Jail term for Ferrari crash deaths

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by GT450

. Do any of you really believe the passenger in the ferrari had any say in the outcome.
GT450

I have to agree with you there, so it does go to show that you can think outside the square when you want to.....I feel for her family as she was an innocent victim in all this

[SM1DY]

I'm just trying to make sense of this all.....If I were to tell a friend that I was able to crack 200km/h on specific stretch on a suburban road, then he went out and tried to beat that speed and was killed, would that make me liable? Because it seems that each driver is responsible for the manner in which they drive and it appears that their both idiots, yet one person seems to be taking the wrap for another blokes poor judgement.

[sly_ba]

Originally Posted by Saiken

as russell said its "accessory to murder" which is a much lighter sentence, and if you showed genuine remorse and could come up with some lame mental reason for doing the robbery... [ie. suffering from depression from losing your job in the current economical situation, you also have a kid on the way, blah blah blah] the sentence can be very light.

Almost correct. I think that the point you are trying to make is that the doctrine of complicity allows for the extension of liability to persons who participate in a crime by promoting or assisting the commission of that crime. Accordingly, at common law, a person will be considered to have been complicit in (and liable for) the commission of an offence, if he or she ‘aids, abets, counsels or procures’ the commission of another’s crime.

Faced with the 'robbery scenario', in Vic, the DPP would opt for the application of the 'felany murder rule' which in a nutshell provides that any deaths caused during the commision of a violent crime shall be grounds to sustain a murder charge whether done intentionally or not. This is reflected in section3A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) where it states:

(1) A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person by an act of violence done in the course or furtherance of a crime the necessary
elements of which include violence for which a person upon first conviction
may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be sentenced to level 1 imprisonment (life) or to imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more shall be liable to be convicted of murder as though he had killed that person intentionally.

The word 'violence' in this sense not only means physical force but also constructive violence such as intimidation by the exercise of physical force or menaces.

The 'robbery scenario' also brings about the operation of the Doctrine of common purpose which provides the law with a means of extending liablity beyond that of the principle offender. The term ‘principal offender’ refers to the person who directly performs the physical elements of a criminal offence. However, occasionally, there may be more than one perpetrator. As shown by Osland’s case, someone who has helped in, or encouraged a crime which follows a preconceived plan, may be convicted.

The High Court, in a joint judgement, dismissed McAuliffes’ appeal and set out the common law rules for the doctrine of common purpose. The Court held that the doctrine of common purpose applies where a venture is undertaken by more than one person acting together in pursuit of a common criminal design. The venture may be described as a joint criminal enterprise. The terms ‘common purpose’, ‘common design’, ‘concert’, and ‘joint criminal enterprise’ are used interchangeably.

They are used to invoke the doctrine which provides a means, sometimes an additional means, of establishing the complicity of a secondary party in the commission of a crime. A ‘common purpose’ occurs when someone makes an arrangement between that person and another, or others, that they will commit a crime. It holds those liable, who start a joint criminal enterprise or plan to commit an offence. It also holds liable, other group members who commit any further crime/s during the joint criminal enterprise or plan. As a result, the doctrine of common purpose imposes accessorial liability for the commission of crimes that are not within the scope of the original criminal agreement, but are contemplated as a possible consequence.

Getting back to the case involving the GT Driver, he was charged with manslaughter, the mens rea of which is satisfied if ANY of the following mental states are present:

1) An intention to kill (clearly there was no intention to kill on the drives part)
2) An intention to cause serious bodily harm (again, no intention here)
3) Reckless as to the probability of causing death or serious bodily harm (a good case could be made out here......)
4) Causing death while committing a prescribed offence (as per 'felony murder rule' and doctine of common purpose mentioned above)

In Vic, the recklessness which allegedly caused the death of the victim is measured subjectively (as opposed to objectively). Thus, it must be proved that the accused, rather than an 'ordinary reasonable person', knew of the liklihood of causing death.

It would appear then, in my opinion, that the case rests on questions of the defendant's recklessness weighed up against the liklihood that death or serious injury would ensue. (ie in his eyes was racing at double the limit on a surburban road in traffic likley to cause death or serious injury?)

