First experience .. Vic law regarding passing emergency vehicle

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by ozpacman

Mate why on earth would you bother make a comment as stupid and inappropriate as that?

It doesn't take long for the police haters to show their true colours. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for not only this comment, but some of your others on this thread as well.

The one about letting him go with a reduced fine was just as ridiculous. So let's just say the officers do as you suggest, and this time next week this idiot runs into your family's car on the freeway with tragic consequences. You'd be the one shouting from the rooftops that the police didn't do their job and let this bloke off.

As for the time of day the incident occurred, I'm sorry but offenders don't usually ask the police what time would be most suitable to drive like an idiot.

Unless you've served in the suit of blue mate I'd suggest you're probably the last person who should be criticising police officers who were following lawful procedures and have now paid the ultimate price.

Perhaps a bit of respect and common decency is in order.

we can split dicks as much as you want

a truck splashed peeps

a truck

a truck

[M&Ms]

Originally Posted by ozpacman

Mate why on earth would you bother make a comment as stupid and inappropriate as that?

It doesn't take long for the police haters to show their true colours. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for not only this comment, but some of your others on this thread as well.

The one about letting him go with a reduced fine was just as ridiculous. So let's just say the officers do as you suggest, and this time next week this idiot runs into your family's car on the freeway with tragic consequences. You'd be the one shouting from the rooftops that the police didn't do their job and let this bloke off.

As for the time of day the incident occurred, I'm sorry but offenders don't usually ask the police what time would be most suitable to drive like an idiot.

Unless you've served in the suit of blue mate I'd suggest you're probably the last person who should be criticising police officers who were following lawful procedures and have now paid the ultimate price.

Perhaps a bit of respect and common decency is in order.

Was a quote, not a comment.

Facts hurt some people

[Franco Cozzo]

'Richard Pusey' - I'm sure that went down well at high school

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

'Richard Pusey' - I'm sure that went down well at high school

You think he had it bad, what about his poor sister, Lucie.

[marty351]

Well, Dick Pound isn't a psychopath. I think.

[MITCHAY]

What a horror accident. Pulling people over is a routine duty but it only takes one time for it to be your last. A bit later or sooner or a bit further up or down and none of this happens.

The driver who did the runner sounds like a **** based on what has been reported. The fact he did the runner in the first place makes him one regardless of anything else really.

[Ben73]

What do you know another scumbag out on bail causing havoc. I wonder how many people will be let out on bail tomorrow?
I know he isn’t t directly responsible for the crash but he is clearly a moron and shouldn’t have been on bail.

Don’t get started on 40 speed limits on highways. In the perfect world they work fine. Unfortunately busy city motorways have lots of less than perfect situations.
Why do you think roadworks have warning signs well before any speed restrictions start. Rounding a corner to see surprise roadworks wouldn’t end well occasionally.

[MITCHAY]

I think the 40km/h is fine in theory but in reality it depends on who is driving which can be said generally.

Some people focus on directly what is right infront of them and much less are more aware of what is going on down the road.

Though I have to say being in a fairly small car in traffic it can be quite hard to see ahead a lot of the time even with gaps.

If I see disco lights ahead I gradually slow down from a while away and have gotten the horn and lights from the car behind and I have been in situations where I can't see and next thing you know brakes being slammed on left right and centre. Not really a common occurrence here though.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I think the 40km/h is fine in theory but in reality it depends on who is driving which can be said generally.

Some people focus on directly what is right infront of them and much less are more aware of what is going on down the road.

Though I have to say being in a fairly small car in traffic it can be quite hard to see ahead a lot of the time even with gaps.

If I see disco lights ahead I gradually slow down from a while away and have gotten the horn and lights from the car behind and I have been in situations where I can't see and next thing you know brakes being slammed on left right and centre. Not really a common occurrence here though.

it is a law that is absolutely logical, however unlike most road laws we don't get to put it into practice very often, so we are not well rehearsed and when the red & blues are seen sometimes the connection between what we see and what have to do is wide apart - it is unfortunate but a reality

I really have to make a conscious effort when I see the red & blues, if on a freeway I am spending as much time looking in the mirrors as in front of me for obvious reasons

[MITCHAY]

They have thrown the book at him with a lot of charges.

