the DPP’s upset, and that’s just the beginning
The new Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Pallaras, only two weeks into his job, has inevitably warned politicians off his turf, describing the kind of pressure he’s experienced in this brief time as extraordinary and unprecedented. Now, many of us are wary of Rann’s law and order push, especially as being in jail’s no picnic and has little or no rehabilitating effect, but the McGee hit-run case has really created a lot of anger and cynicism here (to judge by remarks overheard at a wizards dinner last Friday).
Eugene McGee, 50, an Adelaide lawyer, struck and killed cyclist Ian Humphrey while driving a four-wheel drive vehicle along the Gawler to Kapunda Road in the Barossa Valley in November 2003. McGee pleaded guilty to driving without due care, a rather minor charge under the circumstances, and received a light penalty (a $3100 fine and 12 months’ suspension of his licence). The cynicism comes in because McGee is a high-profile lawyer and former police prosecutor who has apparently participated in the processing of many cases similar to the case against himself, and the cynics claim that he used this knowledge to get himself off with a much lighter punishment than anyone else would have reasonably expected to receive.
Legal experts have criticised Rann, for example in this article:
However, I think Slade has been carried away by technicalities. The issue here is whether McGee should have been found guilty of that charge, whether all the evidence was presented, whether McGee himself obscured evidence (of his level of intoxication), aided and abetted by the police and lawyers.
McGee told the trial that he’d been drinking wine at a lunch hours before the accident, but didn’t consider himself intoxicated. When he turned himself in, some six and a half hours after the accident, he wasn’t breath-tested or blood-tested for alcohol. The cynics argue that he didn’t turn himself in precisely because he wanted to avoid being breath-tested. They also argue that, as an ex-policeman, he was the beneficiary of cronyism. Witnesses, who for some reason I’ve yet to discover didn’t testify at the trial by jury, claim to have seen McGee driving erratically just before the accident.
The lightness of the penalty, coupled with the social prominence of the accused, has caused consternation amongst the public (I note that cyclist groups are particularly incensed), and a royal commission has been called, to investigate the police handling of the case. McGee was acquitted of dangerous driving but found guilty of the lesser crime of driving without due care. He pleaded guilty to two other charges, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, and failing to render assistance. The maximum penalty, presumably for all these charges together, was one year’s gaol. The Rann government has now introduced legislation to parliament that would increase the maximum penalty to 10 years jail for causing death by dangerous driving. Presumably this is the dangerous driving charge of which McGee was acquitted in any case, so that wouldn’t have made too much difference. Personally I don’t like this increase in gaol penalties approach, the prison system is iniquitous and pernicious and should be avoided if at all possible, to me the obvious answer to dangerous driving and the like is stiffer penalties with regard to licences. It seems to me, on the basis of what I know so far, that McGee should have lost his licence for a far longer period, perhaps for life.
I also think that in the matter of fines, the impact of the crime should be considered, the effect upon the family of the victim, even the effect upon society as a whole – for example, the effect upon cyclists generally and the level of safety they feel. A kind of compensatory effect for overall damage done. I don’t know who receives these fines – do they simply go into the state’s coffers? Surely the money, paltry though it is, should go to the victim’s family. It would be great to live in a society where this sort of thing was de rigueur, driven by the public. It certainly follows the line of any worthwhile ethics in my view, that a person who can well afford to pay should do so for the benefit of his victim’s family. As it stands, lawyers will undoubtedly see far more of McGee’s money than the family of Ian Humphrey will, and surely that is morally wrong.
After being made aware that McGee could not be retried, the Rann government has called this royal commission, perhaps to be seen to be doing something, though also no doubt out of a real sense of outrage. However, the commission cannot result in a retrial. McGee has largely gotten away with it. Or has he? I think of the more celebrated OJ trial. He was found not guilty, though few people were taken in, and he has largely been a pariah since the trial. The general public generally gets it right in these matters, unless this is wishful thinking on my part. McGee of course is no O J Simpson – I imagine him, perhaps wrongly, as one of those swaggering, slightly arrogant police detective types. Overly careless, overly clever. I hope he’s genuinely humbled by this experience. Maybe he might consider giving up his licence voluntarily.