Did the guy get a rough deal? I think so..... Was he made an example of? Yes. Will he be the last? No.

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by JC

Perhaps this is the first "inconsistency" that becomes the new consistent standard? I hope so.

Inconsistencies in recent times being :

1. Wilfully causing grevious bodily harm in local pub by glassing patron about the face requiring 30 stitches and loss of sight in one eye - 6 months suspended sentence

2. Woman raped by Sydney taxi driver in his taxi at midnight on a Friday night- 4 yrs jail

3. Well known cricketer assaulted outside Melbourne Hotel by bouncer , receives a knock to the head and dies - Let off on technicality

4. Kids set fire to a house with knowldege a mentally incapacitated citizen was inside - 5 years

5. Exceeding the speed limit over 30km/hr where a vehicle 100 metres in front of you hits a stationary object and occupants killed - 5 Years Jail

Pathetic

[Saiken]

Hat off to sly_ba for the good read

-------------------------

Reading about a rapist who got 3 years jail $1.20
Seeing a man get killed while out in the city (murderer was later let off) $50
Getting sent to jail for min. 3 years for having a drag race with some ferrari owner that didnt know his own limits, which also left you traumatised .... PRICELESS

[sly_ba]

Originally Posted by Saiken

Hat off to sly_ba for the good read

-------------------------

Reading about a rapist who got 3 years jail $1.20
Seeing a man get killed while out in the city (murderer was later let off) $50
Getting sent to jail for min. 3 years for having a drag race with some ferrari owner that didnt know his own limits, which also left you traumatised .... PRICELESS

Thanks mate, although it should be rememberd that my above post is in no way legal advice.

[dom_105]

Originally Posted by JC

True. But had the GT driver "taken the high road" (ie ignored the "race"), then he wouldn't have been held at fault, would he?

But if the Ferrari driver took the high road, two people wouldn't be dead. That we know for sure.

The burden of responsibility for the GT driver ends at the lights, for mine. Sure, book him with street racing or what have you, but at the end of the day both drivers are adults and are capable of making decisions. It was the decision making of the Ferrari driver, and him alone, that cost him his life and the life of a girl he had just met.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by Russell

Hang on, don't paint us all with the same brush. I don't really care what he was driving, all I care about is the fact that the sentence does not fit the crime.

This is a longer sentence than what the drunk bloke who ran head on into a friend and killed her got. In my mind, that is not fair as she didn't contribute anything to that accident apart from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's also a longer sentence than what some armed robbers get, persons who commit serious assault, attempted murder and even some paedophiles get. Puts it into perspective doesn't it.

The Ferrari driver was doing the wrong thing and chose to, he was stupid enough to drive beyond his skill limits and unfortunately came to grief and took his passenger with him. Sure the GT driver should be charged, convicted and sentenced but this is way over the top.

Best mates uncle only got 4 years for attempted murder, which included evading arrest and this guy street racing gets nearly equal. The law doesn't make much sense a lot of the time it seems.

Too harsh of a punishment, he didn't force the Ferrari driver into racing, nor did he make him smash into the pole/tree/large object. People should be responsible for their own actions.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by GT0132

Inconsistencies in recent times being :
...
4. Kids set fire to a house with knowldege a mentally incapacitated citizen was inside - 5 years
...
Pathetic

No. The kids set fire to the man. The fact that the house burned was a side effect. http://www.theage.com.au/national/ga...0211-844c.html

Über pathetic.

[Ozfords]

Heck if a cop can be charged with Negligent Driving after a bloke rides off at speed and collides with a pole killing him, then anything is possible in the court room.

[Barry_v]

certainly makes you wonder if there was something more to the case, like the GT driver having a very colourful driving record. the judge came down unbelievably hard on the circumstances described.

[ebxr8240]

Charging the GT driver is like charging the RTA/ local council for installing the traffic lights..
Sheesh when does this stop ..

