In news:482436e1@news.comindico.com.au,
Ray Murphy typed:
> "Phil Allison" wrote in message
> news:68ioroF2r6feeU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Ray Murphy"
>>
>>
>>> The driver indicated on radio that his car malfunctioned and
>>> stopped
>>> suddenly of its own accord, but hordes of expert witnesses can
>>> testify
>>> that a motor vehicle, because of momentum at 60 kph, cannot stop
>>> suddenly unless their is a lock-up of such things as brakes or
>>> transmission, so it couldn't have happened that way at all.
>>
>>
>> ** The story is still evolving - all bets are off until the cops
>> make a report and decide who if anyone to charge.
>>
>> My original Q still stands as to the actual intention of the odd
>> wording of section 51A.
>
> RM: Bicycles are not treated as vehicles in that section of the
> Act, so section 51 couldn't be used.
>
> It's weird to see in S51A how BOTH (a) and (b) must exist for
> the offence of "predatory driving" can be committed. It's not an
> offence (in that section of the Act) to deliberately damage another
> vehicle without harming an occupant, but it IS an offence to cause
> bodily harm.
>
> =============
> 51A Predatory driving
>
> (1) The driver of a vehicle who, while in pursuit of or travelling
> near another vehicle:
> (a) engages in a course of conduct that causes or threatens an
> impact involving the other vehicle, AND
> (b) intends by that course of conduct to cause a person in the
> other vehicle actual bodily harm,
> =================
>
>> ..... Phil
>
> Ray
The particular offence is a form of assault on a person, not a form of
criminal damage to property. Section 51A clearly does not apply to the
given facts.
|