Richard Pusey, the guy most hated in Australia, the guy caught speeding down the Eastern Freeway in Melbourne at 140 kmh, and by that action ended in the death of 4 police officers, which he filmed on his phone with his commentary, then flead the scene has been sentanced. He has been given a whopping 10 months jail and with time served could be out in weeks. On top of this lengthy jail term he was find $1000 and license suspended for 2 years, and a 2 year good behaviour bond. Though he is still to face other charges and could still be detained for them.
We should all stand and clap our hands and cheer at the stirling job that the court system has again done in sentencing of such people.
What no one is standing? Can't hear anyone clapping.
Wait... Who is that one person laughing?
dogbox said
12:00 PM Apr 28, 2021
what was he actually sentenced for an what charges are pending ?
Corndoggy said
12:30 PM Apr 28, 2021
Here's a link. You may or may not like the ABC but this seems to be consistent with reports over this incident.
Why should he be the most hated? He didn't kill or molest or even touch anyone. He is a drug user who was caught speeding. Yes, he was callous toward the dying cops, and I despise drug users, but the police were killed by a truck, and Pusey was high at the time. What I would be asking is, why did it require four police to deal with one speeding driver? Three of them shouldn't have even been there.
What I find most disgusting about his case is that the judge (?) fabricated a new (?) offence just so that it could be applied to him. It was "outraging public decency", if I recall correctly, but I'm a bit hazy on the details. Also, I'm offended that a policeman's life is seen by the law to be worth more than an "ordinary" life. That's what outrages me.
dogbox said
01:24 PM Apr 28, 2021
he has been dealt with for the videoing the scene and showing it around. has he been dealt with for the speeding ,dui, no license ect yet ?
DMaxer said
02:38 PM Apr 28, 2021
He didn't fabricate a new offence Dorian. It is an offence under the common law not under statutory law like the Crimes Act or Criminal Codes. Usually crimes under the common law do not have a maximum penalty and it is in the hands of the presiding judge. Had they not applied the common law then as abhorrent as his actions were, there was not a statutory offence available. I agree, he did not cause their deaths, the truck driver did and he has received a heavy gaol sentence in excess of twenty years. What he did was film the aftermath and make callous remarks.
As hideous and callous as what this low life's actions were, one sees and hears many other hideous and callous things in life where no one is convicted, let alone sentenced.
Mike Harding said
02:55 PM Apr 28, 2021
It is not the role of the legal system to put people in prison for simply being w@nkers.
Whenarewethere said
03:33 PM Apr 28, 2021
There are cameras all over the motorways. Cars could be ordered off at the next exit.
It is plain stupid stopping on a motorway when there is an alternative.
Craig1 said
03:56 PM Apr 28, 2021
Vic coppers have to travel Two Up for maybe 2 years, OHS related. Why the second car was there?, The charge existed in common law, but now the judge has set such a low bar, the next person will get the " wet lettuce". But that appears to be most judges, most of the time. No room in jails either contributes.
The Prosecutor should appeal I believe. Every persons life should be equal, in this case it was Police Members who were filmed, but this contemptuous a h would have filmed the covid related deaths in age care if he had, had a chance.
Mike Harding said
04:42 PM Apr 28, 2021
Craig1 wrote:
in this case it was Police Members who were filmed, but this contemptuous a h would have filmed the covid related deaths in age care if he had, had a chance.
That's why I eschew the Darwin Awards - which many seem to find amusing?
DMaxer said
04:53 PM Apr 28, 2021
It is only a common law offence in Victoria and NSW as far as I can recall. In the other States it is dealt with under statutory law and usually carries a fine with a maximum penalty of six months and dealt with summarily.
This bloke got four months more than if had performed the same act in the other states and got the maximum.
The charge was brought by the prosecution, not the judge. Parliament sets the maximum penalties, not the judge. If you recall at the time there was strong legal argument that although he had acted in a callous and abhorrent manner, there was no charge that could be sustained. The prosecution then pursued him through common law charges.
bgt said
05:26 PM Apr 28, 2021
Being an a##hole isn't illegal.
Craig1 said
05:54 PM Apr 28, 2021
One of the relative's statement said " the judge himself had no idea what the penalty should be, even considered a correction order, and was not going to wade through thousands of public submissions(probably fair enough on that one). So the 10 months now becomes the default maximum under precedent law.
