First experience .. Vic law regarding passing emergency vehicle

[LG17]

10 charges apparently for this ****er.

[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?

[M&Ms]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

if he didn't behave they way he did, the accident wouldn't have happened - if you do a proper 'root cause analysis' he is the problem

As someone who does RCA's as part of my job, no he is not the root cause. Without all the facts, the root cause may be the laws that are in place forcing drivers to drastically wipe 60% of their speed in a short period of time, without consideration of differing braking capabilities of the different vehicles on the road. The other cause may be the unsafe manner in which all parties were parked on the side of the motorway.

[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.

[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??

[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 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.

[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...

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

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

Hope your frustration is not aimed at me, as I agree completely. Others on here aren't quite so convinced, from a legal perspective.

[roddy1960]

Took til December last year ...why it took so long I don't know but they introduced it finally in Tassie ...

https://www.rsac.tas.gov.au/slow-dow...ency-vehicles/...


About time ...

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0

Hope your frustration is not aimed at me, as I agree completely. Others on here aren't quite so convinced, from a legal perspective.

Apologies!... Just seems incredibly callous to be defining the finer points of law, when it’s quite bloody obvious who was driving...
Whilst FOUR people are dead!

[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

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.

[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

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by russellw

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.

In my eyes the fatal accident is the result of a truck hitting 3 parked vehicles, I'm sure the police accident squad will investigate thoroughly with police issuing appropriate charges to the driver of the truck when their brief of evidence is completed.
The Porche driver will face other charges relating to speeding and leaving the scene of an accident, question remains if he was cooperating or not with police at time of accident for other charges.

[Romulus]

I think he’ll walk courtesy of the Victorian justice system.

[chizzy86]

While the guy is clearly an unsavourly character, he wont get done for anything above what's associated with the speeding, drugs and absconding/ failing to render assistance IMHO. And nor should he.

If you were pulled over for speeding and a truck kills the officer giving you a ticket, is it your fault because you were speeding? Of course not, and neither is it this guys. People need to separate the 2 incidents. While they are linked physically, to suggest that it's this guys fault those 4 officers are dead suggests that speeding motorists have a duty of care to officers fining them. That's insane.

As someone not from Victoria (and I realise a lot of this board are Vic people) my honest opinion is that the whole state of road policing in Victoria is an absolute, and utter disgrace. The police state that has been created down there is just insane, and has resulted in millions of people just driving around staring at their speedos and not focussing on the road. Your state government whether Liberal or Labor just introduce more and more onerous rules to make it look like they're doing something, rather than actually training people how to drive.

Nine times out of ten whenever I'm on the NSW side of the Hume or on the Pacific Highway there's always Victorians overtaking at 111km/h holding up a stream of traffic because they're so used to being subject to Gestapo restrictions they have no idea that NSW doesnt operate like that. There just isnt the level of ferocity and viciousness here when it comes to enforcement, and its a better place for it.

[pottery beige]

truckwit was the naughty boy that sprayed four peeps

$35

[russellw]

I doubt that he'll walk given the breadth of the charges.

Of the charges:

Reckless conduct endangering life

I'd be surprised if that sticks given the actual offending speed is short of even the immediate impound level of >45 km/h over the posted limit. If he'd smashed into someone and cased death or serious injury then yes, you could probably make a case but in the circumstances as reported so far, it might be a hard ask.

Speeding

Obviously will stick. The previous traffic record will determine whether a custodial sentence is justified.

Failing to remain after a drug test

I can't even find this one in the Victorian Act.

Failing to render assistance
Failing to exchange details

As previously stated, given the requirement for him to have been a driver involved in the accident, it will also be a stretch to make this one stick given he was a bystander at the time of the accident.

Possessing a drug of dependence

Likely to stick and it carries a maximum fine of $6,608 and / or 5 years imprisonment.

Destruction of evidence

While we don't know what evidence was actually destroyed and how / when, it's a bit hard to say if it will stick. It carries a 5 year maximum.

Three counts of committing an indictable offence while on bail

Also likely to stick and each offence carries a $4,956 fine and/or 3 months imprisonment.

On that basis, I'd expect some jail time but if the usual battery of psych / drug and character evaluations are even vaguely positive then I'd expect some part of that to be suspended.

[ozpacman]

Originally Posted by M&Ms

Truth comes out when people are flustered??

Police Association Victoria secretary Wayne Gatt said the deaths have floored the police force..... ‘These police officers were doing something that we do 10 times, 20 times, 30 times a shift – intercepting a motor vehicle on the side of the road, this is the bread and butter of policing,’ he told reporters.

https://distincttoday.net/2020/04/22...-2PimI34B-rl9k

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.

[MercuryT]

There's some very strange stuff in this thread.

[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

[MercuryT]

I've been working all day etc.

Does anyone know why truck driver had the collision? Fell asleep or?

(I know about *head Porsche guy but not why it happened)