Another failed prosecution - Wayne Antoniazzo walks free

Jim Jones said :

Panicking indicates beyond all reasonable doubt (or any actual evidence) that one is a vicious murderer. This line of reasoning is, apparently, known as ‘common sense’.

Sound rhetoric does not a reasoned point make.

I don’t mind them prosecuting this case. It would be a bit much if someone ran over their girlfriend and life continued completely as normal.

Whatever his actions after the girl was hit, what he was being tried for was the hitting of the girl.
Given that she was almost hit by another vehicle shortly before, surely the prosecutors should have paused and thought “Maybe visibility was poor? And thus we’ve got a weakness in our case” rather than charged in convinced they were on a winner.
They’re wasting *our* money, and in the process possibly letting killers go.
But of course, the ramifications will be…… nothing.

Inappropriate said :

Proboscus said :

Freak out – B/S!!! I hope that 99.9% of the community would stop and try and give assistance whether that be rendering first aid, ringing an ambulance or jumping up and down screaming and yelling out “HELP – I’ve run over someone!!!”

Ever paniced before?

Panicking indicates beyond all reasonable doubt (or any actual evidence) that one is a vicious murderer. This line of reasoning is, apparently, known as ‘common sense’.

Proboscus said :

I agree that a trial by stupid assumption would be hideously inappropriate – but how about a trial by Common Sense?

Doesn’t The Lord / Darwin handle those types of cases – though the penalties are pretty harsh in comparison.

The DPP are in between a rock and a hard place – if they bring cases to court that fail due to inadequate evidence, they get accused of wasting. If they don’t prosecute cases because they think the evidence is inadequate, they get accused of doing the job of the court. After all, isn’t the role of the court to decided if the accused has a case to answer?

Proboscus said :

Freak out – B/S!!! I hope that 99.9% of the community would stop and try and give assistance whether that be rendering first aid, ringing an ambulance or jumping up and down screaming and yelling out “HELP – I’ve run over someone!!!”

Ever paniced before?

Proboscus said :

how about a trial by Common Sense?

“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”
– Albert Einstein

Aurelius said :

At some point, the prosecution officials are gunna have to start looking at the cases they bring to the court. By going to court with half-baked cases, whether they have merit or not, and losing, they’re simply wasting money.
And I am pretty sure I recall recent media reports of the DPP claiming they were under-resourced. Wasting time and dollars on cases they haven’t looked at critically is surely not helping their situation.

+1

Jim Jones said “Thank the gods that we don’t have a system of ‘trial by stupid assumptions’ in the ACT.”

I agree that a trial by stupid assumption would be hideously inappropriate – but how about a trial by Common Sense?

And Inappropriate said “And as for the guy fleeing after the incident: well who wouldn’t freak out after running over their GF?”

Freak out – B/S!!! I hope that 99.9% of the community would stop and try and give assistance whether that be rendering first aid, ringing an ambulance or jumping up and down screaming and yelling out “HELP – I’ve run over someone!!!”

I’m with the Judge on this one. She was wearing a dark tracksuit and lying down on the road in the middle of the night, on a street with poor lighting. It was an accident waiting to happen.

And as for the guy fleeing after the incident: well who wouldn’t freak out after running over their GF?

At some point, the prosecution officials are gunna have to start looking at the cases they bring to the court. By going to court with half-baked cases, whether they have merit or not, and losing, they’re simply wasting money.
And I am pretty sure I recall recent media reports of the DPP claiming they were under-resourced. Wasting time and dollars on cases they haven’t looked at critically is surely not helping their situation.

johnboy said :

They brought serious charges, once again they failed. They always fail.

“always”?

johnboy said :

Perhaps in this case it deserved to fail.

That seems to be the case. It’s hard to see anything terribly wrong with the decision as this incident seems to be due to carelessness and stupidity rather than anything criminal such as malice, substance abuse, drink driving, etc.

Sad for all, but from the sound of it the girl was an accident waiting to happen. She already had a near miss when a delivery truck almost ran her over, which she yelled at. She was wearing black tracksuit pants and top. And yet she lay down on the road again. She obviously didn’t deserve to die, but I don’t think you can put the blame solely on Mr Antoniazzo, no matter how stupid his subsequent actions might’ve been.

Proboscus said :

If it was an “accident” Mr Antoniazzo would’ve hung around and waited for Police to arrive.

Instead he led them on a merry chase where he was found hiding in bushland some hours after the “accident” making phone calls to friends to come and pick him up.

Would an innocent person have done this?

It’s entirely possible that an innocent person could have freaked out and acted stupidly after an event such as this.

Thank the gods that we don’t have a system of ‘trial by stupid assumptions’ in the ACT.

If it was an “accident” Mr Antoniazzo would’ve hung around and waited for Police to arrive.

Instead he led them on a merry chase where he was found hiding in bushland some hours after the “accident” making phone calls to friends to come and pick him up.

Would an innocent person have done this?

There are no winners in this one.

NickD said :

Why is this characterised as ‘another failed prosecution’? The manslaughter change was effectively withdrawn by the DPP (as they didn’t press it during the trial) and the Judge states in the judgement that while Mr Antoniazzo was careless (“that the accused’s lookout departed from the standard of care required of him”), this was not to such a degree that it qualified as culpable driving causing death. As such, rather than being a ‘failed prosecution’, it seems reasonable to believe that it’s the correct judgement. Mr Antoniazzo is going to have to live with having accidentally run over and killed his partner for the rest of his life…

They brought serious charges, once again they failed. They always fail. They are failed prosecutions. Perhaps in this case it deserved to fail.

Having read the judgment it seems large amounts of evidence were rejected. It would be nice to see the DPP presenting evidence which can be used.

Why is this characterised as ‘another failed prosecution’? The manslaughter change was effectively withdrawn by the DPP (as they didn’t press it during the trial) and the Judge states in the judgement that while Mr Antoniazzo was careless (“that the accused’s lookout departed from the standard of care required of him”), this was not to such a degree that it qualified as culpable driving causing death. As such, rather than being a ‘failed prosecution’, it seems reasonable to believe that it’s the correct judgement. Mr Antoniazzo is going to have to live with having accidentally run over and killed his partner for the rest of his life…

I am completely over these decisions – what we need is a Revolution!!!

My place for BBQ, beers and brief……

Disappointing outcome – yet again.
And is it a coincidence that both the freed men are called Wayne?