Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Got him!

By johnboy - 21 March 2011 15

A 24-year-old man will face the ACT Magistrate’s Court next month charged with negligent driving causing grievous bodily harm, cause public mischief and driver not stop/give assistance after the collision on Saturday morning (March 19).

The collision occurred about 5.06am on Horse Park Drive, Gungahlin, in which three people were conveyed to hospital. A silver BMW 3-Series sedan travelling north on Horse Park Drive collided with a black Holden Viva sedan travelling south.

The driver of the BMW fled the scene on foot with the BMW later being reported as stolen.

Police later identified the driver of the BMW and a search warrant was executed at his home about 3.20pm on Sunday (March 20), with evidentiary items being seized.

The man was arrested and taken to the ACT Regional Watch House where he was later bailed. He will face court on April 1.

The driver of the Holden vehicle remains in an unstable condition in hospital.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
15 Responses to
Got him!
Tooks 5:17 pm 25 Mar 11

dvaey said :

Ello Vera said :

Saw a car the other day with “Police” written on it. Will these be changed to “Policing”?

I think the bigger news was that you saw a police car, most probably at a PR event or a station?

Dvaey doesn’t see police cars = they don’t exist. Love that logic.

dvaey 11:23 am 22 Mar 11

Ello Vera said :

Saw a car the other day with “Police” written on it. Will these be changed to “Policing”?

I think the bigger news was that you saw a police car, most probably at a PR event or a station?

Erg0 9:52 am 22 Mar 11

Further to that, the CT report says that the driver was charged with “negligent driving, causing grievous bodily harm, causing public mischief and not stopping to give assistance”. Notice the lack of a charge related to stealing the car…

smeeagain 8:41 am 22 Mar 11

swissbignose said :

Ozi said :

However, they can’t put “Police executed a warrant and found his t-shirt covered in his own blood from when he pranged his car, busted his nose and ran home before reporting it stolen” as that tends to be a tad prejudicial.

I don’t believe the Police are saying that the driver of the BMW and the owner of the BMW are the same person.

That’s the way I read it.

Same as “Nil suspicious circumstances” when reporting a death = suicide

Deref 7:21 am 22 Mar 11

buzz819 said :

Deref said :

LSWCHP said :

Yeah, I just don’t get the weird usages in the police bulletins. “The man has then come out…” instead of “The man then came out…”, “Police have…” etc.

+1

“A male person was observed proceeding in an easterly direction…”

And who decided that the plural of “person” was “persons”?

Well it was decided along time before us that that was indeed the case.

There is some confusion regarding the two terms, especially because their meaning and usage suffered a mutation along the centuries. Both derive from Latin, but from different words.
Person derives from persona, which refers to an individual. People, on the other hand, derives from populum, and it refers to a group of persons sharing a culture or social environment.

Person is a singular form, and its plural is persons. Over the time, however, many writers started to adopt people as the plural form of person, and nowadays it is widely accepted. Notice that legal and very formal texts still use persons as the plural form.

So I guess that as Police still produce legal text you have your answer? Or am I missing something?

Interesting historically and etymologically, but do you say “I know those persons over there” or “there were a lot of persons at the party”?

buzz819 11:10 pm 21 Mar 11

Deref said :

LSWCHP said :

Yeah, I just don’t get the weird usages in the police bulletins. “The man has then come out…” instead of “The man then came out…”, “Police have…” etc.

+1

“A male person was observed proceeding in an easterly direction…”

And who decided that the plural of “person” was “persons”?

Well it was decided along time before us that that was indeed the case.

There is some confusion regarding the two terms, especially because their meaning and usage suffered a mutation along the centuries. Both derive from Latin, but from different words.
Person derives from persona, which refers to an individual. People, on the other hand, derives from populum, and it refers to a group of persons sharing a culture or social environment.

Person is a singular form, and its plural is persons. Over the time, however, many writers started to adopt people as the plural form of person, and nowadays it is widely accepted. Notice that legal and very formal texts still use persons as the plural form.

So I guess that as Police still produce legal text you have your answer? Or am I missing something?

swissbignose 10:56 pm 21 Mar 11

Ozi said :

However, they can’t put “Police executed a warrant and found his t-shirt covered in his own blood from when he pranged his car, busted his nose and ran home before reporting it stolen” as that tends to be a tad prejudicial.

I don’t believe the Police are saying that the driver of the BMW and the owner of the BMW are the same person.

Ozi 7:17 pm 21 Mar 11

Ello Vera said :

“Evidentiary items” eh. And here’s me thinking ACT police were trying to speak plainly. Maybe that move came a cropper.

Saw a car the other day with “Police” written on it. Will these be changed to “Policing”?

The wording is a bit daft, at times. However, they can’t put “Police executed a warrant and found his t-shirt covered in his own blood from when he pranged his car, busted his nose and ran home before reporting it stolen” as that tends to be a tad prejudicial. (I’m not familiar with the case, just speculating on what “evidentiary items” may mean in this case.) The whole innocent until proven guilty thing has to apply. Pesky justice system.

Deref 6:44 pm 21 Mar 11

LSWCHP said :

Yeah, I just don’t get the weird usages in the police bulletins. “The man has then come out…” instead of “The man then came out…”, “Police have…” etc.

+1

“A male person was observed proceeding in an easterly direction…”

And who decided that the plural of “person” was “persons”?

LSWCHP 6:19 pm 21 Mar 11

homeone said :

Ello Vera said :

“Evidentiary items” eh. And here’s me thinking ACT police were trying to speak plainly. Maybe that move came a cropper.

Saw a car the other day with “Police” written on it. Will these be changed to “Policing”?

Or may be “Policing have ..”

Yeah, I just don’t get the weird usages in the police bulletins. “The man has then come out…” instead of “The man then came out…”, “Police have…” etc.

homeone 6:01 pm 21 Mar 11

Ello Vera said :

“Evidentiary items” eh. And here’s me thinking ACT police were trying to speak plainly. Maybe that move came a cropper.

Saw a car the other day with “Police” written on it. Will these be changed to “Policing”?

Or may be “Policing have ..”

georgesgenitals 1:27 pm 21 Mar 11

I think the idea is to start with dry lettuce leaves, then when the defendent sooks in court about how peer pressure made them do it, and how they have ‘a problem’ (aka have to steal things to pay for a habit), and how daddy didn’t love them enough, the court catches these tears and soaks the lettuce leaves.

D2 1:09 pm 21 Mar 11

Holden Caulfield said :

Nice work by the Plods in catching him.

Now, lettuce leaves at the ready, preferably wet, for his punishment.

Nice work indeed!

But lettuce leaves? Pshaw. At least a $20 fine. Maybe $50. That buys several lettuces!

Ello Vera 1:03 pm 21 Mar 11

“Evidentiary items” eh. And here’s me thinking ACT police were trying to speak plainly. Maybe that move came a cropper.

Saw a car the other day with “Police” written on it. Will these be changed to “Policing”?

Holden Caulfield 12:13 pm 21 Mar 11

Nice work by the Plods in catching him.

Now, lettuce leaves at the ready, preferably wet, for his punishment.

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