23 April 2010

Another failed prosecution - Wayne Antoniazzo walks free

| johnboy
Join the conversation
30

The ABC informs us that Justice Malcolm Gray has found Wayne Antoniazzo not guilty of culpable driving causing death.

Wayne had been accused of driving over his girlfriend in Gungahlin in the early hours of new years day 2008.

UPDATE: The Judgment is now available.

Join the conversation

30
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

CraigT said :

The present failure of the ACT courts and poorly-led DPP to do anything about criminals is truly astounding. A culture of over-promotion for inept mediocrities is coming home to roost.

From the granny-bashing ATM mugger who was allowed to escape a sentence on account of his promise to follow a rehabilitation course (a promise he had broken before) to the 17-year-old foreigner who bashed a Woollies Bottle-o staff member 99% to death and was given a suspended sentence by Dingwall who also expressed concern that the little vermin wouldn’t be deported, and to Mully, given bail over and over again only to continue his psychotic behaviour on the roads, which eventually killed another fellow-criminal who was brazenly breaking his bail and taking a car-load of stolen property to the Caravan park to his fence <– who is yet another criminal not in gaol and carrying on his criminal activities with little or no interference from the authorities.

But try and run a Hospital according to your moral principles and the entire Stanhope edifice of under-employed and under-achieving public-service bloat will come down on you. Although Stanhope failed on the Hospital, too.

You'd think they'd be doing something about the 3-year-old traffic jam at Glenloch created by Stanhope public servant criminal incompetence.

Could you possibly give me a name or link to these cases?
I’m doing a comparison essay on the law system in ACT on murder compared to other states in Australia, and these cases sound very helpful.

The present failure of the ACT courts and poorly-led DPP to do anything about criminals is truly astounding. A culture of over-promotion for inept mediocrities is coming home to roost.

From the granny-bashing ATM mugger who was allowed to escape a sentence on account of his promise to follow a rehabilitation course (a promise he had broken before) to the 17-year-old foreigner who bashed a Woollies Bottle-o staff member 99% to death and was given a suspended sentence by Dingwall who also expressed concern that the little vermin wouldn’t be deported, and to Mully, given bail over and over again only to continue his psychotic behaviour on the roads, which eventually killed another fellow-criminal who was brazenly breaking his bail and taking a car-load of stolen property to the Caravan park to his fence <– who is yet another criminal not in gaol and carrying on his criminal activities with little or no interference from the authorities.

But try and run a Hospital according to your moral principles and the entire Stanhope edifice of under-employed and under-achieving public-service bloat will come down on you. Although Stanhope failed on the Hospital, too.

You'd think they'd be doing something about the 3-year-old traffic jam at Glenloch created by Stanhope public servant criminal incompetence.

What about leaving the scene of an accident, I think he should have been charged for that, yes the courts do need looking into, it’s not the DPP or police, it must be frustrating for them to see someone get off scot free, after their hard work.

There is an interesting letter to the CT Editor today from the parents of Elisabeth Hillier. they support the DPP and the police, but think the ACT courts themselves need looking into.

Clown Killer7:35 am 24 Apr 10

I reckon one thing is certain. If the driver was found guilty, then we would be here arguing about the sentence of 30 hours community service doled out by the judge…

Such insight! You’ve been lurking here a while haven’t you?

Definitely an interesting case. Would the result still have been acquittal if tried before a jury?
By lying on the road in dark clothing, how much did she contribute to the accident? Fifty percent? 80 Percent?
Was the fact that the delivery vehicle “missed’ her good luck or good management?
I reckon one thing is certain. If the driver was found guilty, then we would be here arguing about the sentence of 30 hours community service doled out by the judge…

Woody Mann-Caruso6:19 pm 23 Apr 10

Sound rhetoric does not a reasoned point make.

Neither talking like Yoda does…it.

Aurelius said :

sepi, I wasn’t saying they shouldn’t have pursued him for whatever was appropriate. What I’m saying is that if they go into court under-prepared, they lose, and waste money in the process. Now, even if he turns around and says to a SMH journalist that he was guilty, they can’t do him for manslaughter because of their incompetent half-baked previous attempt.

Do you know anything about the case, or just read the media reports and possibly the judgement ??

Besides, not stopping after an accident and not render assistance is illegal. It is also piss poor form, regardless if you “panic”.

sepi, I wasn’t saying they shouldn’t have pursued him for whatever was appropriate. What I’m saying is that if they go into court under-prepared, they lose, and waste money in the process. Now, even if he turns around and says to a SMH journalist that he was guilty, they can’t do him for manslaughter because of their incompetent half-baked previous attempt.

Going manslaughter with a backup of Culpable driving seemed very optimistic, especially when they effectively withdrew the manslaughter charge. Surely they could have had the culpable driving as the top charge backed by a neg driving, which the judge’s comments appear to show was his assessment.

Inappropriate4:00 pm 23 Apr 10

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?

Inappropriate3:03 pm 23 Apr 10

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!!!”

Inappropriate1:58 pm 23 Apr 10

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?

Clown Killer11:30 am 23 Apr 10

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……

marcothepolopony11:07 am 23 Apr 10

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

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.