Plain Truth said
07:51 PM Apr 28, 2021
He is certainly not a very nice person,as can be seen by the court report today.https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/files/documents/2021-04/sentencing-remarks-dpp-v-pusey.pdf
Greg 1 said
12:39 AM Apr 29, 2021
On the surface of things as reported by the media, it would seem that the justice system has failed again, but we were not there and only can judge by what the media report and we all know about how liberal with the truth they can be don't we.
dorian said
04:42 AM Apr 29, 2021
This is the ABC report that led me to believe that this charge was a "creative" fabrication, and that the judge colluded with the prosecution in allowing it:
Porsche driver Richard Pusey charged with offence that doesn't exist, lawyers say:
"Lawyers for Richard Pusey, the man accused of filming a police officer as she lay dying on a Melbourne freeway, say investigators got "creative" when charging their client with a crime they say does not exist in Australia."
"There's nothing in our respectful submission about the valid existence of that charge in the state," his barrister, Dermot Dann QC, said."
"The fact that someone creative has decided to charge Mr Pusey with this offence [says] nothing about the validity of the charge or whether it's been recognised," Mr Dann said."
How stupid is a legal system where barristers and judges can't agree whether a law exists? The defendant then goes bankrupt while his defence argues with the prosecution on a point of law which could be settled simply by referring to a book.
This country is more screwed up every day.
Mike Harding said
07:30 AM Apr 29, 2021
Far be it from me to stumble blindly in the august area of The Law but:
No one goes bankrupt whilst legal argument takes place Dorian. In lower courts where there is a dispute as to relevant law, the proceedings can be halted and the issue referred to the Supreme Court of that State by way of a stated case. The legal issue is then clarified by the Supreme Court and the decision referred back to the lower court which can then proceed with the legal principle settled.
Sorry to interrupt your judge/lawyer bashing but it is good if we deal in factual scenarios not hysterical opinions.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 29th of April 2021 08:31:46 AM
dorian said
08:36 AM Apr 29, 2021
ISTM that Pusey's act was private because there was no one present to witness it. It only became public because the media reported it.
By way of analogy, having sex in private is not indecent, but having sex in public is. Would the mere fact that the private act was publicly reported render it indecent?
ISTM that the prosecution went out of its way to find a "loophole" by which they could charge Pusey with an offence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY: THE EXISTING LAW
3.1 The offence of outraging public decency appears to consist of performing any indecent activity in such a place or way that more than one member of the public may witness and be disgusted by it. As it was put in Hamilton, the leading modern case on the offence:
These cases established that, if the offence of outraging public decency were to be proved, it was necessary to prove two elements.
(i) The act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public decency; this element constituted the nature of the act which had to be proved before the offence could be established;
(ii) it took place in a public place and must have been capable of being seen by two or more persons who were actually present, even if they had not actually seen it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Whenarewethere said
08:51 AM Apr 29, 2021
Lewd has a different meaning to what he did.
He did do something in public which could have been seen by others even if they did not see it but if was not lewd or a lewd character.
Craig1 said
09:38 AM Apr 29, 2021
He shared his videos and comments with people known to him, not on FB etc. I retract my definition of a h about him as that is a necessary part of anatomy. Contemptuous will suffice.
DMaxer said
09:50 AM Apr 29, 2021
Words are not only interpreted by their meaning in a recognized dictionary, they are also interpreted as to what meaning they were given in previous cases in courts of superior jurisdiction.
Perhaps this whole exercise in legal jurisprudence in the County Court would have had a better outcome if the learned prosecutor and his honour has consulted a caravan forum prior to laying charges and ultimately convicting this fellow.
Whenarewethere said
10:01 AM Apr 29, 2021
The winners out of this are the legal profession, but were probably still a bit disappointed that they couldn't stretch this out longer!
Warren-Pat_01 said
12:20 PM Apr 29, 2021
Come to regional QLD if you want to see the failures in the legal system/stupid decisions by the QLD Govt in their handling of "kiddy crims".
Kids aged from 8 years upwards (of both white & coloured races) can steal your property without any punishment, any repercussions as their criminal history is wiped clean! Kids cannot be locked up (courtesy of the NT Royal Commission). Breach of Bail which happens all of the time, is not an offence.