If he doesn't end up in prison it would just be a technicality.

[russellw]

The range of charges Mr Pusey is facing are worth considering:

Reckless conduct endangering life
Speeding
Failing to remain after a drug test
Failing to render assistance
Failing to exchange details
Possessing a drug of dependence
Destruction of evidence
Three counts of committing an indictable offence while on bail

The first is obviously the serious one but it contains some of the evidentiary elements mentioned earlier in as much as the prosecution must prove all of the elements below:

The alleged offender engaged in the conduct;
That conduct placed a person in danger (i.e conduct that carried with it an appreciable risk) of death;
The alleged offender engaged in that conduct voluntarily;
A reasonable person in the alleged offenders position, engaging in the same conduct in which the alleged offender engaged in and in the same circumstances, would have realised that they had placed another in danger of death; and,
The alleged offender engaged in that conduct recklessly in so far as they could have foreseen that placing another person in danger of death was a probable consequence of their actions in all the circumstances.

It carries a Level 5 penalty (10 years maximum).

'Failing to render assistance' and the related 'Failing to exchange details' both carry a 5 penalty unit / 14 days jail maximum penalty.

'Possession of a drug of dependence' carries a 40 penalty unit / 5 years jail maximum penalty.

The reasonable new 'committing an indictable offence while on bail' carries a 30 penalty unit / 3 months jail maximum.

'Destruction of evidence' carries a Level 6 penalty (5 year maximum).

[AlanD]

But we do not yet know what "might" have happened to the truck driver since it was last reported he was still in the care of medical staff and an interview is some hours away.

That said, I suspect if Mr Pusey is tried before a jury, presuming it gets that far, the presiding Judge/Magistrate will have a bit of trouble finding 12 unbiased members of the public to form the panel.

Freedoms always have boundaries in an ordered society. For example, freedom of speech does not extend to shouting "fire" in a crowded auditorium when no fire exists. Freedom, when driving on the public roads, does not entitle the driver to deliberately disobey speed limits, drive whilst intoxicated or be under the influence of prescribed substances when in control of a vehicle.

But we see it every day. And human nature, together with a preoccupation of self is going to make sure it continues.

Cheers

[MITCHAY]

I don't think anyone would ordinarily blame this bloke for the tragedy that has happened but he ****ed off from the scene and (took graphic photos too) regardless of anything thing else he is a **** **** of the highest order. Lock him up.

[jpd80]

I’m surprised that there was no truck with the giant buffer on the back,
motorways in Queensland usually send out that truck to protect people
who have broken down or requested by emergency services.

I think the real fail here was the time and position of the incident,
those vehicles being there for so long without adequate protection
is asking for trouble

[Fed]

I think the cops involved should shoulder some of this, you see it every day, people wandering around totally oblivious to their surroundings.

When I see a green light I don't take off without first looking or blatantly charge across a pedestrian crossing without looking.

Reminds me of a time I broke down on the freeway & I was trapped against a sheer rock wall, I left my lights & flashers going & promptly left the car, moved a couple of 100 Meters downstream so if some idiot slammed into the back of the car I would be safe.

[russellw]

I was a little surprised at a couple of the charges, namely the fail to render assistance & failure to exchange names and addresses as my understanding is that one of the things the prosecution must prove is that the offender was actually driving.

Likewise the failing to render assistance as the Act specifically states that an offender must be a driver involved in the accident and in this case that's drawing a really long bow.

You possibly could (and the prosecution will no doubt) argue that because the Porsche was involved in the accident; even though it was stationary and he presumably wasn't in it at the time; extend the definition of 'driving' to include the fact that he drove it to the place where the incident occurred.

I'm not wanting him to get anything less than he deserves but we also need to be mindful that case precedents once set become enshrined until successfully challenged in a higher court and have a wider ranging impact that might be initially obvious.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by russellw

I was a little surprised at a couple of the charges, namely the fail to render assistance & failure to exchange names and addresses as my understanding is that one of the things the prosecution must prove is that the offender was actually driving.

Likewise the failing to render assistance as the Act specifically states that an offender must be a driver involved in the accident and in this case that's drawing a really long bow.

