"TomTom" wrote in message
news:g01vim$nch$1@news.albasani.net...
> 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.
RM: Thanks for pointing that out.
Yes, there's a big difference between deliberate damage to motor
vehicles and deliberate injury to people.
I'm glad you pointed it out before the resident troll was informed and
pasted it here.
Ray
|