Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Grossly Inappropriate Victorian Jurisprudence? (Read 698 times)
AusGeoff
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Sage of Gippsland

Posts: 6025
Victoria
Gender: male
Re: Grossly Inappropriate Victorian Jurisprudence?
Reply #15 - Jul 1st, 2023 at 1:48pm
 
Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 1st, 2023 at 11:15am:
AusGeoff wrote on Jun 30th, 2023 at 4:39pm:
Truck driver Matthew Livingston was today handed a
12-and-a-half year prison sentence for a string of
driving charges, with prosecutors alleging he drifted
in and out of sleep in the lead-up to the crash.  He
was travelling at 86 km/h when he rear-ended the
first of six vehicles whilst in the 40 km/h construction
zone.

Livingston was also handed thousands of dollars in
fines for lesser charges related to professional
obligations as a heavy-vehicle driver, including for
missing required breaks.

Prosecutors previously said the driver had pulled 16-
hour days behind the wheel in the days prior to the
crash, and falsified logbooks.  An expert said the
crash was "very likely" to have been caused by sleep
deprivation.

Laughably, the soft-cock judge "conceded Livingston
was a decent man".  After destroying a whole family's 
lives?       I don't think so.      He's a total arsewipe.

The 44-year-old will be eligible for parole at the end
of 2031.  So effectively a mere EIGHT years for such
a bastard of a crime.     I hope the DPP appeals this
manifestly inadequate sentence.

Side note:  What did I say earlier?  "but as a guess I'd say 8 years".



Yep and you were correct too.

I personally thought the sentence was lenient. I anticipated/hoped the judge would have considered making an example of this incident by making the jail sentence a minimum of 10 years ALONG with a disqualification from driving ANY type of truck for life. Upon release he would need to get a new type of job. He’s clearly not fit to be a truck driver.


I agree.  A longer sentence would send a much
stronger message to other heavy vehicle drivers
as a deterrent to breaking the rules about rest stops
and falsifying log books.

This incident leaves me wondering for how many
years Livingston had been driving for 16 hours
straight, and cooking the books.  He well may've been
pushing his luck as a driver for years—an accident
just waiting to happen.   

How then could the judge describe him as "a decent
man"?     How could he know that?


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
aquascoot
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 36190
Gender: male
Re: Grossly Inappropriate Victorian Jurisprudence?
Reply #16 - Jul 3rd, 2023 at 1:59pm
 
AusGeoff wrote on Jul 1st, 2023 at 1:48pm:
Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 1st, 2023 at 11:15am:
AusGeoff wrote on Jun 30th, 2023 at 4:39pm:
Truck driver Matthew Livingston was today handed a
12-and-a-half year prison sentence for a string of
driving charges, with prosecutors alleging he drifted
in and out of sleep in the lead-up to the crash.  He
was travelling at 86 km/h when he rear-ended the
first of six vehicles whilst in the 40 km/h construction
zone.

Livingston was also handed thousands of dollars in
fines for lesser charges related to professional
obligations as a heavy-vehicle driver, including for
missing required breaks.

Prosecutors previously said the driver had pulled 16-
hour days behind the wheel in the days prior to the
crash, and falsified logbooks.  An expert said the
crash was "very likely" to have been caused by sleep
deprivation.

Laughably, the soft-cock judge "conceded Livingston
was a decent man".  After destroying a whole family's 
lives?       I don't think so.      He's a total arsewipe.

The 44-year-old will be eligible for parole at the end
of 2031.  So effectively a mere EIGHT years for such
a bastard of a crime.     I hope the DPP appeals this
manifestly inadequate sentence.

Side note:  What did I say earlier?  "but as a guess I'd say 8 years".



Yep and you were correct too.

I personally thought the sentence was lenient. I anticipated/hoped the judge would have considered making an example of this incident by making the jail sentence a minimum of 10 years ALONG with a disqualification from driving ANY type of truck for life. Upon release he would need to get a new type of job. He’s clearly not fit to be a truck driver.


I agree.  A longer sentence would send a much
stronger message to other heavy vehicle drivers
as a deterrent to breaking the rules about rest stops
and falsifying log books.

This incident leaves me wondering for how many
years Livingston had been driving for 16 hours
straight, and cooking the books.  He well may've been
pushing his luck as a driver for years—an accident
just waiting to happen.   

How then could the judge describe him as "a decent
man"?     How could he know that?





maybe if some of the bludgers got off their asses and gave him a hand , he wouldnt have to drive 16 hrs straight.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print