States get tough on hit-run penalties

It's a start....


From http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...1-1243,00.html

HIT-and-run drivers will face up to 10 years' jail for failing to stop
after an accident under changes to be introduced later this year by the
Victorian Government.
The move comes a day after the South Australian Government announced it
would increase its penalty for such offences to a maximum of 10 years'
jail after Adelaide lawyer Eugene McGee avoided jail for hitting and
killing a cyclist.

Acting Victorian Premier John Thwaites said the current maximum term of
two years' jail did not reflect the seriousness of the crime.

"To leave the scene of an accident when you know that someone has been
killed or injured is a pretty despicable act," he said.

"In a case where someone wilfully knows that someone's likely to be
injured then they drive off, potentially to avoid a punishment, then a
maximum of 10 years is a more appropriate penalty."

The five-fold increase in the maximum penalty meant there would be no
incentive for hit-run drivers to flee, he said.

Mr Thwaites said the Government would not set a minimum term because it
would remove judicial discretion.

The change to current legislation, which will go before Parliament later
this year, follows several recent high-profile hit-run cases and
community outcry over sentencing.

"There has been a lot of community concern expressed in recent weeks,"
he said.

"It's really highlighted this whole issue of the hit-run motorist."

Last week, the family of a hit-run victim said they were disappointed
with the 10-month minimum term handed to a 33-year-old man who fled
after killing their 20-year-old son.

The Director of Public Prosecutions is considering whether to appeal the
sentence.

Today, a 19-year-old Linton man was charged over an alleged hit-run
accident in south-western Victoria at the weekend, in which the victim's
parents were first to find their dying teenage son.

Andrew Knowles, 19, was hit by a car on the Glenelg Highway at Linton
about 12.45am (AEST) on Sunday while walking home from a local hotel.

Mr Thwaites acknowledged the comments made by families of hit-run
victims had influenced the Government's decision.

"Certainly you have to take into account the terrible tragedy that
people in this circumstance have faced.

"For any of us, you could only imagine how terrible it would be to lose
a son or a daughter and to know that the cause of that, the motorist,
has left the scene of the accident."

In SA, the offence of failing to render assistance will be removed from
the Road Traffic Act and inserted into the Criminal Law Consolidation
Act, which will increase the maximum penalty to up to 10 years' jail.

This will equal the maximum penalty for causing death or serious injury
by dangerous driving.

The new measures were rushed through cabinet yesterday in the wake of
the McGee verdict on Friday.

McGee was found not guilty of causing the death by dangerous driving of
Ian Humphrey on a road in the Barossa Valley in November 2003.

However the jury unanimously agreed he was guilty of the lesser charge
of driving without due care, which carries a maximum penalty of $1250.

McGee may yet face up to 12 months' jail for failing to stop at the
scene of an accident.

And they might go further (if we're lucky)


http://www.theage.com.au/news/Nation...854174714.html

Doyle wants tougher hit-run changes
By Rachel Kleinman and Mathew Murphy
April 19, 2005 - 1:14PM



The State Opposition says tougher new sentences for hit-run drivers do not
go far enough.

Opposition leader Robert Doyle said he welcomed the State Government's
announcement today that it would legislate for maximum penalties of 10
years.

However, he has told ABC radio that the maximum should be 20 years - the
same as the sentence for culpable driving.

Acting Premier John Thwaites said this morning that recent cases had
highlighted the inadequacy of the current maximum penalty of two years for
people who leave the scene of an accident and fail to provide help.

"To leave the scene of an accident when you know that someone's been killed
or injured is a pretty despicable act," Mr Thwaites told reporters.

"We believe it is appropriate to increase the penalty, the maximum penalty,
if someone intentionally leaves the scene of an accident."

Drivers who left an accident scene knowing someone was seriously injured or
dead would be targeted by the tougher sentences.

But it would not apply to people who left the scene without knowing someone
was hurt.

Mr Thwaites said the new legislation would go before State Parliament soon.

"The Parliament does set the maximum (sentence), and that sends a message to
the courts that this is very serious."

The latest Victorian hit-run victim is Andrew Knowles, 19, who died at
Linton, near Ballarat, at the weekend.

His parents found their son dying metres from their home.

A 19-year-old Linton man has been charged today.

The announcement follows controversy over the sentence handed down last
week to Phillip Josefski, 33.

Josefski received two years and three months' jail over the hit-run death of
university student James Donnelly. He and his parents plotted to evade
police, and he was not traced for more than a year.

A charge of culpable driving, which has a maximum 20-year jail term, was
dropped for lack of evidence.