Yes, the Govt have just "got tough on crime" by putting GPS Trackers on the kids aged 16+ but those trackers have to be maintained by charging the batteries. This exempts the usual bunch of kids aged less than 16!
Victims are inconvenienced, out of pocket by hundreds, thousands of dollars, frightened but have no claim against the govt. We have another 3.5 years of this Govt's actions but they are now more concerned with the proposed Olympic Games so of course our southern cousins will vote them back in!!
dorian said
12:57 PM Apr 29, 2021
Who is best placed to decide whether Pusey outraged public decency, if not the general public, eg members of this forum? Then again, the law requires that only two people need to be outraged, so the judge and the prosecutor can do it all on their own.
Something else that I'd like explained is why Pusey spent 10 months in jail instead of being out on bail? Even the worst drug lords have managed to get bail in Victoria, one of whom skipped the country. What would have happened if Pusey's sentence had been 6 months? Would he have been entitled to compensation?
"At the same press conference, Police Association secretary Wayne Gatt said: "I think this week four police heroes died and one coward lived"."
Yes, it was a tragic accident, but these people were traffic cops. They don't put their lives on the line while handing out speeding tickets.
Possum3 said
02:13 PM Apr 29, 2021
dorian wrote:
Yes, it was a tragic accident, but these people were traffic cops. They don't put their lives on the line while handing out speeding tickets.
Could only be said by a true keyboard hero. They certainly do put their lives on the line every time they put on the uniform - particularly in modern society.
Richard Pusey, the guy most hated in Australia, the guy caught speeding down the Eastern Freeway in Melbourne at 140 kmh, and by that action ended in the death of 4 police officers, which he filmed on his phone with his commentary, then flead the scene has been sentanced. He has been given a whopping 10 months jail and with time served could be out in weeks. On top of this lengthy jail term he was find $1000 and license suspended for 2 years, and a 2 year good behaviour bond. Though he is still to face other charges and could still be detained for them.
We should all stand and clap our hands and cheer at the stirling job that the court system has again done in sentencing of such people.
What no one is standing? Can't hear anyone clapping.
Wait... Who is that one person laughing?
www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-28/richard-pusey-sentenced-for-filming-police-eastern-freeway-crash/100099402
What I find most disgusting about his case is that the judge (?) fabricated a new (?) offence just so that it could be applied to him. It was "outraging public decency", if I recall correctly, but I'm a bit hazy on the details. Also, I'm offended that a policeman's life is seen by the law to be worth more than an "ordinary" life. That's what outrages me.
He didn't fabricate a new offence Dorian. It is an offence under the common law not under statutory law like the Crimes Act or Criminal Codes. Usually crimes under the common law do not have a maximum penalty and it is in the hands of the presiding judge. Had they not applied the common law then as abhorrent as his actions were, there was not a statutory offence available. I agree, he did not cause their deaths, the truck driver did and he has received a heavy gaol sentence in excess of twenty years. What he did was film the aftermath and make callous remarks.
As hideous and callous as what this low life's actions were, one sees and hears many other hideous and callous things in life where no one is convicted, let alone sentenced.
It is not the role of the legal system to put people in prison for simply being w@nkers.
There are cameras all over the motorways. Cars could be ordered off at the next exit.
It is plain stupid stopping on a motorway when there is an alternative.
The Prosecutor should appeal I believe. Every persons life should be equal, in this case it was Police Members who were filmed, but this contemptuous a h would have filmed the covid related deaths in age care if he had, had a chance.
That's why I eschew the Darwin Awards - which many seem to find amusing?
It is only a common law offence in Victoria and NSW as far as I can recall. In the other States it is dealt with under statutory law and usually carries a fine with a maximum penalty of six months and dealt with summarily.
This bloke got four months more than if had performed the same act in the other states and got the maximum.
The charge was brought by the prosecution, not the judge. Parliament sets the maximum penalties, not the judge. If you recall at the time there was strong legal argument that although he had acted in a callous and abhorrent manner, there was no charge that could be sustained. The prosecution then pursued him through common law charges.