[Poidevin]

Fact of the matter is that the anti-hoon campaigners will probably use this case and tragic death as their "Poster Child". Give it a couple of months and all you'll be hearing about is how street racing always leads to death and how you can be sentenced to 5 years in jail for speeding...i mean killing someone with a street race.

C'mon sheeple this sentence makes absolutely no sense, the Judge is just trying to make an example of the GT driver for street racing

[Falcon Coupe]

This is crazy, the deceased was responsible for his own actions, the GT driver should have been charged with the appropriate speeding/dangerous driving charges only.

[Hemicuda]

[QUOTE=geehaa]How do we know a jury was even involved?

County court cases are heard by 6 jurors. You can bet an appeal is on the cards at the Supreme court. I wonder if 12 jurors will come to the same conclusion?
I don't agree with the sentence and the "what if" rationale that contributed to it. Still, the worst one i heard happened about 2001, i think. Some here may recall the school teacher who cut a 5 year old kid in half as her foot accidentally hit the accelerator instead of the brake while attempting to park in the school carpark. Unfortunately, the kid was between the car and brick wall
she slammed into. Upon sentencing the judge took into consideration that speed and alcohol was not a contributing factor, the punishment was 2 years loss of license, that was all. Another example where the crime doesn't fit the punishment.

[Bossxr8]

Someone I went to highschool with was recently in court facing 33 charges of molesting children as young as 18 months old. It was the second time he had been caught doing it. He got a minimum of 18 months jail, and this guy gets 3 years minimum.

This is total b*******t.

[XRtowcar]

Not total B*******, only place for racing is a circuit or drag strip.
Anyone racing on the streets puts the general public in danger.
If you wanna go fast join a club and lose it on turn one at Phillip Island racetrack.
Only one you'll hurt is yourself.

[vanman_75]

if anyone thinks this is the correct outcome, go live in the us where you can sue your parents for being ugly !!!

the fella is a clown and needs a license revoke,and possible jail time but this !!!! careful what you agree with in time it will bite you in the a>>> ,buy your mate a beer he decides to get drunk and kills ,your fault your going to jail..the law is a farce ,wake up to the fact...

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by XRtowcar

Not total B*******, only place for racing is a circuit or drag strip.
Anyone racing on the streets puts the general public in danger.
If you wanna go fast join a club and lose it on turn one at Phillip Island racetrack.
Only one you'll hurt is yourself.

No ones saying he shouldn't be punished, but this is too extreme, he's getting more time than a convicted pedophile for god's sake.

[FTGAutosalvage]

all opinions here are not worth anything. nobody here was in the court and heard the witness statements , prosecution or what the jury or judge said. nobody here knows the driver of the GT or the GT drivers history.
so NOBODY here can really comment on the length or harshness of the sentence.

[hdj80]

Thank god for another reasonable person FTG.

Does anyone know the exact circumstances?

The usual beat up by a bunch of excitable (and poorly informed) people is all I have read so far.

A lot of people in this forum need to go and do some research before they jump in and wedge two feet in their mouths.

I know nothing on this particular case but if you want to find out more it's all available for reading at the courts....probably cost you though.
Reality is that the GT driver would have to have contributed to the tragedy by something more than engaging in a race to get such a penalty or those charges. There has to be a nexus between the act and the outcome to substantiate the charge. Have a read of the charge for your own states version of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. A dangerous act is open to interpretation - but case law in Qld says that speed alone is not dangerous, it is the other surrounding facts that make speed dangerous (manner of driving, weather, road conditions etc)

160kph in a Ferarri or a (modern) GT isn't exactly warp speed and both cars are well within their performance envelope. Neither should have crashed unless something went horribly wrong - and I'm only guessing but I reckon that wrong involved both vehicles, not just the Ferrari.

Think about it folks....please!!!!!!!!!!!

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by hdj80

Thank god for another reasonable person FTG.

Does anyone know the exact circumstances?

I don't care what the exact circumstances are (or were).

The GT driver got ~5 years jail. For what? For engaging in a street race, which resulted in two people dying. He didn't force the Ferrari driver to race. Nothing was mentioned about the race being organised before hand, or the GT colliding with the Ferrari.