You possibly could (and the prosecution will no doubt) argue that because the Porsche was involved in the accident; even though it was stationary and he presumably wasn't in it at the time; extend the definition of 'driving' to include the fact that he drove it to the place where the incident occurred.

I'm not wanting him to get anything less than he deserves but we also need to be mindful that case precedents once set become enshrined until successfully challenged in a higher court and have a wider ranging impact that might be initially obvious.

Could the body camera footage from the deceased officers show that Richard Pusey was sitting in the drivers seat, hence the existence of evidence that he was, in fact, the driver of the vehicle?

[M&Ms]

Originally Posted by FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0

Could the body camera footage from the deceased officers show that Richard Pusey was sitting in the drivers seat, hence the existence of evidence that he was, in fact, the driver of the vehicle?

How can you be driving a parked vehicle?

[russellw]

Originally Posted by FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0

Could the body camera footage from the deceased officers show that Richard Pusey was sitting in the drivers seat, hence the existence of evidence that he was, in fact, the driver of the vehicle?

In Victoria, the original definition of driving was that a driver was someone in control of the propulsion of a motor vehicle but this later was extended to include someone who had control of the vehicle - that is to say, the person who is controlling the propulsion or the steering or the brakes of the vehicle. (Worth noting that this includes being flat towed or pushed).

Sitting in the driver seat of a car does not ipso facto mean that you are driving a vehicle, indeed in most instances a parked vehicle without the engine running is not being driven in the legal sense of the term however there are other vagaries in the Act where sitting in a driver seat with an intent to drive (Drink Driving) or parked with the engine running (Mobile phones) can be an offense.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by russellw

In Victoria, the original definition of driving was that a driver was someone in control of the propulsion of a motor vehicle but this later was extended to include someone who had control of the vehicle - that is to say, the person who is controlling the propulsion or the steering or the brakes of the vehicle. (Worth noting that this includes being flat towed or pushed).

Sitting in the driver seat of a car does not ipso facto mean that you are driving a vehicle, indeed in most instances a parked vehicle without the engine running is not being driven in the legal sense of the term however there are other vagaries in the Act where sitting in a driver seat with an intent to drive (Drink Driving) or parked with the engine running (Mobile phones) can be an offense.

Ok, so going back to your original post, the bold bit in the quote:

Originally Posted by russellw

I was a little surprised at a couple of the charges, namely the fail to render assistance & failure to exchange names and addresses as my understanding is that one of the things the prosecution must prove is that the offender was actually driving..

Is the onus on the prosecution to prove absolutely, or prove beyond reasonable doubt? I'm not sure on police standard operating procedures and when they are required to turn on their body cameras, but assuming that they turned the cameras on before they approached Mr Pusey's car, if the footage showed no one else nearby the car, and Mr Puseyas the sole occupant of the vehicle and Mr Pusey occupying the driver's seat as they approach the car, could the prosecution put it to the jury that Mr Pusey was the driver beyond reasonable doubt?

PS Perhaps we need asagaai's input on this one; he's a lawyer.

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0

Ok, so going back to your original post, the bold bit in the quote:



Is the onus on the prosecution to prove absolutely, or prove beyond reasonable doubt? I'm not sure on police standard operating procedures and when they are required to turn on their body cameras, but assuming that they turned the cameras on before they approached Mr Pusey's car, if the footage showed no one else nearby the car, and Mr Puseyas the sole occupant of the vehicle and Mr Pusey occupying the driver's seat as they approach the car, could the prosecution put it to the jury that Mr Pusey was the driver beyond reasonable doubt?

PS Perhaps we need asagaai's input on this one; he's a lawyer.

Oh FFS... It’s obvious the scumbag was driving it.. ok!
Deserves being feckin bowling balled...

[ford71V8]

Its a terrible outcome for the families.


What stands out for me is here we are again with another disaster caused by someone who is living with a suspended jail sentence, numerous offences, on drugs, upco
ming court date for theft and damage and possible police assault. Does he really deserve to be out amongst everyone, getting high and speeding around in a Porsche?
Maybe he needed a court to teach him a lesson instead of allowing him to continue ****ing about doing whatever he likes.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Ben73

What do you know another scumbag out on bail causing havoc. I wonder how many people will be let out on bail tomorrow?
I know he isn’t t directly responsible for the crash but he is clearly a moron and shouldn’t have been on bail.

