On Aug 20, 8:56 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> fasgn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 7:35 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> terryc wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:29:40 -0700, fasgnadh wrote:
> >>>>> The court essentially found that his alleged drunkeness was not the
> >>>>> cause of the accident.
> >>>> How had they determined that, given that he was -8 two hours later
> >>>> and admitted his judgement was impaired?
> >>> Towards the bottom of that link, one of the judges said something alo=
ng
> >>> the lines that his drunkeness did not affect him. Sigh, what hope is
> >>> there.
Especially as he admitted his 'judgement was impaired'!!! 8^o
Like Slyvie, the Apeal court chose to ignore his own
assessment of his 0.08 blood alcohol level and
focus on other assessments:
> >> From the judgement:
Initially Slyvie quotes selectively to question the drivers degree of
impairment:
> >> "His findings were consistent with the utility travelling slowly, at a
> >> speed which he said could have been as low as 5 kilometres per hour. I=
n
> >> a record of interview the applicant said that he was travelling at a
> >> speed of between 5 and 10 kilometres per hour.
Drunks frequently walk slowly too, because they can't process their
environment accurately.
> >> The sergeant of police who attended at the scene and who had been a
> >> member of the police force for 24 years, spoke to the applicant at the
> >> scene of the accident and gave evidence that:
>
> >> He didn=92t appear to me to be alcohol affected."
>
> >> Sylvia.
>
> > And how did he ascertain that, given that the accused admitted
> > his judgement was impaired.. by getting him to drive in a straight
> > line at 10km per hr without going into a culvert and killing people?
Apparently there is no answer to that question as to why the plod
'at the scene' assessed him as not alcohol affected. The report
seems to indicate his blood alcohol test was TWO HOURS LATER
and he was still 0.08! Given that he had driven off the road
and admitted his judgement was impaired, it's reasonable to
ask on what facts the officer based his view on, when others
describe smelling alcohol.
My question remains unanswered, but Slyvies view of the case
shifted from that to the issue of direction, AFTER I raised it as the
basis of the aquittal;
> > pffft
>
> > For someone who posts links to the judgment you do a good job of
> > misrepresenting it.. the charge was overturned on technicalities
> > relating to the trial judges direction, not the facts of the matter,
> > which were admitted.
Yet Slyvie commenced with the a selection of facts excluding 3
he was 0.08, he drove off the road at 10 kph and rolled his truck,
killing 2
and he admitted his judgement was impaired!
> The original verdict was set aside on the grounds that the judge had not
> properly directed the jury.
I have dealt with this in detail in an earlier post.
> The court of appeal then had to decide whether the evidence was such
> that a properly directed jury could convict. The majority held that it
> was not.
>
> Sylvia.
i |