Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Alfie Langer court ruling ! . . . what a farce !!

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Mickyb V9, Apr 12, 2010.

  1. Read it here !

    So he does not get a conviction even though he was 3 times over the alcohol limit and caught driving ! His defence lawyer was successful in claiming he career will be affected if he gets a conviction !!

    WHAT A JOKE !!

    I'll like to see the next (not in the media or prominant identity) person use the same defence to get out of a DUI conviction !!!

    So much for the QLD government sending the message across on the dangers of drink driving !!

  2. As always, it's not what you know, it's who you know.
  3. no, read the link I posted....
  4. You mean the one with the factless opinion you added afterwards? No I was refering to your first line not the edit.
  5. Hang on, his license got cancelled and he copped a relevant additional fine. The magistrate applied discretion regarding a conviction based on an argument. How is this a joke????

    The license cancellation and reason is on his permanent driving record. I don't get how you can argue that the safety message isn't being served???
  6. ..and he lost sponsorship too.

    Didn't exactly get let off I reckon.
  7. it's pretty common for not conviction to be recorded on a first offense, the army guys in Townsville get off a lot lighter, they normally lose their license for 6 months and only get a $300 fine.
  8. 3 x the legal limit and no conviction?

    Gotta say I disagree with the argument. If it's going to affect his future career prospects, he should take responsibility for that and not put himself in that position. Ditto losing the sponsorship. No-ones responsibility but his own.

    Doesn't send a great message IMO.
  9. I'll agree it doesn't send a great message or a deterrent, but I can see the counter of that in so much as the punishment should not be overly harsh in it's lasting effects either for a first time offense that maybe just a brain explosion never to be repeated.

    A conviction will seriously effect someones career opportunities and in some cases totally destroy career paths entirely, so you have to ask does removing say a lawyers or ADF personals livelihood forever after fit the crime? and does it only effect them? won't it also punish their dependents? what burden on society will this person then become?

    I think it is better to evaluate each case individually, but on a 2nd offense for DUI it should be an automatic mandatory 10 days stint in lock up, lose your license for 5 years, fine + conviction. It's these 2nd, and 3rd timers that kill people.
  10. Really with Inglis it's hard for the DPP to make a case against him if the women involved backs out as a witness, like they all seem to. I certainly wouldn't put Inglis / Bird in the same category as Langer.

    Least Inglis will be doing some kind of diversion framework for what it is worth.
  11. It's the comments from the magistrate when he compared this with what is handed out to other offenders that made me retch. That and the comment from his lawyer that this "wasn't a stock standard case."

    Aren't we all supposed to be equal under the eyes of the law?

    I'd love to see the stats where your average punter's been done for drink driving and escaped with no conviction and such a short period of licence loss.

    What don't these people understand about responsibility and consequences? It should never, ever, be brought up that a fine, conviction, jail term, whatever, could affect "future prospects". The consequences should do exactly that. That way, next time these people, hopefully, will think twice before making an arse of themselves.
  12. It really does depend on the crime and the individual, a magistrate does and should take into account the long standing effects of any sentence imposed to ensure the overall outcome of the punishment fits the crime. Very few crimes carry a mandatory sentence, take DUI for example.

    Lets say you set the sentence mandatory as 12 months suspension $1000 fine for a first time DUI. Then lets say we have 3 punters, Max a truck driver, John an accountant, and Tom a logan bogan.

    The effects of the mandatory sentence will effect each in different ways, some much harsher then others. Max for example will lose his job, which could lead to his car / house being reposed. John will just shrug his shoulders pay the fine and apply for a work license. Logan bogon Tom will drive unlicensed and pay off the fine on a sper payment plan.

    So who out of the 3 here suffered the most and was it really a fit punishment for his crime? Mandatory sentencing may sound like a good idea but really it's not as it will never effect people in the same way as people are vastly different.

    For DUI will generally find the more well off get a lower suspension period and a higher fine, and less well off get low fines with longer suspension periods.
  13. In the case of "Max", (and all of them) he would've been well aware of the consequencies of DUI. So, for him to take such an enormous risk, particularly if he has a family that depends on him is grossly irresponsible, apart from the offence itself.

    In the case of this Langer chap and any other public personality they should be fully aware of the consequences of breaking the law. If that affects personal sponsorship, job prospects or whatever, then so be it.

    If that is what happens to him, then that's unfortunate.

    Here in Victoria, at least, most traffic offences have mandatory penalties. If you challenge one in court the result can be worse as the court meters out higher penalties, and the magistrate has no option other than to comply with that.

    DUI, regardless of whoever it is, should carry a conviction as well as minimum fines and loss of licence.

    And how many of us know people who have offered the mitigating, "if I lose my licence it will severely affect my livelihood"? Or when a car is confiscated that doesn't belong to the offender (say, his father's car) and that car is used for work. The owner of the vehicle will suffer from its loss, as well as the costs to get the car back.

    There's no leeway there, whatsoever. ie. mandatory penalties.

    In some countries in Europe a speeding fine can vary based on your taxable income. Should we introduce such a system here? Of course, the megarich get rich because they're smart enough to high their income, so they may pay less than a fellow on the average wage.

    Whatever, the perception is such that Langer got off easy because he sooked that it could affect his future prospects. Same for that twit Worthington who's been charged with criminal damage. He's worried, supposedly that it will affect his future career as an actor as he claims that he is to have a part in a US film which is due to start filming soon.

    Again, he should've thought of that, if the idiot is capable of thought in the first place, before he acted like the feral that he is.