Bruce in West Oz
New member
Two articles from this morning's edition of the West Australian (I wish they'd go online!!):
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>ADHD OFFENDER SPARED JAIL
A man with a serious history of driving offences has been spared a jail sentence because the WA Supreme Court believes attention deficit hyperactivity disorder could be behind his criminal behaviour.
Ian Alexander Stewart, banned for life from getting behind a wheel, was diagnosed with ADHD -- a genetic disease which affects the transmission of messages to the brain -- in February.
In the previous month he had been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, driving under suspension, assaulting police and resisting arrest. It was his fifth driving under suspension charge and second drink-driving offence.
The (original) magistrate ... sentenced Stewart to 15 months jail plus fines and further disqualification from driving.
This week, Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Miller said the magistrate was wrong not to give the medical diagnosis more weight ....
A 15-month jail term was too much under the circumstances ...
Stewart was arrested in Midland on January 5 after he refused to go with police to the Midland police station to be breathalysed.
He shouted obscenties at police and assaulted them.
When tested, he recorded a blood alcohol level of 0.135 (note: limit here is 0.05) at the time of arrest and it was discovered he was under suspension from driving for life as a result of similar offences last year.
Justice Miller reduced Stewart's sentence to six months months jail, suspended for a year.[/quote]
Then a couple of pages on:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Police to be armed with weapons search powers
Tough new powers for police to stop and search people suspected of acrrying specific weapons will take effect on March 1 next year.
Police will be able to confiscate weapons without a warrant. A six-month amnesty has been declared for weapons to be handed in.
The Weapons Act 1999 classifies weapons other than firearms into three categories -- prohibited weapons, controlled weapons and objects that can be used as weapons.
Penalties for prohibited weapons were fines up to $8000 or two years jail, with a $4000 fine or one year's jail for controlled weapons.
Anyone suspected of carrying a controlled or prohibited weapon or an object that could be used as a weapon can be stopped, questioned and searched.
Prohibited weapons include electronic shock devices, commercially produced catapults (slingshots), crossbows, daggers, flick knives, knuckledusters and spray weapons other than pepper sprays.[/quote]
Note that replica firearms are also included in the list, but not printed in that report.
When civil liberties groups objected to the laws, saying they were open to abuse by overzealous police, who coul arrest someone for carrying a baseball bat or lump of wood if they (the police) didn't like the reason given why that person was carrying it, the police Minister, Kevin Prince, replied (and I paraphrase because it's from memory):
"Look, if you're arrested for carrying a
baseball bat without sufficient reason, and you think you're innocent, it's
easy. Just go before the magistrate, plead your case and if you're found not
guilty, you're free".
Excuse me, we now go to court to prove ourselves innocent?? I thought the
law worked the other way around!!??!!
Maybe I could carry my replica 45 and then plead ADHD!!!!
B
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>ADHD OFFENDER SPARED JAIL
A man with a serious history of driving offences has been spared a jail sentence because the WA Supreme Court believes attention deficit hyperactivity disorder could be behind his criminal behaviour.
Ian Alexander Stewart, banned for life from getting behind a wheel, was diagnosed with ADHD -- a genetic disease which affects the transmission of messages to the brain -- in February.
In the previous month he had been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, driving under suspension, assaulting police and resisting arrest. It was his fifth driving under suspension charge and second drink-driving offence.
The (original) magistrate ... sentenced Stewart to 15 months jail plus fines and further disqualification from driving.
This week, Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Miller said the magistrate was wrong not to give the medical diagnosis more weight ....
A 15-month jail term was too much under the circumstances ...
Stewart was arrested in Midland on January 5 after he refused to go with police to the Midland police station to be breathalysed.
He shouted obscenties at police and assaulted them.
When tested, he recorded a blood alcohol level of 0.135 (note: limit here is 0.05) at the time of arrest and it was discovered he was under suspension from driving for life as a result of similar offences last year.
Justice Miller reduced Stewart's sentence to six months months jail, suspended for a year.[/quote]
Then a couple of pages on:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Police to be armed with weapons search powers
Tough new powers for police to stop and search people suspected of acrrying specific weapons will take effect on March 1 next year.
Police will be able to confiscate weapons without a warrant. A six-month amnesty has been declared for weapons to be handed in.
The Weapons Act 1999 classifies weapons other than firearms into three categories -- prohibited weapons, controlled weapons and objects that can be used as weapons.
Penalties for prohibited weapons were fines up to $8000 or two years jail, with a $4000 fine or one year's jail for controlled weapons.
Anyone suspected of carrying a controlled or prohibited weapon or an object that could be used as a weapon can be stopped, questioned and searched.
Prohibited weapons include electronic shock devices, commercially produced catapults (slingshots), crossbows, daggers, flick knives, knuckledusters and spray weapons other than pepper sprays.[/quote]
Note that replica firearms are also included in the list, but not printed in that report.
When civil liberties groups objected to the laws, saying they were open to abuse by overzealous police, who coul arrest someone for carrying a baseball bat or lump of wood if they (the police) didn't like the reason given why that person was carrying it, the police Minister, Kevin Prince, replied (and I paraphrase because it's from memory):
"Look, if you're arrested for carrying a
baseball bat without sufficient reason, and you think you're innocent, it's
easy. Just go before the magistrate, plead your case and if you're found not
guilty, you're free".
Excuse me, we now go to court to prove ourselves innocent?? I thought the
law worked the other way around!!??!!
Maybe I could carry my replica 45 and then plead ADHD!!!!
B
