Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

We'll switch your business
to Led lighting for Free*

For Peta Credlin DUI is a $69 fine

By johnboy - 11 September 2013 9

Because so many of you are gagging to talk about it we note this ABC report on Tony Abbott’s Chief of Staff getting the sort of justice one needs to be a “pillar of the community” to expect:

Ms Credlin was charged with low-level drink-driving in May when ACT police caught her returning home from Mr Abbott’s budget reply speech.

Ms Credlin pleaded guilty to blowing 0.075 during a breath-test, but today avoided having a conviction recorded.

Ms Credlin’s lawyer argued for the charge to be dismissed due to her otherwise clean driving record and the punishment already received by having the matter play out in the media.

Her lawyer also told the court that incoming Attorney-General George Brandis, had written to the court describing Ms Credlin’s exemplary character and how she had a 21-year unblemished driving record.

Magistrate Maria Doogan noted that Ms Credlin pleaded guilty at the earliest possibility.

“I find the offence proven but I’m not recording a conviction,” Magistrate Doogan said.

Anyone who’s had much to do with the legal system will marvel that the Magistrates Court can process a case for $69 in costs (with Magistrate) compared to what our learned friends bill for blinking their eyes.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
9 Responses to
For Peta Credlin DUI is a $69 fine
Cameron 12:20 pm 11 Sep 13

Tooks said :

Gismondo said :

general question: If you pleaded guilty early and turned up under the same circumstances without a lawyer, would you get the same leniency?

Absolutely.

Not correct.

Credlin was the beneficiary of a little part of the Crimes Sentencing Act called Section 17. This allows the presiding magistrate to set aside a conviction, even if they find the charge proven.

When it comes to DUI, an application for Section 17 is made reasonably frequently, but granted only to drivers who are in the low range and who have had at least fifteen years driving experience with a clean record.

There are plenty of first time offenders who would have recorded lower readings than 0.075 and would not have been granted a Section 17 (even if they used Ben Aulich), either because they lack a clean record or they lack time behind the wheel.

Innovation 11:56 am 11 Sep 13

vet111 said :

I’m glad that this sentence was given to Peta Credlin. Not because I particularly like her, but because it shines some light on a very serious issue. Finally, some national attention to the absolute laughingstock otherwise known as the ACT justice system.

How is it that the penalty for DUI is less than for speeding 1-10km over the limit? Why did she not lose any points off her licence? Don’t get me wrong, first offence and all so I don’t think she should have gone to jail but really…. $69?

In Peta’s case, I’d like to see mandatory loss of licence (1 month for low range offences), the application of 3 demerit points and at least a $250 fine. That should be the absolute minimum in my view.

As long as we as society continue to treat drink driving as a joke and a minor offence, the more people will continue to adhere to that belief and behave in a manner consistent with such.

Agreed. $69 is a pathetic fine for anyone who commits that offence. It should be up near the maximum speeding penalties especially since it also wastes the time of the court. Also, it is ironic also that these people are probably uninsured while over the limit and yet they probably would be covered if speeding (any fine should at least reflect that they are probably driving uninsured).

Tooks 11:53 am 11 Sep 13

Gismondo said :

general question: If you pleaded guilty early and turned up under the same circumstances without a lawyer, would you get the same leniency?

Absolutely.

Gismondo 11:37 am 11 Sep 13

general question: If you pleaded guilty early and turned up under the same circumstances without a lawyer, would you get the same leniency?

vet111 11:12 am 11 Sep 13

I’m glad that this sentence was given to Peta Credlin. Not because I particularly like her, but because it shines some light on a very serious issue. Finally, some national attention to the absolute laughingstock otherwise known as the ACT justice system.

How is it that the penalty for DUI is less than for speeding 1-10km over the limit? Why did she not lose any points off her licence? Don’t get me wrong, first offence and all so I don’t think she should have gone to jail but really…. $69?

In Peta’s case, I’d like to see mandatory loss of licence (1 month for low range offences), the application of 3 demerit points and at least a $250 fine. That should be the absolute minimum in my view.

As long as we as society continue to treat drink driving as a joke and a minor offence, the more people will continue to adhere to that belief and behave in a manner consistent with such.

Deref 10:44 am 11 Sep 13

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Here_and_Now 10:20 am 11 Sep 13

Yep, you don’t need to be Peta Credlin to have this happen. Some people apparently need to read something into it, but it’s all a bit of a non-story. No need for us to get all tabloid about it.

Tooks 9:50 am 11 Sep 13

Diggety said :

The court finding/cost is not uncommon.

You beat me to it. Non-conviction orders are very common. I’ve seen them handed out for readings almost double that of Ms Credlin’s.

Diggety 9:35 am 11 Sep 13

The court finding/cost is not uncommon.

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