy in October 2003.
She was also charged with causing bodily injury to Ms Percy's boyfriend
Matthew Holland.

During the trial, the court was told Ms Percy, her partner of 3 1/2 years
and a small group of friends - all on motorcycles - had just left the
outskirts of Mt Barker when Worth's vehicle mounted the median strip and
collided with the pair.

They had been on their way home from the Moto GP at Phillip Island.

Yesterday, the jury of eight women and four men took just two hours to
acquit Worth, 62, of Goolwa, of all charges, including driving without due
care. Ms Percy's family had prepared a written media statement, but their
lawyer advised against issuing it.


Both her family and Mr Holland's declined to comment as they left court.
It is believed, however, that Ms Percy's family will now campaign for
changes to the law.

Outside court, Worth, flanked by her family, refused to comment.

 

Well, it seems a jury was convinced, so unless someone was there to hear
the case, we may never know the reasons.

I could imagine mechanical failure *might* be a cause, or as you say,
illness. Who knows, maybe the driver was cut off by a Volvo.

Moike

 

I know in nsw we have whats called the Singh protocol.

which all cases like that we have to put through the dpp to find the best
charges and the most offences to charge people with.

unfortunetly traffic accidents happen, and people do get hurt or killed,
most of the time its driver fault, sometimes its not doesnt say what
happened.

 

don't forget road.

really their are 3 factors
Road
Vehicle
Driver

maybe she hit a bit pot hole

 

No, it shows how much they think she was guilty of the offence which she
was charged with. It's not the jury's fault if the prosecution provide
insufficient evidence, charge the wrong person or present the wrong
charge.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Oh, here we go again

'Help! I'm bein repressed!!'

ck

 

Or more generically:
Environment
Mechanical
Physical (ie, human physiology/psychology).

These are the trio used in aircraft accident investigations - or in some
cases, the absence of one or more. Ultimately all factors can be
categorised into one of them.

Unless it was a closed court, the proceedings should be on the public
record. Zebee might know a good URL to dig this up...seems every other
legal document in this group she's found on the web somewhere

James
ZZR250->ZX9R->bikeless

 

The outcome from the point of view of the lawmakers is a case
of damned if you don't, damned if you do...

Way back when I was a Student At Law, our Crim' lecturer had a
lot of interesting (in a practical sense) stuff to say about all
kinds of things.

He commented specifically on the history of the crime of Culpable
Driving in New South Wales. Once upon a time, the punishment for
culpable driving (effectively killing someone with a motor vehicle)
was quite severe - similar to manslaughter and murder IIRC. The
law was passed, and went out in to the world. People ran over other
people with their cars and killed them, got charged with culpable
driving, and stood before a jury of their peers for judgement.

The juries were listening to the evidence, seeing just how easy
it was to end up in the position of the defendant, saying to
themselves "that easily could be me going down for twenty years",
and promptly acquitting.

The law specified the punishment that the people wanted, the
people weren't doling out the punishment, and of course the
newspapers were going to town because the system had failed.


So the law was changed. Penalties for culpable driving are
now set at far more palatable levels, and so juries are convicting
people now. The offenders are getting (relatively) short sentences
for their crimes, but they *are* being convicted.


And guess what: The press is going to town because the
system has failed.



Case in point: on the tabloid tv last night, both shows went to
town over a young bloke who had hit a little girl with his car,
stopped while his passenger lifted her and her bicycle off the
road, then did a runner.

The liars (they'd have you call them journalists) cornered this
poor bastard outside a courtroom about a month ago, and he looked
like a deer in the headlights - stunned - but to his credit, he
did say his piece: He was driving uninsured, unregistered, an
*accident* happened (he didn't plan to hit that little girl), he
did what he could for her, then he panicked and did the Harold.

"Nobody plans to knock a little girl off her bike and run, I
was scared, I am sorry. What would you do in that situation?".


He had his day in court yesterday, and he was sentenced to
nine months for hitting the girl, and one month for doing the
runner, option for release in five months if of good behavior.
A sentence that I'm not entirely comfortable with, but one
that I'm prepared to accept as being within the bounds of
reasonableness (particularly since the liars would never let
enough of the real story be seen for a fair judgement to be
passed by the punting public).


Both tabloid tellys had liars screaming blue murder, "the
system has failed, the system has failed". I expect that
they all have a day five months from yesterday pencilled in
their diaries so that they can go and hassle the poor guy who
knocked the little girl off her bike (causing a life-threatening
graze to her arm).


There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the bit where
*they* (the liars) created the situation themselves never
crossed their mind even for a nanosecond. None at all.



One of the tabloid telly programs then proceeded to an
"ordinary suburban house" where they proceeded to make Jayden
Leskie's (sp?) Mum cry one more time. The other replayed old
hysteria about the life-threatening nature of bacteria that
exist naturally in fresh foods such as chicken and sushi.


Fuckers!


</rant>

G

 

the system has failed, to bash a coppa and tie the legal system up for 6
months the penalty is only $20 bucks.. yes I know this because I was the dam
coppa who got assaulted.

heres one outrage I just cant under stand, it happened earlier this year

a police officer I know in tweed heads, was run over one morning while he
was riding his push bike to work.

the driver was a suspended driver, unregistered and uninsured motorvehicle.

The senior constable was in hospital for 8 months with severe back and leg
injuries which he will never walk properly again.

the outcome, an extra 12months suspension giving him something like 15 years
off the road combined with the others hes got, and for drive manner
dangerous inflicting grievous bodily harm he got fined $1, yes a buck... A
police officer can issue $1000 worth of tickets on the spot for that, but
apparently a magistarate thinks a buck is suitable punishment!

of course no insurances means that the coppa gets nothing either, doesnt
even get coverage for his injuries apart from work cover as he was on his
way to work...

In this day and age I can tell you first hand the countless 'the system has
failed' tails that ive personally put before the court.. magistartes do not
want to put people in goal and the current debt system means you can owe
billions in fines and not pay a cent on them, the only disadvantage is that
you cant get a car registered or a drivers licence so do you think the
average criminal shitbag type cares less about going to court, infact most
of them get a free solicitor so they can tie the legal system up for months,
wasting my time, the courts time and many tax payer dollars!

the system has failed, well did it ever work in the first place!

 

Then fairly you could sue the mains road dept who built it or the local
council or main roads dept that maintains it under ,
not suitable for indended purpose

 

I work for the press and its stuff like this , which is a licence to make
money for the press .

They take the easy route , criticise however dont know how to actually fix
it . If they do know it takes 55 editions to do it

 

Signatures! Get yer signatures!

-----sharks

 

How exactly?
Do you know the circumstances of the case?

 

It's all bullshit, a person came speeding through a red light and hit me,
all he got was failing to stop at a red light, and I was found 30% in the
wrong because I was travelling to fast to avoid an accident. I had just
pulled away at the change of lights and I was doing about 20 kph and was hit
in the drivers door. He got a small fine I got 4 months on my back. There is
no justice.

 

and the radio came alive

 

I agree...

Having been in the wrong and won, and in the right and lost

It just depends on the day!

A WORD OF ADVICE FOR PEOPLE IN (reasonably serious) 'ACCIDENTS'

Say nothing...say 'i was knocked out, i dont remember', or
anything...until you have a chance to figure out what actually happened
and what is best to tell the people who are interested

 

OOO, Dennis...there's some lovely filth down here!

 

From the perspective of....?

H

 

Why from the perspective of Carl Scully of course. Who elses
perspective would Mad Bikers opinion reflect, his own?

 

Actually Mad biker does give his own perspective quite a bit.