Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

Drunk, unlicensed and lying to police

By johnboy - 31 December 2011 19

A 59-year-old man from Berridale in NSW will face court this morning after he was arrested twice by police for traffic-related offences within 12 hours yesterday (Friday, December 30).

Around 8.10am, a Gungahlin Patrol stopped a white Holden Acclaim on the Federal Highway in Lyneham as it did not display a current registration label. Police spoke with the male driver, who provided a bankcard as the only form of identification.

Police checks on the vehicle revealed the man provided false identification to police, and found the man’s licence had been cancelled since 2007.

The man was arrested and charged with unlicensed driving, driving an unregistered vehicle and providing false name to police. He was bailed from the ACT Watch House, with the condition to not be in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle.

Around 7.50pm, police stopped the same man driving a maroon Subaru Liberty sedan on Gungahlin Drive. He was subjected to a roadside screening test which returned a positive result.

The man was taken back to Gungahlin Police Station, where he underwent a breath analysis which returned a result of 0.016. As an unlicensed driver, he is subject to a 0.00 limit.

The man was arrested and taken to the ACT Watch House, where he was charged with unlicensed driving and drink-driving. He will face the ACT Magistrates Court this morning (Saturday, December 31).

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
19 Responses to
Drunk, unlicensed and lying to police
Grail 10:20 pm 01 Jan 12

m_ratt said :

Am I the only one to fail to fully understand this? “As an unlicensed driver, he is subject to a 0.00 limit.”

While behind the wheel of a car, a person who should not be behind the wheel of a car should also have no alcohol in their system, else they’re a bad person?

The legal system is not about what makes sense, and it is not about what is right or wrong. The legal system is about what is within the bounds of the rules, and what is not. Due to the definition of drink driving, it used to be the case that one must be licensed to operate a vehicle before one can be charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of the conditions of their licence (i.e.: L & P drivers have a 0.0 limit, full licences have a 0.05 limit). The law wasn’t drafted with unlicensed drunk driving in mind.

Of course there are many laws that are drafted on the presumption that people will be abiding by the law. The moment you step over the bounds of one set of rules, you invariably end up in territory that isn’t covered by a swathe of other legislation, and as a result one case can end up causing a dozen pieces of legislation to be enacted in order to paper over the gap.

Tooks 8:03 pm 01 Jan 12

m_ratt said :

Am I the only one to fail to fully understand this? “As an unlicensed driver, he is subject to a 0.00 limit.”

While behind the wheel of a car, a person who should not be behind the wheel of a car should also have no alcohol in their system, else they’re a bad person?

Seems to me that the drink-driving charge creates pointless busy work, in which a conviction would achieve nothing more than the charges of driving unlicenced (which in themselves will de sweet fa, as the guy has demonstrated he’s more than happy to drive unlicensed).

I don’t quite understand the point of 0.00 BAC limits – I assume they’re supposed to encourage certain groups of people to not drink _at all_ before getting in a car. Is that because they’re not supposed to be trusted to judge if they’re below 0.05. If so, why – the rest of society isn’t trusted anyway (and rightly so). Below 0.05 is accepted to have nil-effect on driving skills and IMO should be the limit for all drivers. Just increase the punishment for >0.05 for all and be done with it.

Really? You don’t understand 0.00 limits? It’s pretty simple. If you don’t set a limit, then you can’t charge someone with drink driving.

p1 2:26 pm 01 Jan 12

Henry82 said :

Perhaps 2 weeks impound for the first offence, and then start crushing cars. If we’re willing to do it for “hooning” in most states, i don’t see why we can’t extend the offer to unlicensed drivers.

While I am usually against mandatory sentencing laws (some places in the world you can get life in gaol for your third offence, even if it is something we would consider very minor), in situations where we see repeat offenders (committing the same crime over and over), I am starting to think a mandatory sentencing system would be good.

I recommend that for the first couple of offences the punishment remains minor (I like to give most people the benefit of the doubt), but on the third consecutive DUI we should be talking car impounded plus time in the clink. People that get to 4 or 5 DUIs clearly could do with some time in the naughty corner (at the very least, they are too stupid to be driving).

