Lawyer regrets fatal hit-run (on cyclist)

[Grant Algie, for McGee, argued McGee's driving did not "approach
breach of the road rules"

"You have got no speed, no erratic or bizarre behaviour," he said

"What you have in terms of his driving, objectively assessed, is
wholly unremarkable, totally lawful act of driving a vehicle along
highway. That tragic and terrible accident could and probably woul
have happened no matter who was driving, including . . . if any of u
were driving."

So if I do not exceed the speed limit, do not tailgate, do not cros
double centre lines but merely quietly drive over the top of a cyclist
I am driving OK

The only comfort I get is that that rediculous statement was made b
the counsel for the defence who might be extected to run with any an
all arguments no matter how ludicrous. There is no indication that th
court accepted that argument. Still it is so rediculous that the medi
would latch onto it and report it in its usual way

I hope an appeal is being contemplated

Ba

Steve

--
SteveA

"SteveA" wrote in message
...


I hope an appeal is being contemplated.

Bah

SteveA

Sadly the cyclist, who could appeal, is deceased.

Henry.

hemyd Wrote:
"SteveA" wrote in messag
..


I hope an appeal is being contemplated

Ba

Steve

Sadly the cyclist, who could appeal, is deceased

Henry.
Henry

if I read your post in its most literal sense, I must say that it i
irrelevant to the legal process that the victim is dead. The victi
did not take the legal action against the killer, the Crown did. I
the Crown is unhappy about the outcome, it may appeal

if I read your post less literally, I agree that any appeal i
irrelevant to the cyclist as he is dead. But then so would be an
action to punish the killer. Unfortunately nothing can bring the poo
deceased cyclist back

Steve

--
SteveA

SteveA wrote:
Henry,

if I read your post in its most literal sense, I must say that it is
irrelevant to the legal process that the victim is dead. The victim
did not take the legal action against the killer, the Crown did. If
the Crown is unhappy about the outcome, it may appeal.


I don't think that they can appeal. They get a one-off chance to try to
prove the defendent guilty. The defendent gets a chance to appeal. They
can appeal the sentence, but I don't think that has been handed down
yet.

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

"SteveA" wrote in message
...

hemyd Wrote:
"SteveA" wrote in message
...


I hope an appeal is being contemplated.

Bah

SteveA

Sadly the cyclist, who could appeal, is deceased.

Henry.
Henry,

if I read your post in its most literal sense, I must say that it is
irrelevant to the legal process that the victim is dead. The victim
did not take the legal action against the killer, the Crown did. If
the Crown is unhappy about the outcome, it may appeal.

if I read your post less literally, I agree that any appeal is
irrelevant to the cyclist as he is dead. But then so would be any
action to punish the killer. Unfortunately nothing can bring the poor
deceased cyclist back.

SteveA

Thinking about it clearly, I can see that there is some sense to the
verdict. In a law system which needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
someone was guilty of a crime, then it cannot be assumed that the cyclist
did not veer into the path of the car without either the cyclist or some
witness testifying. Like many verdicts in violent crime trials, it's
unpalatable but valid.

On an aside, though, I would like to see the law modified so that the
penalty for failing to stop after an accident exceeds that for driving with
an over the limit alcohol. Otherwise it may become an accepted legal ploy to
not stop after an accident, but to surrender yourself hours or days later
once you're sober. Once again, I cannot determine how such a law would be
formulated. It may be unworkable, but something needs to be done.

Henry.

hemyd wrote:

On an aside, though, I would like to see the law modified so that the
penalty for failing to stop after an accident exceeds that for driving with
an over the limit alcohol.

In Queensland the penalty for riding without a bell (max $1500) exceeds
the penalty for drink driving ($1050 for 0.05 to less than 0.15 per cent
blood alcohol concentration).
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Peter McCallum wrote:

In Queensland the penalty for riding without a bell (max $1500)
exceeds the penalty for drink driving ($1050 for 0.05 to less than
0.15 per cent blood alcohol concentration).

So drink driving without a bell would be really serious then.

Theo