No recorded conviction for John Hargreaves

In this case no conviction has been recorded.

But i can’t say I’m a fan of barring people with criminal records from public office, providing the electors are aware of the conviction when they choose to vote for them.

(don’t get me started about party bloc voting in the Senate)

Government programs are none of the judiciary’s business – it exists to interpret the law, and nothing else. A person’s ability to affect the delivery of programs shouldn’t be a relevant factor in the judiciary’s decision-making.

It’ll be interesting to read the court roster in the CT over the next few weeks and see how many other criminals driving around with twice the legal BAC get good behaviour bonds.

I am not confident that twice the legal limit is not a “small error”… We dropped our standard from .08 to .05 and I understand that he was caught at .11 something.
You have to ask the question – Why are there dual standards. We have rules to prevent people with a coviction from working in government for a reason.

Don’t We?

So because Mr. Hargraves gets pissed, my rates go up to pay for this new program? Is it now going to be that every time a Minister breaks the law, a new program will have to introduced into schools to educate kids not to do it?

I think that the judiciary ensuring that a Minister provides the scope and budgetary allowance for education after said minister made a small error in judgement is something to be commended, rather than call odd. Particluary considering that he will most likely have to do a few media moments for the new program which will open him up to a few cheap shots…