Deadly street race driver jailed

By Matt Brogan | February 24th, 2009

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.

http://navelcontemplation.blogspot.com Supercujo

So this guy was put in gaol because another guy raced him and crashed?

The other guy chose to race him. 4 years is excessive.
Snake

He shouldn’t go to jail, it’s not his fault the other driver couldn’t hold his car in a straight line. He should lose his license for a very, veyr long time, though.
The Original Tom

hmm, sounds like they needed a scapegoat and because the other moron crashed and killed himself and his passenger, this guy got the cane.

I just had a poke around and found that the it was a Ford GT and a Ferrari racing, as reported by other media outlets.

So I would say the driver of the other car would be old and wise enough to know better.
BJ

He deserves longer than 4 years IMO; in fact much longer.
booter

what a disgrace, yes i agree street racing is bad, it shouldnt be done, go to a track, but seriously this is ridiculous, confiscate his car, fine, loss of license etc etc but 4 years jail because someone else killed themselves by their own actions!

yeah, like the judge said this only about trying to make a deterance to others than any relevance to the actual case. pathetic.
Snake

BJ: He didn’t kill the other guy. Maybe he should have learned how to control his car properly first. It was 160kph on a straight road, you have to be quite dumb to lose control like that.

The guy who survived should be fined for street racing, speeding, and perhaps for being a tosser. But it’s not his fault the other driver got himself killed.
Tony

His minimum jail term is merely 3 years. It should be at least 20 years in my opinion to teach him a long lesson and as a deterrent to others. 160 km/hour in Lilydale. Serves him right to be in jail.
http://navelcontemplation.blogspot.com Supercujo

I love the kneejerkers around here.

I hope this guy appeals, wins, and loses his license for 5 years and has to perform 250 hours community service. What this guy did was dangerous driving, he did not kill the other person. The other guy chose to race and killed himself.

Where is personal responsibility in this world? It seems to have gone missing.
BJ

He was participant in an illegal act that resulted in the deaths of innocent people. There is no doubt he intended to race, and in choosing to race he must have known that there was risk to the public. It has nothing to do with his driving skill or whether he was the direct cause of the deaths. It has everything to do with knowingly engaging in an act that anyone with half a brain knows could easily result in the death of bystanders.

He deserves jail and he would be crazy to appeal; he got off lightly. And if he is stupid enough to appeal I hope the DPP cross-appeals on the lack of severity in the original sentence.
http://navelcontemplation.blogspot.com Supercujo

BJ: He did not depress the accelerator in the other car. He is not responsible for their actions. That idiot made a choice that cost him his and his passenger’s life.

CarAdvice: What was the reaction from the guy in the court room?
BJ

Supercujo:

Which part of this don’t you get; at law he does not have to be directly responsible for the deaths. He participated in an illegal act (a street race) and it resulted in the deaths. He is guilty, and culpable, and he should be jailed.
The Original Tom

If I choose to race off down the road, I would expect to be charged with reckless driving, speeding, endangering the public and so forth.

I would not expect to be charged for CAUSING the death of someone else that wanted to race me. The other driver was responsible for his own actions. We all are, and that includes when being antagonised.

If some revhead pulls up next to you and races off from the lights, do you feel compelled to race them at dangerous speeds when you know you shouldn’t?

I’ll put this to you, just as your mama probably did: If someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you?
BJ

Original Tom;

Your expectation is wrong, and legally flawed. The other driver can, and very well might, be charged with the deaths in those circumstances.

I’m sure you have heard this before; ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Mike

This is baseless and done for PC reasons. I agree with the others, they needed a scapegoat. I feel terrible for the people who crashed, but if you take this kind of precedent, anyone can succumb to ‘peer pressure’ , break the law, and blame the person who talked them into it. What about taking responsibility? Absurd. He should be heavily punished, but not charged for the death of the others.
http://navelcontemplation.blogspot.com Supercujo

BJ: If that is actually the case, then Charles Dickens had it right when he said “The law is an ass.”

So, if two people were going for a jog and they decided to race each other sprinting for kilometres on end, then one guy had a heart attack. The other guy is culpable, right?
Bret

Supercujo, but jogging is not illegal.

However if you and I decided to rob the local store, and you get shot by a security guard, does that make me responsible for your death?

No doubt this guy deserves the book thrown at him, but I think they have the wrong charges, unless actual contact or a “near miss’ occured between the vehicles, which would have caused the other car to crash. Maybe that’s the case and it’s just not reported correctly.
BJ

The only reason you think the law is wrong is because you don’t understand it.