TheDancingDjinn 12:22 pm 01 Jan 12

Henry82 said :

arescarti42 said :

It may also result in innocent people having their cars crushed.

It may also result in people learning not to just give their car away to anyone without at least sighting a drivers license.

Perhaps 2 weeks impound for the first offence, and then start crushing cars. If we’re willing to do it for “hooning” in most states, i don’t see why we can’t extend the offer to unlicensed drivers.

I know of a man who continually drinks and drives, he has almost killed 3 people with both his negligence and his road rage ( he rammed a woman in the next lane off the road becasue she was where he wanted to be) and his community award winneing mummy whom he lives with in Hawker, buys him a new car every time, and when he has no licence or no car she allowes him to drive hers – personally i think she should face as many charges as he does every time as she will not stop helping him try to kill people in this town. Charge anyone who lends their car to a drunk person

Henry82 12:03 pm 01 Jan 12

arescarti42 said :

It may also result in innocent people having their cars crushed.

It may also result in people learning not to just give their car away to anyone without at least sighting a drivers license.

Perhaps 2 weeks impound for the first offence, and then start crushing cars. If we’re willing to do it for “hooning” in most states, i don’t see why we can’t extend the offer to unlicensed drivers.

m_ratt 11:49 am 01 Jan 12

Am I the only one to fail to fully understand this? “As an unlicensed driver, he is subject to a 0.00 limit.”

While behind the wheel of a car, a person who should not be behind the wheel of a car should also have no alcohol in their system, else they’re a bad person?

Seems to me that the drink-driving charge creates pointless busy work, in which a conviction would achieve nothing more than the charges of driving unlicenced (which in themselves will de sweet fa, as the guy has demonstrated he’s more than happy to drive unlicensed).

I don’t quite understand the point of 0.00 BAC limits – I assume they’re supposed to encourage certain groups of people to not drink _at all_ before getting in a car. Is that because they’re not supposed to be trusted to judge if they’re below 0.05. If so, why – the rest of society isn’t trusted anyway (and rightly so). Below 0.05 is accepted to have nil-effect on driving skills and IMO should be the limit for all drivers. Just increase the punishment for >0.05 for all and be done with it.

bobdown 11:09 pm 31 Dec 11

If the fools who loaned him the Subie, after he had been arrested for Unlicenced, uninsured and unregistered. Then they deserve the same as him… Crush the cars!!!

caf 6:20 pm 31 Dec 11

Describing 0.016 as “drunk” is a little tabloid. That’s not even tipsy.

Deref 5:38 pm 31 Dec 11

Deckard said :

bikhet said :

I wonder if either of them was his.

The reason why crushing cars won’t work.

No. But I can think of other things that should be crushed.

arescarti42 3:48 pm 31 Dec 11

bikhet said :

Deckard said :

bikhet said :

I wonder if either of them was his.

The reason why crushing cars won’t work.

It may stop people lending cars to people who don’t have a license or who are, or are likely to become, impaired.

It may also result in innocent people having their cars crushed.

screaming banshee 3:47 pm 31 Dec 11

“who provided a bankcard as the only form of identification.”

Bankcards still exist? No wonder they looked further into.

On the car crushing, I’m all for it. If he didn’t own the car, it was either stolen and he gets charged with it, or the car was loaned and the owner should pay a price for aiding and abetting (sp?)

If you’re opposed to the crushing specifically then perhaps a police auction would be more to your liking, either that or send it to Top Gear boys (UK not that stupid aussie rubbish) to be….tested.

farnarkler 2:31 pm 31 Dec 11

I read the headline and instantly thought ‘which politician’s been caught’.

bikhet 2:10 pm 31 Dec 11

Deckard said :

bikhet said :

I wonder if either of them was his.

The reason why crushing cars won’t work.

It may stop people lending cars to people who don’t have a license or who are, or are likely to become, impaired.

Deckard 1:23 pm 31 Dec 11

bikhet said :

I wonder if either of them was his.

The reason why crushing cars won’t work.

bikhet 11:53 am 31 Dec 11

Well done that man! Two cars that should be crushed! I wonder if either of them was his.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site