Eugene McGee, 50, an Adelaide lawyer, struck and killed cyclist Ian Humphrey while driving a four-wheel drive vehicle along the Gawler to Kapunda Road in the Barossa Valley in November 2003. McGee pleaded guilty to driving without due care, a rather minor charge under the circumstances, and received a light penalty (a $3100 fine and 12 months’ suspension of his licence). The cynicism comes in because McGee is a high-profile lawyer and former police prosecutor who has apparently participated in the processing of many cases similar to the case against himself, and the cynics claim that he used this knowledge to get himself off with a much lighter punishment than anyone else would have reasonably expected to receive.
Legal experts have criticised Rann, for example in this article:
But criminal defence lawyer, Simon Slade, says it is not the Premier's place to intervene in the judicial process.
"It seems that this is just a reaction to one high-profile case," he said.
"The danger of course with that is that we end up with a government that changes every law just because there's a jury verdict that it doesn't like."
Mr Slade says the inquiry has been announced because an appeal probably would not have been successful.
"Given my experience in this area the sentence couldn't be described as manifestly inadequate compared to other sentences for other cases," he said.
"People need to be very careful not to compare this to cases where people have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving."
However, I think Slade has been carried away by technicalities. The issue here is whether McGee should have been found guilty of that charge, whether all the evidence was presented, whether McGee himself obscured evidence (of his level of intoxication), aided and abetted by the police and lawyers.
McGee told the trial that he’d been drinking wine at a lunch hours before the accident, but didn’t consider himself intoxicated. When he turned himself in, some six and a half hours after the accident, he wasn’t breath-tested or blood-tested for alcohol. The cynics argue that he didn’t turn himself in precisely because he wanted to avoid being breath-tested. They also argue that, as an ex-policeman, he was the beneficiary of cronyism. Witnesses, who for some reason I’ve yet to discover didn’t testify at the trial by jury, claim to have seen McGee driving erratically just before the accident.
The lightness of the penalty, coupled with the social prominence of the accused, has caused consternation amongst the public (I note that cyclist groups are particularly incensed), and a royal commission has been called, to investigate the police handling of the case. McGee was acquitted of dangerous driving but found guilty of the lesser crime of driving without due care. He pleaded guilty to two other charges, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, and failing to render assistance. The maximum penalty, presumably for all these charges together, was one year’s gaol. The Rann government has now introduced legislation to parliament that would increase the maximum penalty to 10 years jail for causing death by dangerous driving. Presumably this is the dangerous driving charge of which McGee was acquitted in any case, so that wouldn’t have made too much difference. Personally I don’t like this increase in gaol penalties approach, the prison system is iniquitous and pernicious and should be avoided if at all possible, to me the obvious answer to dangerous driving and the like is stiffer penalties with regard to licences. It seems to me, on the basis of what I know so far, that McGee should have lost his licence for a far longer period, perhaps for life.
I also think that in the matter of fines, the impact of the crime should be considered, the effect upon the family of the victim, even the effect upon society as a whole – for example, the effect upon cyclists generally and the level of safety they feel. A kind of compensatory effect for overall damage done. I don’t know who receives these fines – do they simply go into the state’s coffers? Surely the money, paltry though it is, should go to the victim’s family. It would be great to live in a society where this sort of thing was de rigueur, driven by the public. It certainly follows the line of any worthwhile ethics in my view, that a person who can well afford to pay should do so for the benefit of his victim’s family. As it stands, lawyers will undoubtedly see far more of McGee’s money than the family of Ian Humphrey will, and surely that is morally wrong.
After being made aware that McGee could not be retried, the Rann government has called this royal commission, perhaps to be seen to be doing something, though also no doubt out of a real sense of outrage. However, the commission cannot result in a retrial. McGee has largely gotten away with it. Or has he? I think of the more celebrated OJ trial. He was found not guilty, though few people were taken in, and he has largely been a pariah since the trial. The general public generally gets it right in these matters, unless this is wishful thinking on my part. McGee of course is no O J Simpson – I imagine him, perhaps wrongly, as one of those swaggering, slightly arrogant police detective types. Overly careless, overly clever. I hope he’s genuinely humbled by this experience. Maybe he might consider giving up his licence voluntarily.
posted by Stewart at 11:38 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home