He is certainly not a very nice person,as can be seen by the court report today.https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/files/documents/2021-04/sentencing-remarks-dpp-v-pusey.pdf
This is the ABC report that led me to believe that this charge was a "creative" fabrication, and that the judge colluded with the prosecution in allowing it:
Porsche driver Richard Pusey charged with offence that doesn't exist, lawyers say:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-26/porsche-driver-richard-pusey-lawyers-question-if-charge-exists/12597698
"Lawyers for Richard Pusey, the man accused of filming a police officer as she lay dying on a Melbourne freeway, say investigators got "creative" when charging their client with a crime they say does not exist in Australia."
"There's nothing in our respectful submission about the valid existence of that charge in the state," his barrister, Dermot Dann QC, said."
"The fact that someone creative has decided to charge Mr Pusey with this offence [says] nothing about the validity of the charge or whether it's been recognised," Mr Dann said."
How stupid is a legal system where barristers and judges can't agree whether a law exists? The defendant then goes bankrupt while his defence argues with the prosecution on a point of law which could be settled simply by referring to a book.
This country is more screwed up every day.
Far be it from me to stumble blindly in the august area of The Law but:
Wikipedia
Reference 2 is interesting.
No one goes bankrupt whilst legal argument takes place Dorian. In lower courts where there is a dispute as to relevant law, the proceedings can be halted and the issue referred to the Supreme Court of that State by way of a stated case. The legal issue is then clarified by the Supreme Court and the decision referred back to the lower court which can then proceed with the legal principle settled.
Sorry to interrupt your judge/lawyer bashing but it is good if we deal in factual scenarios not hysterical opinions.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 29th of April 2021 08:31:46 AM
By way of analogy, having sex in private is not indecent, but having sex in public is. Would the mere fact that the private act was publicly reported render it indecent?
ISTM that the prosecution went out of its way to find a "loophole" by which they could charge Pusey with an offence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY: THE EXISTING LAW
3.1 The offence of outraging public decency appears to consist of performing any indecent activity in such a place or way that more than one member of the public may witness and be disgusted by it. As it was put in Hamilton, the leading modern case on the offence:
These cases established that, if the offence of outraging public decency were to be proved, it was necessary to prove two elements.
(i) The act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public decency; this element constituted the nature of the act which had to be proved before the offence could be established;
(ii) it took place in a public place and must have been capable of being seen by two or more persons who were actually present, even if they had not actually seen it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewd has a different meaning to what he did.
He did do something in public which could have been seen by others even if they did not see it but if was not lewd or a lewd character.
Words are not only interpreted by their meaning in a recognized dictionary, they are also interpreted as to what meaning they were given in previous cases in courts of superior jurisdiction.
Perhaps this whole exercise in legal jurisprudence in the County Court would have had a better outcome if the learned prosecutor and his honour has consulted a caravan forum prior to laying charges and ultimately convicting this fellow.
The winners out of this are the legal profession, but were probably still a bit disappointed that they couldn't stretch this out longer!
Kids aged from 8 years upwards (of both white & coloured races) can steal your property without any punishment, any repercussions as their criminal history is wiped clean! Kids cannot be locked up (courtesy of the NT Royal Commission). Breach of Bail which happens all of the time, is not an offence.
Yes, the Govt have just "got tough on crime" by putting GPS Trackers on the kids aged 16+ but those trackers have to be maintained by charging the batteries. This exempts the usual bunch of kids aged less than 16!
Victims are inconvenienced, out of pocket by hundreds, thousands of dollars, frightened but have no claim against the govt. We have another 3.5 years of this Govt's actions but they are now more concerned with the proposed Olympic Games so of course our southern cousins will vote them back in!!
Who is best placed to decide whether Pusey outraged public decency, if not the general public, eg members of this forum? Then again, the law requires that only two people need to be outraged, so the judge and the prosecutor can do it all on their own.
Something else that I'd like explained is why Pusey spent 10 months in jail instead of being out on bail? Even the worst drug lords have managed to get bail in Victoria, one of whom skipped the country. What would have happened if Pusey's sentence had been 6 months? Would he have been entitled to compensation?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-24/porsche-driver-charged-after-crash-that-killed-police-officers/12179242
"At the same press conference, Police Association secretary Wayne Gatt said: "I think this week four police heroes died and one coward lived"."
Yes, it was a tragic accident, but these people were traffic cops. They don't put their lives on the line while handing out speeding tickets.
Could only be said by a true keyboard hero. They certainly do put their lives on the line every time they put on the uniform - particularly in modern society.