Watson bad boy catches the book – mate walks free

johnboy 26 March 2005 10

Murdoch’s News has the interesting story of some bad boys trying to run from the fuzz on big round bottom street (Bunda). The driver is in a spot of bother.

A 20-year-old Watson man was charged with driving with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood while on a provisional drivers license, dangerous driving, driving an unregistered vehicle, driving without third party insurance, and possession of a prohibited substance.

Most unfairly, his partner in crime has got away scot free from the passenger seat. We all know who was egging him on don’t we?

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
10 Responses to Watson bad boy catches the book – mate walks free
Jennifer Jennifer 2:51 pm 18 May 05

Has anyone noticed the very poor rate of convictions for trials brought in the ACT Supreme Court? Last year I think there were about 5 guilty verdicts and the first guilty verdict for a murder in a VERY long time – probably because the prosecutor was a hired gun from Sydney. Why are the conviction rates so low? Is anyone worried about this? Is it poorly prepared investigations and evidence collection or poor prosecuting? Is the DPP doing his job?

johnboy johnboy 9:36 am 28 Mar 05

Well while we’re being picky we should note that if you blow 0.05 on the nice policeman’s nice little machine you still need to go and have another blow at the nice Police Station’s nice big machine.

If you’re exactly 0.05 on the roadside you’re almost certain to blow under by the time they get you back to the station. (Unless you need a swig of the hard stuff to steady your nerves on the way)

It would still mess up your evening but at least not your whole life.

Spectra Spectra 9:16 am 28 Mar 05

Ah, the internet – home to pointless gramatical arguments 🙂 I still reckon he meant “proscribed”, but it really doesn’t matter. Interesting about blowing exactly 0.05 – I did indeed not know that. Though as a rule, I try not to put myself in situations where it’s an issue 🙂

vg vg 11:52 pm 27 Mar 05

Sorry, most post should say that the blood alcohol ‘is or exceeds the prescribed concentration. If it is a fully licenced driver, if you blow 0.05 you are still gone. You dont have to go over 0.05….which is a common misconception

vg vg 11:50 pm 27 Mar 05

The offence is reads is that is blood alcohol ‘is, or exceeds, the prescribed concentration’.

We all knew what they meant

Spectra Spectra 3:34 pm 27 Mar 05

I really hate to be picky – you are no doubt quite correct about the offence which, as you say, is “Exceed PCA”. The article, however, omits the word “exceed”, and says only that he was driving “…with a prescribed concentration…”. If it is only an offence to exceed the prescribed concentration, then surely driving only with the prescribed concentration is no offence at all. Whether they meant to say “proscribed concentration” or “amount exceeding the prescribed concentration”, what they actually said is still wrong.
I wasn’t suggesting that there was an alternative, correct form of wording using “prescribed”, I was just trying to take the path of least resistance to making it actually correct.
Okay, I’m stopping now.

vg vg 3:05 pm 27 Mar 05

Prescribed = To set down as a rule or guide; enjoin

The legal limit is set down as a rule or guide, being 0.05, or 0.02 under certain conditions. The quote is exactly correct. The offence is Exceed PCA (prescribed concentration of alcohol). If there was a problem with semantics I’m sure someone on the bench would have worked it out amongst the 000’s of PCA cases they hear every year

johnboy johnboy 8:42 am 27 Mar 05

maybe it’s just guilt by proxy on my part.

Special G Special G 7:33 am 27 Mar 05

Well he had one thing going for him – He actually had a licence.

Who cares if his mate was egging him on – no offence for that. His mate didn’t force him to drive like a dickhead whilst pissed.

Nice work the fuzz.


Spectra Spectra 6:01 pm 26 Mar 05

Unless doctors have taken to handing out grog for medicinal purposes, I suspect that would be ‘proscribed’. But it seems that a lack of knowledge of English is less of a handicap to being a journalist than it may have been in the past.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter


Search across the site