Ask The Copper

[helly]

My police clearance that I just got states no convictions, because I filled in that form. As far as conviction history goes, it may stay with you for life, but for legal purposes, clearances etc, your record doesn't come into it. I think it stays there, but as a spent conviction.

Yeah say for a crim history check in relation to a job (say working in the mines), you may get a clean slate. However if you have ever been on a CPR or you are being looked at in relation to a sentence for a court matter, the magistrate will see everything regardless, because he/she will be provided with your police crim history which remains un-altered!

 

[minux]

Yeah say for a crim history check in relation to a job (say working in the mines), you may get a clean slate. However if you have ever been on a CPR or you are being looked at in relation to a sentence for a court matter, the magistrate will see everything regardless, because he/she will be provided with your police crim history which remains un-altered!

So if it available for a magistrate to see why isn't available for juries to have?

The ****head drink driver who killed 6 teens in 06? Had 3 prior licence suspensions for drink driving, he was let off charges of culpable driving due tot he jury not knowing these existed. It is a relevant crime considering he was drunk when he murdered 6 children. It is about bloody time governments charge drink and drug drivers with manslaughter when they kill someone, because as far as i see it, if you are willing to get into a car drunk, you are basically taking a chance that you may kill someone.

 

[Not_An_Abba_Fan]

Previous criminal history has no bearing on the current crime. A jury will be automatically biased if they knew the person was a serial offender. Just because he committed past crimes doesn't make a person guilty of the one he may be charged with. The magistrate can take that into consideration when sentencing, but the jury can't be influenced at all.

As for clearances, I understand that a record is still there, but won't it still appear as a spent conviction?

 

[minux]

Previous criminal history has no bearing on the current crime. A jury will be automatically biased if they knew the person was a serial offender. Just because he committed past crimes doesn't make a person guilty of the one he may be charged with. The magistrate can take that into consideration when sentencing, but the jury can't be influenced at all.

As for clearances, I understand that a record is still there, but won't it still appear as a spent conviction?

uh huh, so because of this the guy gets off culpable driving charges(seemingly think thats ok, judging by your post). Multiple DUI's, DUI when he killed 6 people and on top of that he had his 4 year old son on his lap. I am unsure as to why this even requires a jury. He killed 6 teenagers and his penalty could be a max of 5 years concurrent jail time. In this case, the jury should of known because HE WAS guilty of dui and not for the first time. I can understand the string of unlicensed driving charges, theft charges etc...but not these.

 

[Not_An_Abba_Fan]

A jury would only be required if he pleads not guilty. If the prosecution has a good case, he gets convicted, then previous history comes into it with sentencing.

Regardless of criminal history, every charge has to be dealt with independently and without prejudice. Otherwise the judiciary system won't be fair.

I can fully understand your point though, he should strung up by the balls.

 

[And_ROOS]

But how is it fair that he is charged based on this offence as if his past convictions arent of relevance when they clearly are. This man should never be allowed in a vehicle again.

 

[helly]

But how is it fair that he is charged based on this offence as if his past convictions arent of relevance when they clearly are. This man should never be allowed in a vehicle again.

Yes, but the jury don't make that decision, they purely make a decision whether or not he is guilty of an offence. The magistrate makes the call as to what his sentence is, ie never to drive again, and he has access to his full criminal history.

Previous history doesn't make him guilty of any current offence, but it does come into play in sentencing...

If he was found guilty of drink driving, but wasn't deemed to be 'fully responsible' for the kids deaths (which is a complete crock) then he can still be sentenced to the max for the drink driving charges, and face prison. Here is where his crim history will really hurt him.

Hopefully the DPP will appeal it anyway, and they matter will be re-heard in a higher court.

In my opinion he needs to get slotted!

Not only for the benefit and closure of the victims families but also for the rest of us who might think about driving home after a few brews...

 

[VicCop]

Things may have been a lot different in the Mildura case if he had of been found within three hours. We will never know if or how intoxicated he was. He wasn't found in time therefore unable to be breath tested or drug tested.

Criminal priors only typically come into play during a hearing when a witness is involved. The defence or prosecution can try to use a prior history of a witness when attempting to discredit them.

A witness giving evidence with a lot of dishonesty type offences under their belt can be discredited through their priors.

Helly is right with the difference between employer checks and what police/courts have. Police have EVERYTHING, whether you were found guilty or not. Courts have all matters where there was a finding of guilt. Employers and others will only see matters where the court gave out a conviction.

That's why quite often when a defence counsel is giving their admissions (that's the sob story they give so the court will go easy on them) during a plea hearing, they will often say something like, "My client also asks that you impose no conviction as they want to [go into some glitzy career], and a conviction recorded against them will severely hinder that".

Really, they should have thought about that before.

 

[Shounak]

A few questions after doing extensive oversea's driving and riding. What happens if you pull an oversea's driver over for a traffic offense and they present their international driving permit or local licence? Do they just get the same fine?

Are they immune from demerit points or can they be barred from driving in the state? Also is there any recourse to pursue international drivers for not paying their tickets? I'm sure quite a few of them leave by the time their fines are due.

And what about BAC? If a 16 year old American kid is driving around with his American licence, is he allowed to blow 0.05?

 

[VicCop]

A few questions after doing extensive oversea's driving and riding. What happens if you pull an oversea's driver over for a traffic offense and they present their international driving permit or local licence? Do they just get the same fine?

Are they immune from demerit points or can they be barred from driving in the state? Also is there any recourse to pursue international drivers for not paying their tickets? I'm sure quite a few of them leave by the time their fines are due.

And what about BAC? If a 16 year old American kid is driving around with his American licence, is he allowed to blow 0.05?

That's a very long debated issue as far as international driving permits go.

Everyone gets the same fine. Also if you're from interstate, the relevant state that your licence is from is told of the ticket and they are sort of expected to pass on the points, I think. It's all a bit hazy.

In the case that you are disqualified as a result of a ticket, such as drink driving, you become disqualified from driving in that state. Again, the licencing corporation in the state you're from is told of this and it should be passed on.

The only measure in place to get people to pay fines is through the sherriff's office. If the fine isn't paid it turns into a warrant for whenever the person is found. If an overseas visitor gets a ticket and doesn't pay it, it turns into a warrant and when/if they come back and they're found, the sherriff process can begin. Unlikely though.

If a person comes to Australia on an overseas licence, they are expected to obtain an Australian equivalent within a set time frame. In Victoria it's three months. I think the other states are probably the same. If on a student visa, the time constraints don't apply. A work visa though, the time limit applies.

Here's a good scenario - Overseas person on a student visa is stopped by police. They are on an overseas licence and produce an Australian learner permit. Which one applies? Are they committing an offence of driving without a qualified driver when on a learner permit, or are they ok to be driving on their overseas licence?

Also, why would they have both?