And a former district cricketer who played several one-day matches for
Victoria in the 2001-02 season is expected to be charged over a fatal
hit-run.

David Plumpton, 28, is expected to be charged on summons over an accident in
January in Bundoora that killed cyclist Matthew Cole, 21.

Because Plumpton surrendered to police 12 hours after the accident, he
could not be tested for alcohol and drugs. Police can only test drivers up
to three hours after a crash.

Resound Wrote:
And they might go further (if we're lucky


http://tinyurl.com/dqe2

Doyle wants tougher hit-run change
By Rachel Kleinman and Mathew Murph
April 19, 2005 - 1:14P



The State Opposition says tougher new sentences for hit-run drivers d
no
go far enough

Opposition leader Robert Doyle said he welcomed the State Government'
announcement today that it would legislate for maximum penalties of 1
years

However, he has told ABC radio that the maximum should be 20 years
th
same as the sentence for culpable driving

Acting Premier John Thwaites said this morning that recent cases ha
highlighted the inadequacy of the current maximum penalty of two year
fo
people who leave the scene of an accident and fail to provide help

"To leave the scene of an accident when you know that someone's bee
kille
or injured is a pretty despicable act," Mr Thwaites told reporters

"We believe it is appropriate to increase the penalty, the maximu
penalty
if someone intentionally leaves the scene of an accident.

Drivers who left an accident scene knowing someone was seriousl
injured o
dead would be targeted by the tougher sentences

But it would not apply to people who left the scene without knowin
someon
was hurt

Mr Thwaites said the new legislation would go before State Parliamen
soon

"The Parliament does set the maximum (sentence), and that sends
message t
the courts that this is very serious.

The latest Victorian hit-run victim is Andrew Knowles, 19, who died a
Linton, near Ballarat, at the weekend

His parents found their son dying metres from their home

A 19-year-old Linton man has been charged today

The announcement follows controversy over the sentence handed down las
week to Phillip Josefski, 33

Josefski received two years and three months' jail over the hit-ru
death o
university student James Donnelly. He and his parents plotted to evad
police, and he was not traced for more than a year

A charge of culpable driving, which has a maximum 20-year jail term
wa
dropped for lack of evidence

And a former district cricketer who played several one-day matches fo
Victoria in the 2001-02 season is expected to be charged over a fata
hit-run

David Plumpton, 28, is expected to be charged on summons over a
accident i
January in Bundoora that killed cyclist Matthew Cole, 21

Because Plumpton surrendered to police 12 hours after the accident, h
could not be tested for alcohol and drugs. Police can only test driver
u
to three hours after a crash.

Yep, increase the penalties but do nothing about the fundamental issu
of the suitability of some people to be issued with licences in th
first place

The literature on sentencing and deterrent value does not unanimousl
support that contention that increased penalties act as a greate
deterrent.

But it is a vote getter

Steve

--
SteveA

Yep, increase the penalties but do nothing about the fundamental issue
of the suitability of some people to be issued with licences in the
first place.

The literature on sentencing and deterrent value does not unanimously
support that contention that increased penalties act as a greater
deterrent.

But it is a vote getter!

SteveA


--
SteveA


Granted, but it does at least avoid the situation where you are
significantly better off fleeing the scene of an accident, leaving your
victim to die by the roadside than you would be if you did the right thing
and took responsibility for your actions. The last few cases seemed to send
the message that if you hit someone, especially while drunk, your best
course of action is to **** off until you're sober because there aren't any
serious penalties associated with that, while there are with drink driving.

Yep, increase the penalties but do nothing about the fundamental issue
of the suitability of some people to be issued with licences in the
first place.

The literature on sentencing and deterrent value does not unanimously
support that contention that increased penalties act as a greater
deterrent.

But it is a vote getter!

SteveA


--
SteveA

Oops, forgot to add that I've actually thought privately for some time that
license testing should be raised in difficulty (and relevance) to the point
where not everyone can get a license. Drop out the worst 5-10% and the roads
would be a much more pleasant place to be. Unfortunately, our communities
are structured in such a way that someone without a driver's license is
effectively profoundly disabled. I'm not saying that that's a good reason to
let these people control up to 4.5 tonnes of steel, unsupervised, on public
roads, but it does mean that there's no way that sort of licensing regime is
going to be implemented. Heaven forfend that we should have a public
transport infrastructure that would allow people to live normally without
access to the use of a car. And as for being required to take responsibility
for one's actions or choosing a form of transport suitable to your
requirements rather than simply opting for the most outsized toddler crusher
you can afford...lunacy!

