Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Drink driving busts roll on

By johnboy 23 November 2011 37

ACT Policing apprehended four drink drivers this morning (Wednesday November 23) after returning positive blood alcohol readings on Commonwealth Avenue, Parkes.

Woden Patrol members conducted random breath testing between the hours of 12.15am and 2.30am, with 100 drivers tested.

The highest reading was from a provisional NSW driver, who returned a positive Alcohol Content (AC) reading of 0.118 and received an immediate suspension notice.

Another probationary driver who had been caught six weeks earlier returned an Alcohol Content (AC) reading of 0.112 and was also given an immediate suspension notice.

Two drivers on full licenses returned positive Alcohol Content (AC) readings of 0.056 and 0.099.

ACT Policing are continuing to target drink drivers this month and over the holiday period with a clear message to motorists to either drink or drive, not both.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
37 Responses to
Drink driving busts roll on
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Hanksinatra 10:33 am 28 Nov 11

After the Port Arthur massacre there was a tighting of gun laws and buyback. Rhys Wilkins is no more a usual and lawful user of cars than Martin Bryant was of guns.

carnardly 9:21 am 28 Nov 11

You know what – the bottom line is that the gentleman on the bike would still be alive had Rhys Wilkins not been driving that day. He had absolutely no right whatsoever to be behind the wheel of a car that day.

Jethro 10:06 am 27 Nov 11

Engine immobilisers paid for by the repeat offender on top of their fine.

The technology exists. I see no reason we shouldn’t use it.

jcitizen 12:30 am 27 Nov 11

Genie said :

Anyone know why the driver on a suspended licence in the first place ?

or why Refshauge lowered the sentence??

Genie 6:46 pm 25 Nov 11

Anyone know why the driver on a suspended licence in the first place ?

OpenYourMind 6:45 pm 25 Nov 11

shadow boxer said :

OpenYourMind said :

Said it before on such posts. Please give me one reason why, if someone has been convicted multiple times for drink driving then we don’t crush their car.

and we have answered it before, it is fundamentally inequitable, a rich person doesn’t care and will just keep a fleet of clunkers, the struggling mum who’s husband gets the family car crushed is a massive impact.

Too much collateral damage.

Shadow Boxer, collateral damage is a good reason to crush (or sell) the repeat drink driver’s car. Sure the struggling wife may suffer, but her being without a car is a cost I’m comfortable with if it means that my (or your) family doesn’t get taken out by her husband.

I don’t think your inequity argument is valid either. Wealthier people, generally, have more expensive cars. A BMW will crush the same as an old banger. The fine is probably fairly linear.

If they’ve borrowed a car, well I’d be pretty confident that someone that has multiple DUIs is a pisspot and if you know them well enough to lend them a car, you know that it would also be a bad idea.

The only exception is if the car is stolen. Then the car gets returned and the car thief gets strung up by the balls.

See, it’s quite simple.

devils_advocate 4:15 pm 25 Nov 11

KB1971 said :

Miss_Opinionated said :

“Drink driving busts roll on” – well of course this is the case and will continue to be the case until Canberra’s government finally has the bright idea to improve public transport by funding more buses, buses servicing more areas and buses running past 1130pm at least two nights a week. Yes yes yes this all costs money…. But couldn’t our rapidly increasing registration fees cover it? I get 3 mths rego at a time and every 3 mths I am faced with a higher registration fee than the last. So my extra cost every 3 mths plus the rest of Canberra driver’s with their increasing registration fees would cover the cost about 10 times more than needed. Also, if the government improved this area of public transport, then at least they will finally have a valid reason, or any reason at all, for Canberra’s heavily increasing vehicle registration.

How is someone drinking & then deciding to get behind a wheel the goverments fault?

It it too hard for someone to plan their evening; “Ohh, I am going to get pissed tonight, I might LEAVE THE CAR AT HOME & get a taxi or a mate to drive me” (provided they are sober). Its not rocket science & it is not a new concept.

Maybe you should “grow a brain”…………….

This is what we did when we were kids, had designated drivers. I worry that these new P-Plater laws that limit the number of passengers in the car will undermine the concept of designated drivers – I mean it kind of falls apart if you have 50 per cent of the group not drinking. Sure, a couple of times we may have had *one or two* more people in the car than we were meant to, but we knew what effect that had on the way the car handled and decellerated and in my view it was way safer than having drunk peoples behind the wheel.

carnardly 2:46 pm 25 Nov 11

Miss Opinionated – would you mind please responding to the last question asked of you.

Why was Rhys Wilkins driving a car the day he day he collided with a cyclist??? Just please give us an answer to that.

shadow boxer 8:07 am 25 Nov 11

OpenYourMind said :

Said it before on such posts. Please give me one reason why, if someone has been convicted multiple times for drink driving then we don’t crush their car.

and we have answered it before, it is fundamentally inequitable, a rich person doesn’t care and will just keep a fleet of clunkers, the struggling mum who’s husband gets the family car crushed is a massive impact.

Too much collateral damage.

steveu 7:07 am 25 Nov 11

OpenYourMind said :

Said it before on such posts. Please give me one reason why, if someone has been convicted multiple times for drink driving then we don’t crush their car.

