Originally Posted by
Bigbjorn
Consistency in sentencing would be an improvement.
Here is an example. I knew the two guys. One was an old friend. The other was a relative. Both were terrific ****pots. Both were arrested for drink driving at about the same time. One in Brisbane and one at Warwick. Both by coincidence blew 0.28. Very ****ed by any standard. The friend was seen to leave the local hotel by a mobile patrol, followed for several blocks before being pulled over. He had bought a 6 pack before leaving the pub and had opened one for the short drive home. He was also smoking a cigarette at the time. The other one was a farmer who had been to a football match and driven nearly 40 k's towards home when the local law found him asleep at the wheel, nose down in a drain, lights on and engine running.
The rellies wife phoned me to ask if i knew anyone who could forecast what punishment he was likely to get. I asked a police prosecutor I knew. He said the then current guidelines for such a high reading was a fine of not less than $2000, minimum two years suspension of licence, and as ove 0.15 no conditional licence was possible. Must have different standards in country courthouses. He got $500, 6 months suspension, and was granted a conditional licence. My prosecutor acquaintance was stunned. The other guy was sentenced in Brisbane Magistrates court, $2000, 5 years suspension, and refused a conditional licence. Both were first time offenders. God alone knows how as they drank (big heaps) and drove consistently throughout their adult lives.
