Never to drive again

ConanOfCooma said :

No, as it is a condtion of insurance that the driver must have a licence, unless you are from either VIC or QLD.

There will still be CTP insurance, covering personal injury (through the nominal defendant), but probably not property damage insurance. Of course, since property damage insurance is not compulsory, that risk exists for all drivers anyway.

Noezis said :

“With five DUI convictions since 1992 Chief Magistrate Burns expressed surprise Mark had not been sent to the pokie before.”

Why oh why am I not surprised. Chief Magistrate Burns, what have you been smoking in your pipe?

Given that Burns has been a magistrate for many years (over 10 I would think), I am pretty sure he knows this. He is one of the tougher magistrates, now as chief I suspect this could have been a shot across the bows of the weaker members of the bench.

dvaey said :

The cat did it said :

One interesting point though, if he drives another persons vehicle, which is registered and insured, is he (or someone he hits) covered by insurance, even though he’s banned from driving for life?

No, as it is a condtion of insurance that the driver must have a licence, unless you are from either VIC or QLD.

Don’t worry, cat, all those speed cameras will get ‘im…

The cat did it said :

How long before the AFP’s new rapid rego detection system picks him up one morning for driving an unregistered, uninsured vehicle while being unlicensed? Possibly over the blood alcohol limit as well.

The AFP system wont pick him up, because he’d have to be in his own vehicle. As soon as he drives another persons vehicle, theres no way the police can identify him as the driver using the RAPID system.

One interesting point though, if he drives another persons vehicle, which is registered and insured, is he (or someone he hits) covered by insurance, even though he’s banned from driving for life? Would that be a caveat way for the insurer to get out of paying any claims, the same as if he was under the influence of alcohol? This seems to completely defeat the purpose of removing someones licence, since it obviously wont stop him, but it will affect the public if theres a repeat of his previous accidents.

How long before the AFP’s new rapid rego detection system picks him up one morning for driving an unregistered, uninsured vehicle while being unlicensed? Possibly over the blood alcohol limit as well.

In the mean time, motorcyclists should continue to avoid Starke Street Holt.

“With five DUI convictions since 1992 Chief Magistrate Burns expressed surprise Mark had not been sent to the pokie before.”

Why oh why am I not surprised. Chief Magistrate Burns, what have you been smoking in your pipe? Canberra Magistrates don’t send repeat offenders to jail in Canberra, this would just not do.
Without the ever present danger of a drunk idiot on our roads to run over someone or hit a parked car what excitement would there be in Canberra, and pray tell that you would not have a busy work schedule anymore between your rounds of golf.

No no, release this danger onto Canberra’s unsuspecting population to ensure that you line up more work for yourself and your buddies when this idiot hits another person or crashes their car.
We wouldn’t want to fill our jail with scum now would we, that would mean too much work for the prison wardens.

Weekend detention, what a joke. Becasue he can’t drive someone else’s car and drink between Monday and Friday.

Chief Magistrate Burns expressed surprise Mark had not been sent to the pokie before.

No one else in Canberra expressed any surprise whatsoever.

screaming banshee said :

“an indefinite licence disqualification”

Yeah, that’ll stop him……

But at least now, he’ll be a special driver, so when he gets pulled over again, that .07 which was barely over the limit for a full-licenced driver, can now be ‘almost 5 times the allowed limit’. Oh, and it also means that he’ll never be given insurance or registration again, so we can look forward to knowing that when (not if) this guy drives again, he’ll be uninsured, unlicenced and with nothing to lose.

And 5 convictions in 18 years is a lot? How come those individuals we read about who are in their young 20s, getting charged multiple times in one night, or recording dozens of offences, are released, while this guy is sentenced? Im not saying either decision is right or wrong, but it would be nice to have some consistency.

“an indefinite licence disqualification”

Yeah, that’ll stop him……