Deadly street race driver jailed
February 24, 2009 by Matt Brogan
A man was jailed today for culpable driving after an impromptu street race in Lilydale, Victoria, back in July 2006, resulted in the death of two people.
The County Court heard the man had incited the illegal street race against another car which, following a brief race, struck a tree at over 160km/h instantly killing its two occupants.
A jury found the man guilty of over the death of the passenger of the other car and guilty of reckless conduct endangering the life of its driver.
“Your conduct cannot be described other than as outrageous,” Judge Lisa Hannan said. “The speed at which you were travelling in the circumstances of this case made disaster almost inevitable.”
Judge Hannan accepted the man’s behaviour was out of character and that although it unlikely to happen again, said the sentence served as a general deterrence and that this was an important consideration in sentencing.
Judge Hannan went on to say that she must also consider the actions of the driver of the other car in determining culpability because he had been as equally reckless.
The man was jailed for four years and eight months with a minimum of three years.
Print it: 
“I’ve not come across the details of the case but it might be that the driver was convicted of this offence instead:
www .austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s319.html (remove space after www) ”
Even that is open to interpretation. The tone of that BJ poster is just awful. Hes 100% right, probably some 2nd year law student, and we are all dumbasses. Anyway, the link above states :
“A person who, by driving a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner that is dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case, causes the death of another person is guilty of an indictable offence and
liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).”
The key word is CAUSES. This would apply if that individual crashed into a pedestrian or another vehicle, causing injury or death. This wasnt the case here. The case here can still “fit” the above law, but like I said, its open to interpretation , and the judges motive is surely to deter others doing the same thing. It is noble, but is it just?
Also consider this: Had the other driver lived, but been badly injured, would the healthy driver still be charged (albeit a lesser charge?). What if they were both injured….would they pin it all on the one driver?
BJ – I’m with you 100%. The only downside is that decent hardworking people have to pay taxes to keep the waste of space housed and fed.
I’m pretty sure that the driver has to have been a “substantial cause” of the death rather than totally responsible for it Mike, so passing the causation test is not THAT hard.
I’d love to be able to read a transcript of this case. It’s very likely that there were other circumstances that night that aren’t mentioned in this article. The article on ninemsn mentioned witnesses seeing the cars tailgating each other before going over a hill and then there being a crash afterwards… this would have made it easier for the jury to come to a decision of guilty.
I dont think its odd – I can see both side of the coin BUT I still cannot get over the laws surrounding the engagement of a robber on your own property – this equal force limiattion stuff is B.S.
Hear Hear BJ.
Both were fools, one has suffered the consquences and the other is about to. NO SYMPATHY.
If you want to drive fast go to a track day…..or drive in Europe. Ha Ha