If two people have a common purpose in committing an act, and the act causes a death, each is equally culpable. Do you seriously suggest that if two people decided to kill another, and they went to the person together, and one of produced a gun and pulled the trigger killing the victim, that only one should be guilty of murder?

What if they were paid to it? Is the person who paid for the murder less guilty, or should that person avoid punishment because they didn’t actually pull the trigger? Of course they are guilty, and if you can’t see that then you are out of your intellectual depth.

This man decided to race against another on a public street. He intended to race. He had a common purpose with the other participant; to engage in an illegal race, and the race resulted in deaths. It is not materially different to example given above.

He is guilty, pure an simple. Rail as much as you want but that is the law, and it makes perfect sense.
Andrew M

BJ,
In the example you gave about about the 3 involved in a murder but only one of them doing the actual kill, all 3 of them would be found guilty of a different charge.
Only one of them would be guilty of murder.

You would also have to go deeper into what exactlly happened, but more than likely the other 2 would get off lighter with a charge of conspiracy to committ or something
http://navelcontemplation.blogspot.com Supercujo

BJ: What a marvelous tone you have… Are you saying I should just be subservient and not question things when they seem wrong? We don’t live in China.

It makes perfect sense? Then why has it sparked this debate?

“If two people have a common purpose in committing an act, and the act causes a death, each is equally culpable. Do you seriously suggest that if two people decided to kill another, and they went to the person together, and one of produced a gun and pulled the trigger killing the victim, that only one should be guilty of murder?”

The second guy, who did not pull the trigger, should not be charged with murder. He did not commit the murder, although I admit he could be charged with accessory to commit murder or something like that. And if they were paid top do it, the guy who paid should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

“This man decided to race against another on a public street. He intended to race. He had a common purpose with the other participant; to engage in an illegal race, and the race resulted in deaths. It is not materially different to example given above.”

This man decided to race on a public street, the other guy made a decision of his own to participate. The guy going to gaol did not make this guy race, and from the reporting, it seems as though he was not directly responsible for their deaths (no contact or swerving). The dead guy crashed his own car by his own actions. I hope his passengers family have sued his estate for wrongful death.
BJ

Andrew M;

They would all face a murder charge. There might be back-up charges for lesser offences, but the primary charge would be murder based on the doctrine of common purpose.

Need an example; there is a rather famous guy in prison in Victoria, who stands convicted of several murders, none of which he physically committed, but all of which he paid others to commit. They made a TV series about him. So according to all of you he should fished out of prison because he cannot be guilty of murder?
BJ

Supercujo;

You are free to publicly display as much ignorance as you want. Question away until your heart is content.
http://navelcontemplation.blogspot.com Supercujo

BJ: There is that tone again.

“So according to all of you he should fished out of prison because he cannot be guilty of murder?”

No I believe he should have been charged with a proper offence and a good lawyer should have got him out of the murder charges.

In this case, an appeal will be forthcoming and if this guy gets a good lawyer (not you), he should get out of a prison term. He should face some sort of penalty, but 3 years is stupid. The law does not take into account personal responsibility in matters like this.

An ex-friend of mine killed two kids riding bikes whilst driving drunk and on drugs and he only got 18 months in prison. Way worse crime. The judge decided to get her name in the paper in this case and went over the top.
http://www.thomasr.org/ Tom Reynolds

It’s not baseless law, it’s often applied- as BI points out.

For example: You pull a bank job, your accomplice shoots and kills a guard. You too can be charged with murder.

While researching I even found a case in the US as follows: “A fatal shooting over the weekend in Louisville has resulted in a murder charge that may be unlike any you have seen in Kentucky. Police say the homeowner who pulled the trigger acted in self-defense and is not being charged. Instead, one of three suspects who broke in is now facing the murder charge. ” See: http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=9824091
http://www.thomasr.org/ Tom Reynolds

see: http://www.lyonsandlyons.com.au/CriminalLawsub.asp?ID=3569
“A person also commits murder when the person or an accomplice causes death during or immediately after the commission of a felony punishable by a term of imprisonment for life or 25 years (such as robbery with a dangerous weapon). Murder charges can also take the form of charges of conspiracy to murder or attempted murder.”

The accomplice is enjoined in the case as a crime was being committed that resulted in death.
HAL

I’ll throw another cat amongst the pigeons for this current debate.

