13 May 2010

Dräger follies see alleged drink driver walked free

| johnboy
Join the conversation
33

From the Magistrate’s Court comes the intriguing tale of how Matthew Jon Windle hired a good lawyer to get off a drink driving charge.

It started with a red light run from Cooyong Street onto Northbourne in front of police. It followed a predictable path of slurred speech, reeking of alcohol, and some difficulty standing.

Then it all started to go wrong:

An analysis was subsequently carried out by Constable Dzido and the Drager Alcotest 7110 Mark V breath analysing instrument recorded that the defendant had a reading of 0.221 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. A Section 41 Certificate (Exhibit A) was tendered without objection save Mr Pappas had raised, quite properly, very early in the proceedings that the defendant contested two facts:
(a) the Drager Alcotest 7110 Mark V was not an approved instrument; and,
(b) that Constable Dzido was not an approved operator.

It seems that the “a” in Drager has an umlaut. Because we are L33t we can write it like this: “Dräger”

But whomever drafted the Notifiable Instrument N12004-134 and shoved it under Bill Wood’s nose for signing was not L33t at all, and left out the umlauts.

Magistrate Cush in the end decided that this was being silly buggers, and who needs umlauts anyway. But then another case reared it’s head.

Carlos Gonzalez had a go at chucking out N12004-134 on the basis that it only approved the Drager as a screening device and not an analysis device. Something which so alarmed the ACT Government they put out a new instrument the same day the oversight was raised.

The instrument also cited the wrong section of the Act from which it is derived.

Magistrate Cush decided these problems too were silly buggers.

But the matter of Constable Dzido not being approved as an operator a year and a half after he had completed the appropriate course was something the Magistrate could not overlook and so the repeat offending Matthew Windle with a reading of 0.221gm is still on our streets.

It’s a hell of a way to run a Territory.

Join the conversation

33
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Queen_of_the_Bun1:28 pm 14 Jan 14

carnardly said :

This gem has done it again – hit and run an old lollypop lady while he was texting.

Given his no prior convictions – cough… (albeit on a technicality) and his good character he got off fairly lightly i reckon.

6 months in the big house and no licence for a few years.

He should’ve been off the road well before this though.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/man-jailed-for-running-into-lollipop-lady-while-using-phone-20131202-2yljl.html

And now look what’s ahppened to the lollipop lady – poor woman.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lollipop-lady-witnessed-husband-die-in-oakleigh-crash-20140114-30rov.html

Who cares if the law is too poorly written to result in a convixtion in what is otherwise an open and shut case?
Far more importantly, we have homosexual marriage!!!!

Blen_Carmichael said :

Incidentally, don’t think there’s too much gnashing of teeth at the police station over the result. They’re probably shrugging their shoulders and saying “what goes around comes around.”

Yes, this oaf came around again..


Ms Parsons, 62, sustained a broken pelvis, broken ribs and tissue damage

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/man-jailed-for-running-into-lollipop-lady-while-using-phone-20131202-2yljl.html

I hope he gets royally reamed while in jail.

Blen_Carmichael6:10 pm 04 Dec 13

Fair dinkum, I’m the first to have a shot at defence lawyers for not playing by the rules, but this backlash is unwarranted. Yes, by all means nod the head if you did the crime and feel you that you must atone by pleading guilty – you will get points for doing so. But if you there’s a loophole in there and you want to give it a run, do so. It keeps the coppers on their toes, and that’s not a bad thing.

Incidentally, don’t think there’s too much gnashing of teeth at the police station over the result. They’re probably shrugging their shoulders and saying “what goes around comes around.”

Ben – I remember one who advertises his phone number as something like 1800-drinkdrive but have no idea who it is.

but why should someone try to get off? They did the crime, let em do the time – maybe just maybe next time they might think of us poor innocents before they get behind the wheel 3/4 pished…

The bad guys aren’t the lawyers or the bureaucrats (although they didn’t help); it’s the guy who committed the crime the first place, and then didn’t have the guts to stand up and say “I did wrong, I’ll accept the consequences”.

Wasn’t there a lawyer who used to boast about his getting a drunk driver off due to the missing umlat?

I hope he gets hit and run by a drunkard too.

This gem has done it again – hit and run an old lollypop lady while he was texting.

Given his no prior convictions – cough… (albeit on a technicality) and his good character he got off fairly lightly i reckon.

6 months in the big house and no licence for a few years.

He should’ve been off the road well before this though.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/man-jailed-for-running-into-lollipop-lady-while-using-phone-20131202-2yljl.html

Misseur Bernard8:42 pm 16 May 10

I agree with Misseur Radar, this fellow Pappas obviously has the talent to be appointed to the highest court in your land. In my home country of France he would go to the very top, and in the United States I’m sure he would make Supreme Court nominee – if it weren’t for his appalling haircuts

Pork Hunt said:

“I can’t wait for the howls of derision if and when Pappas is appointed an ACT Magistrate…”

I think Pappas is too good for that – surely he should be Chief Justice?

