Path rage. (The Age article) 'Path rage' jogger offers victim$10,000

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...174310489.html

A jogger who seriously injured a pedestrian in a case of so called
footpath rage has been given a suspended sentence after paying
compensation to the victim.

Peter James Richardson, 53, was convicted of one count of grievous
bodily harm by a District Court jury in Brisbane.

Judge David Robin today wholly suspended a 12-month jail term, and
accepted an offer that Richardson pay $10,000 to his victim, Gerard Harding.

The jury, which deliberated for nine hours, also acquitted Richardson of
a further charge of common assault, which was an alleged punch.

Richardson, a graphic designer, set upon Mr Harding, who was walking
with a female friend along a footpath in the inner west Brisbane suburb
of St Lucia on January 13, last year.

They had a physical altercation and Mr Harding, 39, was on one knee on
the footpath when Richardson pushed him, sending him flying down a three
metre embankment, landing on a tennis court.

Mr Harding, who suffered serious spinal and lung injuries, testified
he'd had two previous run-ins with Richardson over who had right of way
on that footpath.

Defence barrister Frank Martin offered $10,000 compensation during
today's sentencing hearing.

"We're not asking to buy our way out, but offering it out of remorse,"
Mr Martin said.

Addressing the court, Richardson, whose offence was described by the
prosecution as a case of "footpath rage", said he never intended to hurt
anyone in the fracas, and he was unaware of the steep drop.

Judge Robin noted that because of their momentum it was incumbent on
runners to moderate their speed on footpaths.

He said Richardson had quickly left the scene, and if he had been in a
motor vehicle accident, this would have amounted to an offence.

Although the prosecution asked for an actual jail term of at least three
months, Judge Robin said this would cause serious disruption to
Richardson's life when he had no previous convictions, was a family man
and had previous good character.

Judge Robin ordered Richardson pay the $10,000 in instalments to Mr Harding.

On 2006-06-29, Friday (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...174310489.html
....
Defence barrister Frank Martin offered $10,000 compensation during
today's sentencing hearing.

"We're not asking to buy our way out, but offering it out of remorse,"
Mr Martin said.
....

He's just got out of a 1 year prison sentence, but he's not buying his
way out? MMMmkay.

That's why I need an income -- I need some money so I can go kill
someone in my way.

Although the prosecution asked for an actual jail term of at least three
months, Judge Robin said this would cause serious disruption to
Richardson's life when he had no previous convictions, was a family man
and had previous good character.

Of course. Don't you hate it when penalties disrupt your way of life?

Judge Robin ordered Richardson pay the $10,000 in instalments to Mr Harding.

$5 per week?

--
TimC
I admit that X is the second worst windowing system in the world,
but all the others I've used are tied for first. -- Paul Tomblin

TimC wrote:

$5 per week?

If that. the victim will probably spend more time and money trying to
get continual enforcement orders against him for payment.

Yep, we truely have one law for the rich and another for the poor.

lsome jogger on the stgeorges rd bike path may have got annoyed with me
alerting him l was approaching from behind at sunset last nite. l did
couple of pings from bell as l past,he was looking all round.Any way
when l pulled up at home he had followed me home and
turned around and jogged back.
he must have chased me for about 10 mins (l was unaware till l got
home)
he knows where l live and now lm worried he will chuck a brick or
something


--
Meeba

--
Frank

Drop DACKS to reply
"Terryc" wrote in message

....
TimC wrote:

$5 per week?

If that. the victim will probably spend more time and money trying to
get continual enforcement orders against him for payment.

Yep, we truely have one law for the rich and another for the poor.

I can't understand why there can't be a fund administered by the court. The
victim can be paid directly from the fund and the convicted person pays the
set amount back to the fund. Surely that's more fair than a few bucks a week
paid to the victim...

Frank