As I've said, throw the book at the guy for street racing, but finding him responsible for the deaths?

On the other hand, for example, we have 5 kids who SET FIRE TO A MAN FOR FUN, who face a MAXIMUM of 6 years.

The usual beat up by a bunch of excitable (and poorly informed) people is all I have read so far.

A lot of people in this forum need to go and do some research before they jump in and wedge two feet in their mouths.

...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Sure, I wasn't in the court room, and did not hear all the facts of the case. Let's also not forget the media's tendency to exaggerate and sensationalise. But as I said above, I don't really care about the circumstances - I just can't reconcile ~5 years jail for what the GT driver appears to have done, compared with some of the other examples in recent history - particularly the kids that set fire to a mentally ill man.

[colossus]

I can see both sides of the argument - on one hand the sentence is very harsh compared to rapists and murderers but on the other hand the guy did participate in a crime (street racing is a crime) and his actions did contribute to 2 people dying. I don't know his history but if he had a clean record (which I believe the judge said he did in the first post) then I think jail time is very harsh.

One thing is for sure - it has ceratinly had the desired effect on me - i.e I will certainly think twice before engaging in such behaviour. Its not like I go around looking for a street race but if I'm cruising home late at night down the freeway and someone wants a roll on then I'm not one to be shy - fudge that in the future if this is the outcome.

[geehaa]

Further note to self - do not argue with sly_ba

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by JC

True. But had the GT driver "taken the high road" (ie ignored the "race"), then he wouldn't have been held at fault, would he? The fact that he DID actually take on the Fezza means he did contribute in some way - even if was only in a mental way (ie egging the Fezza on).

Sorry, but after the tragedy of the recent bushfires, and seeing what humans can do to each other, even if the end result isn't always as expected, I have no sympathy for those that disregard the safety & value of life of others.

Are you for real : What on earth does a guy putting his foot down for a bit of fun ,have to do with Filthy Arsonists and there resultant Bushfires for Gods sakel
THE PENALTY does not fit the crime pure and simple,

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by Poidevin

I bet the ferrari driver never had any 'defensive driver' training and didnt know how to handle the ferrari at more that 110.

Did you know him? Did you know what he did for a living or what he had?

Obviously not, so stop talking out of your backside.

Paul Estcourt knew how to steer, he just made a very bad decision followed by a serious error of judgement. So… he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

Originally Posted by GT0132

We still can't rule out the Ferrari driver was trying to play Mr Cool with his 27 yo girlfriend in the car

Just for your information, sweetheart. Angela Taylor was not his girlfriend, she’d only just arrived at his place to deliver a Quad bike and wanted to go for a spin in the car.

I’d spoken to Paul a couple of times when he was in his truck, but I wouldn’t say that I knew him, however, there are others here on the forum who knew him quite well. So how about some of you knuckleheads have a little bit of consideration for those people by not posting crap like this.

I also feel that the driver of the GT was harshly done by and I’m sure that there will be an appeal on the sentence.

[mongoloid]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Did you know him? Did you know what he did for a living or what he had?

Obviously not, so stop talking out of your backside.

Paul Estcourt knew how to steer, he just made a very bad decision followed by a serious error of judgement. So… he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
Just for your information, sweetheart. Angela Taylor was not his girlfriend, she’d only just arrived at his place to deliver a Quad bike and wanted to go for a spin in the car.

I’d spoken to Paul a couple of times when he was in his truck, but I wouldn’t say that I knew him, however, there are others here on the forum who knew him quite well. So how about some of you knuckleheads have a little bit of consideration for those people by not posting crap like this.

I also feel that the driver of the GT was harshly done by and I’m sure that there will be an appeal on the sentence.

nuff said.

[Marduk]

No one forced the Ferrari to drag. The driver of the GT didn't hold a gun to his head.
I don't see how the GT driver should be held responsible for the actions of someone else.
I'm not saying driver of the GT isn't a moron. He clearly is but the punishment just doesn't suit the crime.

[RG]

I think all that needs to be said has been.