ChatterBank0 min ago
Drink driver let off because no public transport.
This woman was over the limit but the judge let her off.
http://www.smh.com.au...t-20100804-11aba.html
Please comment.
http://www.smh.com.au...t-20100804-11aba.html
Please comment.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by beso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ."The law says that driving over the limit is driving in a dangerous way."
Well ... the Law says that it is contrary to a defined criteria.
But you take my point ...
If she is driving safely, under control (both physically and mentally), and the only interference with her safe progress was a policeman standing in the road ... then the Law is reasonable.
If she was weaving around the road, past a primary school ... then the Law is stupid.
Well ... the Law says that it is contrary to a defined criteria.
But you take my point ...
If she is driving safely, under control (both physically and mentally), and the only interference with her safe progress was a policeman standing in the road ... then the Law is reasonable.
If she was weaving around the road, past a primary school ... then the Law is stupid.
-- answer removed --
Mike is quite right, Eddie (at least as far as UK law goes).
To argue against the mandatory disqualification being imposed for Excess Alcohol (or indeed any other offence with carries a mandatory disqualification) one has to argue that exceptional circumstances surround the offence itself, not the offender. An example would be if it could be shown to the court that the defendant’s drinks had been spiked.
The “exceptional hardship” argument (e.g. loss of employment, living in a remote area, etc.) can only be used to avoid a ban under the “totting up” rules (12 points within 3 years).
To argue against the mandatory disqualification being imposed for Excess Alcohol (or indeed any other offence with carries a mandatory disqualification) one has to argue that exceptional circumstances surround the offence itself, not the offender. An example would be if it could be shown to the court that the defendant’s drinks had been spiked.
The “exceptional hardship” argument (e.g. loss of employment, living in a remote area, etc.) can only be used to avoid a ban under the “totting up” rules (12 points within 3 years).
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.