Supercujo – with no tone intended at all , let’s say these 2 dingbats were involved in the street race. Same events take place with the resultant car crash killing the 2 occupants of the one car. But I ask this: what if they both swerved to avoid hitting a little kid (maybe even your own child), who just happened to run out on the road at that time to fetch a ball. The lucky driver in this case successfully avoids hitting the child and keeps the car on the straight and narrow, while the other loses control in trying to avoid the child, and not only ends up smashing into a tree and killing the occupants, but also hits and kills the child in the process. What then – is the other driver culpable? i know if I was the father in that case I would expect charges to be laid against all parties involved. I know this isn’t what happened, but the outcome of the scenario I’ve hypothesised isn’t any different to the one this article is about in terms of the surviving driver’s involvement – but I bet his involvement would draw a completely different level of understanding from your side of the argument in that scenario.

Just a thought.
http://caradvice.com.au Alan

This case is all the sadder because the passenger in the Ferarri was a young woman who had just met the guy, and her boyfriend was interested in purchasing the car……..and i forget the detail, but he somehow took her for a ‘joy ride’….. so, yes – the Ferarri driver is a tool, but the GT driver is no less culpable.
Lock him up with Bubba.
http://navelcontemplation.blogspot.com Supercujo

Thanks HAL, the lack of ‘tone’ is appreciated.

Of course charges should be laid to all parties, but pinning the death of the child and people in the other car solely on the surviving driver just seems stupid to me. The surviving driver did not hit the child and was not directly responsible for its death.

I’m not saying he should be let off, but the charge of reckless driving would be all that I see applying to the surviving driver. That carries a penalty of around 6 months imprisonment and 12 months license suspension doesn’t it?

And I would berate the father for not keeping an eye on his kid.
The Original Tom

BJ, Supercujo is simply stating that the charge applied in this case is rubbish, not what the laws actually state.

The driver of the vehicle involved in the race is nothing like two guys agreeing to commit a murder.

You guys are comparing accomplices to murder to two complete strangers involved in an activity which does not necessarily have a 100% correlation to death (unlike pulling the trigger of a gun aimed at someone). It certainly was stupid on both their parts to drive that quickly, but a Ferrari and Ford GT are not Ford Econovans, either. We are talking about errors in judgement, not pre-meditated murder, and the surviving driver does not mentally take responsibility for the other driver’s actions. You would expect that someone driving a supercar quickly would be able to use their own good sense.

You are also arguing that someone’s conviction by a judge proves that the person was (a) definitely guilty, (b) justice was served.

We know from experience it isn’t always the case and that’s why people open up debates about such matters.
RoFlmaTiC

BJ is totally right guys.

The victorian law on this issue can be found here:

www .austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s318.html (remove the space after www).

Please note that the maximum penalty for this crime is up to 20 years jail. So with that in mind, the driver got off quite lightly wouldn’t you think?

Some of the comments above seem to be expressions of disbelief as to how the driver could be deemed to have “caused” the death of the other person. The fact is, the law does not regard that he “caused” the death in the way that you are thinking, otherwise the guy would have been up for murder, not culpable driving causing death.

You have to look at the intent of the legislation, its there to try to prevent idiots driving like idiots on the road, to prevent the injury of innocent passengers/pedestrians/motorists. Just because the other person was as guilty of the crime, doesn’t in any way lessen the crime of the person convicted here. The driver should be happy to ahve got a min of 4 years… the other driver got a death sentence.
RoFlmaTiC

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)
Benz Fan

Is this the case of the crashed Ferrari and the cops were looking for a silver XR8/XR6-ish type vehicle???
Benz Fan

Forgive me!! I just read the rest of the threads. I remember this incident. I’m a firefighter and I remember hearing it on the radio whilst on duty.
GP

The sentence is ridiculous folks.

What it means is that if you cause another driver to do something which kills them, you go to jail.

So, if your mother plods along at 60ks in an 80 zone and frustrates the hell out of a following Ferrari driver, causing him to road rage and hit a tree as he finally roars past, your mother is responsible for his actions.

Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it BJ.

The guy will appeal, get a male judge and will not go to jail, should get probation, 5 years license loss, car confiscated – something along those lines.
GP

Meanwhile, here in Melb, 3 or 4 young punks threw petrol over a mentally ill man in his home, set fire to him and the house, seriously injuting the man.

They should get 10 years each at least, but just wait for the sentencing to occur – my money’s on probation and no jail time because “it was a prank that went too far, your honour, and the boys are truly remorseful”.

The relativity of sentencing to the severity of the crime is way off skew in Victoria, same in the other states more than likely.
Benz Fan

The Ferrari driver is the guilty party. The GT driver should have his license cancelled.
RoFlmaTiC

GP,

Firstly the gender of the Judge has nothing to do with the verdict… it was a jury trial.

