Worth a look - Pissed but not in charge?
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Noddy on 12 Jul 2010 10:24 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4c3b0f8b$0$11108$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > Exactly and no one can prove one way or the other what someone's "intent" > is unless they admit it, suggesting that a person intends to drive a car > just because they are sitting in the drivers seat is nothing more than a > wild assumption. They don't have to prove it, they just have to have a belief that it's probable. You can be charged with being equipped to steal just by walking down the street with a screwdriver in your pocket and not having a reasonable excuse as to why you're doing so. You don't have to be caught doing anything illegal with it. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 12 Jul 2010 10:24 "Atheist Chaplain" <abused(a)cia.gov> wrote in message news:4c3b1acf$1(a)news.x-privat.org... > you want his name, he was well known around here for being just that :-) I'll bet he was :) -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 12 Jul 2010 20:11 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8a1ot2FkouU1(a)mid.individual.net... > It's not necessary to employ a solicitor for such a trivial matter. All > the person has to do is front up to court, establish the facts, and allow > the magistrate to reach the proper conclusion which is that the facts do > not prove the offence. Which is how it's supposed to work in theory, anyway. In reality it comes down to your word against the copper who charged you, and 99 times out of 100 the beak will support the copper simply because he/she's a "copper" and has taken an oath to uphold the law. > Of course, it still involves time, which has a cost in itself. And that, for most people, is more than enough reason not to contest. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Sylvia Else on 12 Jul 2010 20:29 On 13/07/2010 12:17 AM, Noddy wrote: > "Sylvia Else"<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message > news:8a0fquFmrgU2(a)mid.individual.net... > >> No, but put the handbrake on and the transmission into neutral and turn >> the blinker off, and I'd say you're parked. You don't have to turn the >> engine off IMHO. > > I'm not sure but I recall reading somewhere that the legal definition of a > parked car is either locked up with the engine off, or unlocked if the > owner/driver is present with the vehicle. For some reason I have a feeling > that a running engine doesn't qualify. With the exception of a few long established examples, words don't really have general legal definitions. In the absence of express definitions in relevant legislation, they take their everyday meanings. In NSW, the provision that prohibits use of a mobile phone while not parked is http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/s300.html The dictionary section of the regulation http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/sch99.html defines the word thus: "park", in Part 12 and for a driver, includes stop and allow the driver�s vehicle to stay (whether or not the driver leaves the vehicle) which is a tad confusing, in that rule 300 is not in part 12, but mentions that "park" is defined in the dictionary, which suggests that "and for a driver" is intended to cover those situations where a driver is involved, including those not covered by Part 12. Note that if "park" required that the engine be turned off, then you would have an absurd situation in http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/s189.html where X would not be unlawfully parked if the green cars had their engines running. Sylvia.
From: Sylvia Else on 12 Jul 2010 20:32
On 13/07/2010 12:21 AM, Noddy wrote: > "Sylvia Else"<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message > news:8a0gg6FsfbU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >> Australian states vary. For example, in QLD, it's an offence to be in >> charge of a vehicle while drunk. In NSW to commit the offence you have to >> actually drive the vehicle, or attempt to put it into motion while >> occupying the driver's seat. > > How would that apply in the case of learner drivers for example, where the > fully licensed driver is in charge of the vehicle while not actually > driving? In NSW that's specifically addressed - while under the influence of alcohol you must not "(c) being the holder of a driver licence (other than a provisional licence or a learner licence), occupy the seat in or on a motor vehicle next to a holder of a learner licence who is driving the motor vehicle." Sylvia. |