Thankfully, this ‘man’ was pulled over when he was. Who knows what might’ve happened if he kept going through the next red traffic light.

I only hope this grub learned a lesson – other than the fact expensive lawyers can get you off on a technicality.

The law should not be taking into account administrative errors in making judgements, there are too many cases thrown out for such stupid reasons.

It was sensible to throw out the spelling mistake argument, but if the law worked correctly, the court should not be taking into account a procedural error in filing a document, rather that the officer had been fully and properly trained in the use of the device, therefore making his use of the device proper. The only excuse that should be accepted is if the officer was not properly trained or if the system was misused.

WonderfulWorld10:19 pm 13 May 10

PH yeah I’m thinking the same or is that just too much TV. I also thought you could request blood test.
I’m not an optimist like GG so my natural thinking is this guy will offend again.

Some people need to go back to look at how legislation comes about. Here’s the short version on how everyone fits in.

Legislature (polititians) make the laws.
Police enforce laws.
Courts interpret the laws.
Defence solicitors poke holes in the laws.

It was well within Magistrate Cush’s powers, even though Dzido hadn’t been issued the certificate as such that he was still trained and had carried out the proceedure correctly, therefore accept the drager results as evidence Windle was drink driving. Obviously he ruled that it was too predjudicial therefore threw it out.

There’s a difference between ‘doing what you’re paid to do’ and consciously weasling around the intent of the law so that a very clearly guilty man goes free.

no it isn’t – and especially not when you’re mssr pappas…

…not that i disagree that it is in many ways a thing of revulsion. but as long as the law doesn’t work against those with no money (ie. is generally fair and provides for the protection of rights) then that some money might acquire some more favourable result is the nature of a capitalist society and we should be thankful we don’t live where they take us out and shoot us without a fair hearing (not that i’m looking at china or anything…)

Not being familiar with the way paralytic (.221 allegedly) driver are processed, I always thought that once screened on the roadside one was taken to the cop shop and had to blow in the “big machine” which was highly accurate and used to charge one with DD.

I can’t wait for the howls of derision if and when Pappas is appointed an ACT Magistrate…

Huh, Jack Pappas was the barrister, who would have thunk it . . .

(by which I mean to say, he is THE guy you want on your side)

georgesgenitals3:33 pm 13 May 10

It’s definitely poor form that someone who did something dangerous and illegal got off scott free, but at the same time the police should really have their house in order. The guy got off because the cop who tested him wasn’t approved/certified for the testing procedure, even though it looks like he did the course and knew what he was doing.

Look on the bright side – no one got hurt, the guy who got caught hopefully got a big scare, and the police got a wake up call to check their administration, so when something big happens they’ll be in order.

I should point out that I don’t agree that lawyers should twist the law the way they do, but hey, it’s a battle between two sides, and one of those sides writes the rulebook. And if you write the rulebook and still cannot win, clearly you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
And the lawyer is paid to do a job. If the law was written better, there’d be fewer loopholes.

But yes, Aurelius is right: this is the way the system works.

Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t revolt me from time to time.

astrojax said :

Jim Jones said :

If there’s a lawyer managing to exploit simple mistakes in basic legislation in order to get drunk-drivers off without penalty, then it’s pretty clear who lowlife is.

&
That said, I still consider anyone who would weasel around the words of the law in order to circumvent their intent to be a bit of a lowlife. I’d add the defendant too – if you were clearly guilty of drink driving, using money to get you out of it is a dog act.</I.

so, mention 'lawyer' and instantly there's ya bad guy? next time the law works for you, have a rethink… have you never benefitted from someone else’s mistake? your favourite footy team never scored because a ref ‘missed’ an infringement?

damn, now i read aurelius’ comment… snap.

like aurelius said, just doing what they’re paid to do – do you not try to do your best for those that pay you?

There’s a difference between ‘doing what you’re paid to do’ and consciously weasling around the intent of the law so that a very clearly guilty man goes free.

A drink driver (well and truly over the limit) getting off on a stupid technicality is a mite different to a bad decision by a referee or benefiting from someone else’s mistake.

This sort of thing also has the effect of disproportionally benefiting those with money: if you can afford a good lawyer, you have a much better chance of walking (regardless of whether you did it or not). Why should the legal system favour the wealthy?

Almost everyone on this forum bitches when ‘lowlife druggy scum [ad nauseum]’ don’t get severe sentences, but for some reason there is no reaction when a wealthy person goes free because they had the money to buy their way out of it.

Jim Jones said :

If there’s a lawyer managing to exploit simple mistakes in basic legislation in order to get drunk-drivers off without penalty, then it’s pretty clear who lowlife is.