I can only think of one reason – in that it would be better to auction off the cars and put the money in a trust fund managed by victims of crime association or some group like that, to benefit those whom have been victims of someone DUI.

I do like your thinking though.

OpenYourMind 10:33 pm 24 Nov 11

Said it before on such posts. Please give me one reason why, if someone has been convicted multiple times for drink driving then we don’t crush their car.

steveu 4:45 pm 24 Nov 11

There should be mandatory seizure of the vehicle for every DUI offence, for the duration of the suspension of licence. If it is not their vehicle, then the owner should make an application to the court to have it returned to them, on the condition it is not loaned to the person guilty of the offence.

carnardly 3:19 pm 24 Nov 11

If Rhys was obeying the conditions set upon him he would not have been driving and A family would not be devastated.

Nobody said Rhys was drink driving – however, he doesn’t have a very clean past though does he? Please Miss, tell us WHY he even got into the car that day???? Why does he seem to be above the law? What is his excuse there?

jcitizen 3:17 pm 24 Nov 11

Miss_Opinionated said :

Sue Refshaugi? Grow a brain! He didn’t make it as a Supreme Court judge by accident. He knows the ins and outs of all legal jurisdiction, has successfully handled a countless number of appeals, is well known and highly regarded and didn’t decide Rhys’ fate light-heartedly – mths of deliberation. As I said before, educate yourselves before submitting what u “speculate” to have happened, it’s just a waste of your time. Go shampoo your hair or something instead hay!

Instead of publishing half a blog, why dont you tell the whole story and not just your dependant view.
For example;
1. How did the former Director of the ACT DPP, which at the time he was director, was reported as having the lowest conviction rate in the country of any DPP, make it as a Supreme Court Judge ?
2. You forgot to mention the numerous unsuccessfull appeals and court cases that he ran with when he was the Director.
3. Why did he, in 2006, choose not to proceed with a particular appeal, in the Supreme Court, in which he was granted the opportunity to appeal, under certain conditions, in relation to a ruling that was made by a Supreme Court Judge, to set aside a Magistrates decision to proceed to trial on a matter that was ruled to have been pursued, by his office of the DPP, under his watch, unfairly and without proper procedure being followed. He argued that it was proper and lawfull to proceed to Trial in the Supreme Court with a “basher Inquiry” instead of a proper committal hearing ever being heard. The matter was ordered back to the Magistrates Court for a committal. He refused to proceed with this appeal, only after he was ordered to pay the defendants costs, weather he win or lose.He then allowed the time frame for his appeal to lapse and stated that, he did not agree that the Supreme Court had the Jurisdiction to make such a condition, in relation to costs, but did concede that to proceed with such an appeal would be negligent.
4. Who is he held with such high regards? (certainly not myself)

5. and finally what brand of shampoo do you suggest?

wooster 12:37 pm 24 Nov 11

Tooks said :

Miss_Opinionated said :

Apparently it was proved he was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing was it? Your telling the story, however were you even in the court room on Tuesday? No so shut up. If he was proved wrong why is he being let out in less than a week?! Again, uneducated opinions do not impress me. Comment on an issue you actually have knowledge about if you wish for it to be acknowledged.

He was convicted, was he not? The fact is he is a recidivist traffic offender who shouldn’t have been on the road. Why’s he being let out? Do you know nothing about the court system?

Oh, and how’s this: To make matters worse he was nabbed in the driver’s seat of a car twice more in the three months following Mr Keenan’s death.

Your friend/family member/partner or whatever he is, is an imbecile.

+1

Instead of Miss Opinionated, perhaps Miss Informed or Miss IngThePoint would have been a more apt nom de plume?

Tooks 11:38 am 24 Nov 11

Miss_Opinionated said :

Apparently it was proved he was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing was it? Your telling the story, however were you even in the court room on Tuesday? No so shut up. If he was proved wrong why is he being let out in less than a week?! Again, uneducated opinions do not impress me. Comment on an issue you actually have knowledge about if you wish for it to be acknowledged.

He was convicted, was he not? The fact is he is a recidivist traffic offender who shouldn’t have been on the road. Why’s he being let out? Do you know nothing about the court system?

Oh, and how’s this: To make matters worse he was nabbed in the driver’s seat of a car twice more in the three months following Mr Keenan’s death.

Your friend/family member/partner or whatever he is, is an imbecile.

KB1971 10:48 am 24 Nov 11

Miss_Opinionated said :

Apparently it was proved he was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing was it? Your telling the story, however were you even in the court room on Tuesday? No so shut up. If he was proved wrong why is he being let out in less than a week?! Again, uneducated opinions do not impress me. Comment on an issue you actually have knowledge about if you wish for it to be acknowledged.

So, the newpaper reported that he was convicted incorrectly?

I am only going on the facts presented in the newspaper article, while I do accept that there may be some discrepencies I find it hard to believe that the fact he was unlicenced at the time & there was enough evidence to be convicted later would be made up. Also that Mr Refshauge has not overturned his convition, just reduced his sentence. So are these facts incorrect?

I do realise I dont have all the facts in front of me, dont get me wrong. Please post up the links to the original court findings & the basis of appeal & I will have a read. I have no doubt that it will give me a clearer understanding of the case & how the law has been interpreted/twisted.

I still dont think it will change the facts above.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site