LOOK,,,, i said i agree chain gangs cleaning up the place is a good idea,BTW do you wear glasses cause im picturing you looking over  them as you lecture me...

No need to put on such a puss....  LOL

I dunno about all the stupid talk here, but the driver did not have a licence. Seems no consideration that he intentionally ran a car over fellow human beings causing serious injury which those affected will have to live with.

Was any action taken re suspending his licence for a further period or was he asked to do so many hours of community work ?

Or was he just told to go away and not do it again ?

Seems the latter is the answer.

Take away their licence! Do they think that stops them from driving NO WAY--and they will continue to drive and not give a hoot either I have seen it happen many times around here

Proof is easy on an internet forum but the court did not find evidence that he "intentionally ran a car over fellow human beings" (fwed).

The impression is being given that he somehow got off Scott free, but he didn't, he had already served time ijn both home and youth detention and if he steps out of line he will be back in court.  From the news article,

Judge Bampton said she would sentence him as an adult on two of the charges and as a youth on the remaining charge.

He was given a 28-month sentence on top of 10 months in detention for the third charge, but Judge Bampton took into account the time he had spent in both youth and home detention, suspending the sentences.

"You are unlikely to reoffend and do have good prospects of rehabilitation," she told him.

The man was put on a 12-month bond.

The report is silent on any further action concerning his car licence, but I would assume that because it is already suspended, he would have to show cause for it to be reinstated.

Again, I am not defending the mug, just trying to clarify the facts.

It is unfortunate that the public base their opinions on newspaper reports of relatively short coverage & which contain virtually no transcript of actual court evidence.  The Judge makes a decision based on the case put before him/her in the Court, probably over a period of 6 or 7 hours, of which the newspaper has reported probably 5 minutes.  The reason she did not do anything about the suspended license, is because the DPP did not submit a Brief including the charges of driving unlicensed, driving uninsured, driving dangerously & illegal use of a motor vehicle.  He does not have to show cause to get his license back.  It is virtually automatic as soon as the suspension period is up.

Having said that, I must comment that the Western Court system is not one of justice. It is a "gladiatorical" system whereby the case is won by the better legal brain.  If you have the funds to retain the best QC/Silk & the best Barrister, you will be found innocent on most occasions.  It was one of the Shand QC's, I think Jack, who defended 14 murder trials of which he won 13 & died during the 14th.  Remember, under Western Law, you don't have to prove your client innocent.  The onus is on the Crown/People to prove them guilty.  If the prosecution cannot prove that beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant walks.

Ken,

Thanks for the information on the suspension of driver's licence, specifically that they do not have to show cause.  It is up to the Prosecution as you say (and not up to the judge).

"The onus is on the Crown/People to prove them guilty.  If the prosecution cannot prove that beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant walks."

- Even so, some innocent people are convicted as shown by later evidence.  The innocent lay person is an unconvincing witness in court and there can be great pressure on the police to resolve a crime.

Particular lobby groups are trying to change the standard of proof or provide other weightings for the court in certain areas of criminal law and I hope they will always be unsuccessful.

I'm sorry but at the end of the day he got the keys, got into the car and drove it towards 'his victims', he was three days short of 18yrs, what did he expect would happen???????  Am I being too simple, maybe I'm a simple person!!!!! but to me thats the long and short of it and forget trying to blame everyone else, people are responsible for their own actions.  Sorry if I come across not being very understanding of the driver but if that was one of my children he hit in his moment of madness I know what I would want to do.

Couldn't agree more Deanna

I think that you are taking me the wrong way, Deanna & PlanB.  What I am trying to say is that you don't know what was presented in Court.  I was not defending the 1 year bond.  I was attempting to tell you that justice is not practised in modern western law.  The top legal brains get paid 7 to $9,000 per day because they can charm a jury, destroy witnesses on the stand & most important of all, they have unbelievable instant recall of case history as to the admissability of evidence.  It is much easier to instil doubt in a jury mind than to prove guilt.  In this particular case Deanna, a lot of blame stands with the DPP.  He either stole the keys to his friends car, a seperate offence, or his friend gave him the keys, in which case the friend should have been charged as an accessory before the fact.  The judge doesn't make the charges or find the defendant guilty or innocent  If you havent seen it, you would not believe what a really good crossexaminer can do.  A man like Shand could get you on the witness stand & in 30 minutes or less, get you to admit that you are not sure that your children are yours & that your grandmother ran a brothel in Spain before she was married.

Next you will be trying to tell us that after driving at, at least 3 men, hitting them and dragging one 200 metres along the road that the driver was not aware of what he was doing.

Deanna is right and it seems rather simple to me also, plus it sounds like he was found guilty.

Why all the garbage ?

I am sure that you are right Innes--re the legal eagles

If an example is required of a court letting someone off for a serious crime, this one from the Telegraph of Sept 6, 2011 and SMH fits the bill -  where a suspected Muslim terrorist was approached by police and when they came near he produced a Browning pistol from his pants and shot at police, hitting one of them in the hand (fortunately not in the chest).

"Magistrate Leonie Flannery was not satisfied he had the pistol in his pants because he was planning to shoot officers, rather that he did so for he feared for his safety." (LOL, but of course)

1. a Terror suspect
2. Armed with a loaded Browning in a public place (no licence of course and firearm not registered of course)
3. Shoots at police
4. Wounds a policeman.

"The man was convicted on lesser charges of firing a gun in a public place, and using an unauthorised firearm."

Here is more detail,

http://www.smh.com.au/national/terrorism-suspect-acquitted-after-police-officer-shot-during-arrest-20110908-1jzyk.html

No jury to be swayed by defence counsel, Her Learned Self, the judge, did not find intent to do the dirty deed and let him off.

Here is the Telegraph link,

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/scared-muslim-let-off-police-shooting/story-e6freuzi-1226132678893

What a precedent to set.