SLAP ON THE WRIST FOR GRIEVOUS HARM

Australia: Laws that "help" criminals deny justice

A serial drink-driver, again over the limit when he caused a crash that seriously injured a young woman, has walked from court with a $1500 fine because the law does not allow his previous offences to be considered in sentencing. In the District Court yesterday, Judge Gordon Barrett was forced to treat Samuel David Roediger - twice convicted of drink-driving offences in the past - as a first offender because his last conviction was more than five years ago. The case has sparked calls for a review of the laws and the State Government has agreed to look at the issue.

Near Tumby Bay on January 15 last year, Roediger's car crossed over to the wrong side of the road and collided head-on with a vehicle carrying journalists Leisha Petrys and Matthew Clemow, who were returning from the Black Tuesday Eyre Peninsula bushfires. Ms Petrys was seriously injured in the smash. Roediger, 31, was found guilty by a jury of driving under the influence and dangerous driving, but was acquitted of causing bodily injury by dangerous driving. He received a $1500 fine and a 2 1/2 year licence disqualification because his last drink-driving conviction was recorded in 1995. A section of the Road Traffic Act, combined with demerit points legislation, means only offences committed within a five-year "prescribed period" count toward a driver's penalty.

The penalty has infuriated former Sunday Mail journalist Ms Petrys, who spent 1 1/2 hours fully conscious inside the wreck. "It shouldn't matter if you've been caught five years ago or 10 years ago. The fact you've been caught again shows that you haven't learned your lesson," she told The Advertiser. "The law needs to be examined with regard to past misdemeanours. This is a small price for (Roediger) to pay for what I had to go through . . . if he's caught driving without a licence, I will be furious."

In sentencing yesterday, Judge Gordon Barrett said Roediger had been drinking that afternoon. "A blood analysis reading of .128 per cent was recorded when your blood was taken at 11.15pm, some three hours after the accident," he said. "A back calculation depends on when you had your last drink. I am uncertain about that, but the reading is likely to have been somewhere between .08 and .10 percent." That level matched his intoxication at the time of his offences in December 1994 and May 1995. "You have not learnt the lessons of those two court appearances," Judge Barrett said. "Because they are not within five years of the current matter, I have to regard, for the purposes of sentence, the range of penalty applicable to a first offence of driving under the influence of alcohol."

Under Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act, an offender's history can be taken into account, provided it falls within the prescribed period. That period is set at five years so that a driver does not accumulate so many demerits that they are permanently banned from the road.

Judge Barrett said Ms Petrys' injuries "were quite substantial and the effects are long-term". "But I am prevented, by the jury's verdict, from sentencing you on the basis that those injuries were caused by your dangerous driving," he said.

Opposition legal affairs spokeswoman Isobel Redmond said any change to the legislation needed careful consideration. "It's worth reviewing when it leads to an insufficient result, where someone has not learned their lesson," she said. A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said the minister would "look into it".

Report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)