&
That said, I still consider anyone who would weasel around the words of the law in order to circumvent their intent to be a bit of a lowlife. I’d add the defendant too – if you were clearly guilty of drink driving, using money to get you out of it is a dog act.</I.

so, mention 'lawyer' and instantly there's ya bad guy? next time the law works for you, have a rethink… have you never benefitted from someone else’s mistake? your favourite footy team never scored because a ref ‘missed’ an infringement?

damn, now i read aurelius’ comment… snap.

like aurelius said, just doing what they’re paid to do – do you not try to do your best for those that pay you?

Aurelius – you’re right of course.

That said, I still consider anyone who would weasel around the words of the law in order to circumvent their intent to be a bit of a lowlife. I’d add the defendant too – if you were clearly guilty of drink driving, using money to get you out of it is a dog act.

Jim Jones said :

If there’s a lawyer managing to exploit simple mistakes in basic legislation in order to get drunk-drivers off without penalty, then it’s pretty clear who lowlife is.

You mean “doing what he’s paid to do”?

Look, one side in a legal stoush like this is the state – the bureaucracy, police, legislature. They have an enormous amount of clout by virtue of being the state. They make the rules, and enforce them. As such, they naturally have a significant advantage.
Against this, you have a defendant and his lawyer. The lawyer’s job is to work within the rules laid down by the state to ensure that if the state gets a conviction, it is all legit, above-board and watertight.
One side succeeded, the other failed.
But the one that failed is the same one that wrote the rules.
Which the defendant and his lawyer were playing within.

If the rules are broken, fix them. Don’t whine about those who use the rules as they exist for their own best benefit. Coz they didn’t write them. We all use rules in life to our best benefit. And when the rules change, we all adapt.
It’s hardly the defendant’s fault for doing the best he can to get off.
Or the lawyer’s for serving his client’s interests.
There were mistakes in the case, and by taking it to court with not one but multiple errors, the prosecuting officials were clearly negligent. With our tax money.

Beserk Keyboard Warrior1:17 pm 13 May 10

Mr. Windle – a man, a human in flesh, but not by law,
I feed you dignity to stand with pride,
Realize that all in all you stand tall,
Go ahead, Mr. Windle.

Mr. Windle, yeah
Yeah, Mr. Windle
Mr. Windle, yeah
Lord

Clown Killer1:08 pm 13 May 10

So an otherwise easy conviction slips through the net because of incompetent and lazy bureaucrats and dumb-arse police who couldn’t be bothered following it up. Nice work dick heads.

troll-sniffer said :

Naturally, apologies to this Matthew Windle if he’s not the one who saw fit to squirm his duties as a citizen by using slimy tactics in the courts.

So, whether this is the same person or not, you’re not going to find out before you slew your allegations around? All class!
As for slimy tactics, the defendent and his lawyer did not write the procedures and rules of evidence. But those who did (the police and government) did not follow them. If anyone’s to blame for the failure of the prosecution to obtain a conviction, it’s those who failed to follow the procedures.

johnboy said :

Henry IV I think you’ll find JJ. Not sure this lot is the lawyers fault though. Lazy bureaucrats seem to be largely at fault for mine.

My bad on the reference. I also get the Police Academy movies mixed up.

Not sure how you’d ping this on ‘lazy bureaucrats’.

If there’s a lawyer managing to exploit simple mistakes in basic legislation in order to get drunk-drivers off without penalty, then it’s pretty clear who lowlife is.

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
Shakespeare, Henry VI

Henry IV I think you’ll find JJ. Not sure this lot is the lawyers fault though. Lazy bureaucrats seem to be largely at fault for mine.

troll-sniffer11:44 am 13 May 10

Makes you wonder if this stellar example of a model citizen is this one found via Google search:

Private Investors’ Time to Shine 20/03/2009

For the first time in five years, a positive spread in yields is starting to stir excitement by private investors and many owners are prepared to meet the new market pricing levels, according to XXXX.

The launch of XXXX’s second edition of Private Investor magazine this week is proving the case as enquiries begin to flood XXXX’s 28 offices across Australia…

…Mr XXXX, Investment Sales Director at XXXX – Canberra, will be presenting at the Canberra Private Investor Seminar on March 24. Guest speaking at the Canberra event will be XXXX, Regional Manager of Corporate Business Banking at XXXX, and Matthew Windle, Treasury Specialist.

Naturally, apologies to this Matthew Windle if he’s not the one who saw fit to squirm his duties as a citizen by using slimy tactics in the courts.

Captain RAAF11:31 am 13 May 10

Yeah, well thats just great…not! Someone forgot to sign off Const Dzido or he may himself be responsible for not ‘reading and signing as understood’ the relevant document, very ordinary because how many other drivers has Const Dzido apprehended for DUI that will now appeal?

One thing is certain, Matthew Windle won’t be able to break wind in his driveway without Traffic branch, the Police helicopter and maybe even the water police knowing about it!

Sad thing is, who will Windle kill before the process is gotten right?

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.