Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Forde man blows 0.3!

By johnboy 16 February 2012 27

About 10pm on Friday, February 10, police observed a silver Toyota Hilux driving on the incorrect side of the road on Terminal Circuit at the Canberra Airport.

The driver was stopped and underwent a roadside breath screening test which returned a positive result. He was taken to the City Police Station for a breath analysis where he recorded a reading of 0.298.

He was issued with an Immediate Suspension Notice and will be summonsed to attend the ACT Magistrates Court at a later date.

Two other men were caught in separate incidents over the weekend with more than 0.2 alcohol content. A 34-year-old man was apprehended on Saturday night (February 11) about 11.50pm on Drakeford Drive in Kambah with an alcohol content of 0.227. The other man, a 25-year-old, was caught on Saturday afternoon about 2pm in Crace with a reading of 0.213.

Police issued 10 Immediate Suspension Notices to drivers over the course of a week, from February 6 to 13 (suspending the driver’s licence to drive).

This week members from Belconnen Police Station have been conducting laser speed enforcement on Gungahlin Drive and Belconnen Way.

On Tuesday morning (February 14) six drivers were issued Traffic Infringement Notices (TINs) for speeding with one driver caught doing 114km/h in an 80 km/h zone on Belconnen Way, 34km/h over the speed limit. It was the second time within a month this driver, a Belconnen man, was detected speeding on this road.

Early this morning (Thursday, February 16) Belconnen patrol members conducted laser speed enforcement at the same locations. Another six drivers were caught speeding and were issued with TINs with the highest speed detected 103km/h in an 80km/h zone on Gungahlin Drive.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
27 Responses to
Forde man blows 0.3!
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
IrishPete 8:22 pm 17 Feb 12

effect, not affect. Grrrrr. Rant ends.

IP

buzz819 7:42 pm 17 Feb 12

Pork Hunt said :

Tooks said :

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

It’s actually the Intoxicated People (Care and Protection) Act. It’s a very short piece of legislation if you want to have a read of it yourself, but here’s the part about locking up intox people:

4 Detention of intoxicated people
(1) If a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person in a public place is intoxicated and is, because of that intoxication—
(a) behaving in a disorderly way; or
(b) behaving in a way likely to cause injury to himself, herself or another person, or damage to any property; or
(c) incapable of protecting himself or herself from physical harm;
the officer may take the person into custody and detain the person.

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

(3) A person detained under subsection (1) must be released—
(a) when the person ceases to be intoxicated; or
(b) at the end of 8 hours after the person is detained;
whichever is earlier.

(4) A police officer must not allow a person detained under subsection (1) to remain at a police station where the person was detained for longer than 12 hours after the person is first detained.

(5) This section does not prevent a police officer from releasing a person detained under subsection (1) if, in the police officer’s opinion, it is reasonable to release the person.

(6) For subsection (5), a police officer is taken to have acted reasonably if the officer releases a person detained under subsection (1) into the care of the manager of a licensed place.

So para 4 (1) (b) is not good enough to arrest a drunk driver?

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

If his wife wants to come and pick him up and look after him, theres an alternative, the Police can take him home if someone is there to care for him.

If there is any other reasonable alternative, they can not just lock him up.

KeenGolfer 7:23 pm 17 Feb 12

Pork Hunt, no. Drivers are taken into custody for breath analysis, not for protection. Once breath analysis is complete they are free to go. Note the legislation says “in a public place”. The police station is not a public place. That doesn’t mean they can’t be lodged for protection afterwards or it doesn’t happen, but IMO it is open to debate due to the wording of the legislation and as police also have a duty of care.

Pork Hunt 5:26 pm 17 Feb 12

Tooks said :

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

It’s actually the Intoxicated People (Care and Protection) Act. It’s a very short piece of legislation if you want to have a read of it yourself, but here’s the part about locking up intox people:

4 Detention of intoxicated people
(1) If a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person in a public place is intoxicated and is, because of that intoxication—
(a) behaving in a disorderly way; or
(b) behaving in a way likely to cause injury to himself, herself or another person, or damage to any property; or
(c) incapable of protecting himself or herself from physical harm;
the officer may take the person into custody and detain the person.

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

(3) A person detained under subsection (1) must be released—
(a) when the person ceases to be intoxicated; or
(b) at the end of 8 hours after the person is detained;
whichever is earlier.

(4) A police officer must not allow a person detained under subsection (1) to remain at a police station where the person was detained for longer than 12 hours after the person is first detained.

(5) This section does not prevent a police officer from releasing a person detained under subsection (1) if, in the police officer’s opinion, it is reasonable to release the person.

(6) For subsection (5), a police officer is taken to have acted reasonably if the officer releases a person detained under subsection (1) into the care of the manager of a licensed place.

So para 4 (1) (b) is not good enough to arrest a drunk driver?

harvyk1 4:52 pm 17 Feb 12

HenryBG said :

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

So, he didn’t kill anybody but he’s locked up, whereas you actively and publicly fantasise about killing people and you’re allowed to roam free.

If I had my way, the situation would be reversed: tolerating people like you in our society exposes us to the danger of a publicly-supported takeover by a ruthless and homocidal extremist authoritarian dictatorship.

I’m actually a little concerned you think I might have been serious there HenryBG… However at 0.3 he would have had little ability to actually control his car, or his speed, and thus there was a very high probability that had the cops not picked him up for drink driving he would have ended up wrapped around a tree.

Now I’m not overly sure how familiar you are with physics, but I’ll put it into nice simple terms. When a car hits a stationary object which is well connected to the ground, for example a tree, it has the affect of making the front part of the car stop suddenly. Now that in itself is not a problem, except there is a little thing call momentum \ inertia, which is basically things will keep doing what they where doing. So assuming this guy is driving at 100 km/h when the front of the car comes to a sudden stop, the back end of the car will still be doing 100 km/h (although deaccelerating quite quickly). This has an affect of squishing the car together, this is especially noticeable when it is not the front of the car which hits the immovable object, but say the roof.

Funny enough it’s this idea that parts of a car is moving, whilst other parts of the car is stationary is the basic principal behind a car compactor. Thus my reference to him still being in it was that the end result would be the same regardless of which method was chosen. Of course with method number 2 you don’t have innocent bystanders getting mixed up with all this unpleasantness, however method number 2 is also consider execution (and probably cruel and unusual punishment) and would thus be banned in most of the western world.

Tooks 7:28 am 17 Feb 12

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

It’s actually the Intoxicated People (Care and Protection) Act. It’s a very short piece of legislation if you want to have a read of it yourself, but here’s the part about locking up intox people:

4 Detention of intoxicated people
(1) If a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person in a public place is intoxicated and is, because of that intoxication—
(a) behaving in a disorderly way; or
(b) behaving in a way likely to cause injury to himself, herself or another person, or damage to any property; or
(c) incapable of protecting himself or herself from physical harm;
the officer may take the person into custody and detain the person.

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

(3) A person detained under subsection (1) must be released—
(a) when the person ceases to be intoxicated; or
(b) at the end of 8 hours after the person is detained;
whichever is earlier.

(4) A police officer must not allow a person detained under subsection (1) to remain at a police station where the person was detained for longer than 12 hours after the person is first detained.

(5) This section does not prevent a police officer from releasing a person detained under subsection (1) if, in the police officer’s opinion, it is reasonable to release the person.

(6) For subsection (5), a police officer is taken to have acted reasonably if the officer releases a person detained under subsection (1) into the care of the manager of a licensed place.

KeenGolfer 7:21 am 17 Feb 12

Pork Hunt said :

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

You can read it here:
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1994-85/default.asp

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site