David Penberthy: Politicians need to start listening to the people about punishing reckless drivers who kill innocent motorists
POLITICIANS need to start listening to the people about punishing reckless drivers who kill innocent motorists, writes David Penberthy. What do you think - VOTE NOW
- DIABOLICAL SMASHES: Two weeks, two innocent lives lost
- FAMILY TRIBUTE: We’ve lost the perfect mum
- CHARGED: Two youths arrested over horror smash
- DAVID PENBERTHY: Jail meth-addled hit-run driver
- DAVID PENBERTHY: Bring back death penalty for horrendous cases
TWO wholly avoidable and shocking deaths on Adelaide’s roads in less than two weeks. Both of them the result of alleged criminal conduct by motorists who are accused of breaking several laws.
Alleged, accused, yet to be subjected to the scrutiny of the courts. No pre-judgment here.
But the public has every right to have a robust conversation about the nature of these alleged crimes and the types of charges and, ultimately, sentences, they attract.
The facts in both these cases might now be the matter of legal argument and conjecture, but we can state the following as fact:
Adelaide has been robbed of two completely decent, innocent people, for no reason.
In the first case, the crash near the Main South Rd exit of the Southern Expressway two weeks ago, we lost Nicole Tucker, a woman who has been described by her shattered family as the perfect mother, someone who did everything for her kids.
Details are still emerging of the second case, in Salisbury North on Wednesday night, where churchgoing grandmother Ethel Boyce, 74, was killed after a 23-year-old motorist caused a crash, just minutes after he allegedly fled a police pursuit which officers terminated on safety grounds.
From what we know, Ethel was just sitting in her car going about her business too. Like Mrs Tucker, she has a family. A now shattered family. She was on her way home from church and was near her house when her life came to a tragic end.
I have written a number of columns on justice and sentencing over the years and the reaction is always the same. They get hundreds of emails and comments from readers and are almost invariably wholly ignored by people in politics.
People who as parliamentarians actually have the power to alter or toughen the statutes that define crimes and set punishment parameters for those crimes.
People like the Attorney-General John Rau habitually take a hands-off approach to media and public criticism of the justice system, arguing that each case must be decided on its merits and at arms-length from executive government.
To my mind a person such as Rau operates more as a judicial officer than an actual politician who responds to community concern. It probably makes life socially easier for him given he spends so much time mixing in legal circles.
I get the separation of powers. But the separation of powers is not offended by parliaments actually bothering to listen to sincere public alarm about the manner in which certain laws operate, and reviewing and altering those laws so they better reflect public standards and expectations.
And in the case of these types of road crashes, I am talking less about the manner in which the courts operate, than the charges alleged offenders face when they get to court.
Our laws should make a much clearer distinction between road deaths that are caused by a brief and uncharacteristic moment of inattention, versus an alleged pattern of reckless, lawless misconduct on the roads which a reasonable person would have foreseen could have resulted in injury or death to another person.
In the past couple of years there have been three cases where people have been charged over accidents which fall very much into that first category. You could call it the “There But For the Grace of God Go I” category, as you can imagine finding yourself in a position where a momentary error resulted in the injury or, God forbid, death of another person.
I would preface discussion of each case by saying that the people who ultimately suffered the most in each of these crashes were the people who killed or were injured.
But I feel real sympathy for the inadvertent perpetrators too.
There was the case of Alexander Thomas Wooldridge, 65, who pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving after killing four people while distracted by his GPS. A horrible toll, and one which prompted the barely-functional Mr Wooldridge to tell the court that it was his life’s wish that he had died in that crash too.
Then there was the mum whose accident killed her own daughter. Her own daughter.
Joanne Tedesco was charged with causing death by dangerous driving, even though she was already paralysed by guilt, and grappling with the horrendous additional fact that her ex-husband immediately committed suicide the moment he heard the news of their little girl’s death.
The third case involves one of our most senior cops, assistant commissioner Philip Newitt, who has been charged with aggravated driving without due care after a crash in the Hills left a man with grave head injuries.
Like Ms Tedesco, and like Mr Wooldridge, Mr Newitt had no priors.
He wasn’t drunk, he wasn’t on drugs, he wasn’t using his phone, he was actually travelling at 60km/h in an 80km/h zone. But in addition to being charged, he is also facing suspension or even the sack from SAPOL.
How is that these people can face the exact same charges as those who allegedly steal cars, who allegedly travel at 140km/h in a 60km/h zone, who won’t stop when told to stop by our police, and whose recklessness allegedly contributes to a death any sane person would describe as foreseeable?
There should be a different charge, based on the crime of “manslaughter by motor vehicle” that operates in some parts of the United States, where the usual need to establish the requisite criminal intent to kill is negated by appallingly reckless conduct.
That would and should include failing to pull over in a police chase, or doing twice the posted speed limit, or travelling in a stolen car. The penalties for doing so would be way higher than those for genuine accidents.
I am sure the public would agree.
I don’t know what people like John Rau think. He probably stopped reading after the first paragraph.
The government should do something about it, though.
It would give them a unique chance to celebrate Jay’s five years at the helm by doing something the public actually cares about.