Don’t get started on 40 speed limits on highways. In the perfect world they work fine. Unfortunately busy city motorways have lots of less than perfect situations.
Why do you think roadworks have warning signs well before any speed restrictions start. Rounding a corner to see surprise roadworks wouldn’t end well occasionally.

He was facing assault and theft charges. Like it or not he was never not going to be bailed for those minor offences. Yeah the guy seems like a complete POS, but people don't get denied bail for minor crimes unless they there are compelling reasons.

Originally Posted by russellw

I was a little surprised at a couple of the charges, namely the fail to render assistance & failure to exchange names and addresses as my understanding is that one of the things the prosecution must prove is that the offender was actually driving.

Likewise the failing to render assistance as the Act specifically states that an offender must be a driver involved in the accident and in this case that's drawing a really long bow.

You possibly could (and the prosecution will no doubt) argue that because the Porsche was involved in the accident; even though it was stationary and he presumably wasn't in it at the time; extend the definition of 'driving' to include the fact that he drove it to the place where the incident occurred.

I'm not wanting him to get anything less than he deserves but we also need to be mindful that case precedents once set become enshrined until successfully challenged in a higher court and have a wider ranging impact that might be initially obvious.

They will throw as much as they can at him, but I doubt much of it sticks. Although he deserves harsh treatment. The bloke sounds like a real scumbag who rips people off and goes mental when he doesn't get his way, according to people who have dealt with him in business.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

They will throw as much as they can at him, but I doubt much of it sticks. Although he deserves harsh treatment. The bloke sounds like a real scumbag who rips people off and goes mental when he doesn't get his way, according to people who have dealt with him in business.

I agree, this guy is Teflon so doubt anything sticks, unfortunately he cant be jailed for being a *****.

and as much as his getting pulled over inadvertently caused this tragedy. he will at best get a sentence measured in Months for his part in it.

[Charliewool]

Have a listen on what is alleged at Mr Puseys court hearing just now.
Relieving himself when the truck hit.. so missed him.
He then retrieves his phone from wrecked Porsche, says to dying female police officer.. “all I wanted to do was go home and eat my sushi, now look at my car”
WHILST filming it. Then absconding!!
How could any human being act like that??

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Have a listen on what is alleged at Mr Puseys court hearing just now.
Relieving himself when the truck hit.. so missed him.
He then retrieves his phone from wrecked Porsche, says to dying female police officer.. “all I wanted to do was go home and eat my sushi, now look at my car”
WHILST filming it. Then absconding!!
How could any human being act like that??

As I said in one of my earlier posts, some people just don't deserve to be a part of our community.

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

How could any human being act like that??

Psychopath or sociopath would be a good guess.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Oh FFS... It’s obvious the scumbag was driving it.. ok!
Deserves being feckin bowling balled...

No one is debating whether he was driving when the speeding offence was committed - or for that matter that he is a low-life scumbag who deserve3s whatever comes his way.

The point I am questioning is whether he could be deemed to be driving when the actual fatal accident occurred given that he was allegedly relieving himself well away from his vehicle at the time. If he wasn't driving (as defined in the Act) then some of those lesser charges shouldn't stick.

I know it probably doesn't make much difference in CR but there has to be balance and fairness in the law regardless of the emotions running high.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Have a listen on what is alleged at Mr Puseys court hearing just now.
Relieving himself when the truck hit.. so missed him.
He then retrieves his phone from wrecked Porsche, says to dying female police officer.. “all I wanted to do was go home and eat my sushi, now look at my car”
WHILST filming it. Then absconding!!
How could any human being act like that??

He's clearly a sociopath. Even his business dealings where he callously ripped people off and threatened others to get his way just about prove that.

But he did have drugs in his system, so he could be pretty messed up on meth or something as well.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

He's clearly a sociopath. Even his business dealings where he callously ripped people off and threatened others to get his way just about prove that.

But he did have drugs in his system, so he could be pretty messed up on meth or something as well.

In Victoria that seems to get you off charges based on mental health issues