Resound Wrote:

Granted, but it does at least avoid the situation where you are
significantly better off fleeing the scene of an accident, leavin
your
victim to die by the roadside than you would be if you did the righ
thing
and took responsibility for your actions. The last few cases seemed t
send
the message that if you hit someone, especially while drunk, your best
course of action is to **** off until you're sober because there aren'
any
serious penalties associated with that, while there are with drin
driving.

that doesnt 'quite' work either (altho on the whole i think its a bi
step in the right direction...) cos if youre ****ed and hit someone
youre best bet is to still nick off.
Still think my 'posse' theory holds up

F"big-around-the-front-here"Dutc

--
flyingdutch

Resound Wrote:

Yep, increase the penalties but do nothing about the fundamenta
issu
of the suitability of some people to be issued with licences in th
first place

The literature on sentencing and deterrent value does not unanimousl
support that contention that increased penalties act as a greate
deterrent

But it is a vote getter

Steve


-
Steve


Granted, but it does at least avoid the situation where you ar
significantly better off fleeing the scene of an accident, leaving you
victim to die by the roadside than you would be if you did the righ
thin
and took responsibility for your actions. The last few cases seemed t
sen
the message that if you hit someone, especially while drunk, your bes
course of action is to **** off until you're sober because there aren'
an
serious penalties associated with that, while there are with drin
driving.
The penalty should match the crime and there should be horizonta
equity between penalties for crimes. Fundamental. Can't argue wit
that

But how do we get someone to stay at an accident to help because tha
is the proper decent thing to do, rather than because the penalty fo
buggering off is greater that the likely penalty for staying?
Penalties may work in some cases. Getting inappropriate people out o
the driver's seat is another way. Harder tests including tests o
suitability at the beginning and then retest every 5 years.

I'd also put traffic cops in shopping centre car parks. Suspend th
licences of everyone who shows by their inability to park that the
should not be trusted to drive a car at 50kmh, 60kmh, 80 kmh or 100kmh
Someone who does not know the dimensions of their own car at 5kp
should not be allowed out on the open road to pass pedestrians an
cyclists at 100kmh

And give out a bit of community service to match the crime. Don't sto
when you cause a fatal MVA or one with serious injury - get 20 nights i
a hospital ED working as an orderly so you can see what cars do t
fragile human bodies, followed by 20 days working as an orderly in
medical rehab facility

end of ran

Steve

--
SteveA

In article , "Resound" wrote:

And they might go further (if we're lucky)


http://www.theage.com.au/news/Nation...n-changes/2005
/04/19/1113854174714.html

Doyle wants tougher hit-run changes
By Rachel Kleinman and Mathew Murphy
April 19, 2005 - 1:14PM


The State Opposition says tougher new sentences for hit-run drivers do not
go far enough.

Opposition leader Robert Doyle said he welcomed the State Government's
announcement today that it would legislate for maximum penalties of 10
years.
...

What is the point of having harsher maximum jail terms if magistrates &
judges won't even apply the existing 1 year maximum (in SA)?
Eugene McGee got off with only a $3200 fine for his hit & run killing of
Ian Humphrey. Not a single day in jail.
Bitter & afraid.

--
K.A. Moylan
Ski Club http://www.cccsc.asn.au

K.A. Moylan wrote:

What is the point of having harsher maximum jail terms if magistrates &
judges won't even apply the existing 1 year maximum (in SA)?
Eugene McGee got off with only a $3200 fine for his hit & run killing of
Ian Humphrey. Not a single day in jail.
Bitter & afraid.

The judge has said that he could only apply the maximum penalty if there
was no other option. So if the maximum was higher he could have applied
a penalty that was less than the maximum but still much more than a slap
on the wrist.

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 at 09:12 GMT, Peter McCallum (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
K.A. Moylan wrote:

What is the point of having harsher maximum jail terms if magistrates &
judges won't even apply the existing 1 year maximum (in SA)?
Eugene McGee got off with only a $3200 fine for his hit & run killing of
Ian Humphrey. Not a single day in jail.
Bitter & afraid.

The judge has said that he could only apply the maximum penalty if there
was no other option. So if the maximum was higher he could have applied
a penalty that was less than the maximum but still much more than a slap
on the wrist.

It was still odd that he can serve his two license exclusions
concurrently. One would think the slap on the wrist could have been a
little more firm.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Yay! I have found the last bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bu%$@#$@#%$@# Error: Missing Carrier Signal