As for your horrendous analogy, do you think the granny in your example was driving the vehicle:

(a) recklessly, that is to say, if he consciously and unjustifiably disregards a substantial risk that the death of another person or the infliction of grievous bodily harm upon another person may result from his driving; or
(b) negligently, that is to say, if he fails unjustifiably and to a gross degree to observe the standard of care which a reasonable man would have observed in all the circumstances of the case?

as required by the law to be found guilty of this charge?
Stuzz

Sure he may have been a contributor to the tragedy, but duty of care surely must fall on the driver of the vehicle which left the road. After all by enforcable law, you are in charge of a vehicle if your behind the wheel. It is sheer stupidity what the drivers were doing, but the guy who could control his vehicle at this speed should not be dealt with so harshly. If the accident had involoved and resulted in fatalities of innocent bystanders, then the sentence would have been too short.
BJ

GP,

It does make sense actually; in your example mother isn’t guilty of anything because she wasn’t breaking the law. Last time I looked you are entitled to drive at less than the posted speed limit. The street racer was breaking the law; by racing.

The rest of your observations confuse parity of sentencing issues with the subject under discussion.
RoFlmaTiC

GP, the gender of the Judge had little to do with the verdict since it was a jury trial…
RoFlmaTiC

To reiterate Stuzz, this guy got off comparatively lightly with a 3 year minimum sentence when the statutory maximum was 20.
Benz Fan

In the USA, in some states, if you walk in too a service station with your new found friend of just a few minutes decides to to pull a gun and shoot dead the attendant, YOU get the death penalty also. This is much like this case.
JasonP

At what point does it become a race?
If you get offthe line quickly next to another vehicle doing the same, then button off after 50 yards, are you racing?
What if you get away quickly on your own, & the car beside floors it to catch you? Are you both racing, or is the 2nd car racing, etc, etc, etc.
What’s to say the guy in the Ferrari wouldn’t have given it a bootful on his own anyway, without the encouragement of the falc? Every case is different.

You’d like to think that you’re only responsible for your own actions, but if a third party decides it’s a “race”, rather than you acting on your own…….

In regard to the 3rd party having to make a judgement on whether it’s a race or not, the Police nor the Judge were there at the time….

In this case, it clearly was a race, but whether it’s the law or not, ignorance of the law does come into it.

Different issue entirely, but who is aware that if you’re more than a few metres from your car, & you don’t lock it, you’ve broken the law.

No person can know off the top of their head, every single law, for every single thing.

Australia, like the UK, is awash with endless rules & laws, usually banning doing stuff you’d never want to do in a million years anyway.
Before it starts, I’m not taking away from the horror of the outcome of this incident; people were killed, I understand that.
Seriously though, was he really going to beat the Ferrari?
http://navelcontemplation.blogspot.com Supercujo

Benz Fan: Trust the Americans to take something stupid to the next level…
RoFlmaTiC

But JasonP, the question the Jury had to consider was not whether or not it was a race, but whether the driver drove:

“consciously and unjustifiably disregards a substantial risk that the death of another person or the infliction of grievous bodily harm upon another person may result from his driving; or
negligently, that is to say, if he fails unjustifiably and to a gross degree to observe the standard of care which a reasonable man would have observed in all the circumstances of the case”

which is the wording of s318.
JasonP

RoFlmaTiC,

Yeah, fair point.

Do we have the definition of a “reasonable man”?

I might consider myself reasonable; what if I was called as a witness, & my view was that they weren’t consiously racing….

It weird, & they way the laws are written, they’ll always get you when they have wording like the phrase you’ve quoted.

I must admit, it’s been a long, long time since I’ve really got stuck into it off the line at a set of lights.

However, I buttoned off at the 60 kph speed limit, so wasn’t speeding, & wasn’t racing….
Phill

What about this,3 guys decide to rob a bank,which they do as there running down the street,many meters apart,one get hit and killed accidently by a bus.The police catch the other 2,they won’t get charged for the death but still get charged for robbing the bank.This guy was made an example.
JasonP

Or this,

3 guys go into a bar, and….

…nah, that’s a different thread….
HAL

^ come on JasonP, finish the joke
JasonP

Well, actually it was the Pope telling the joke after a few beers on The Sabbath.

He says “A Rabbi, A Mufti, & Me walk into a bar….”

The Catholics won’t let me finish the joke.
RoFlmaTiC

Lol JasonP!

Yeah reasonable person is not defined by the legislation, the definition can be found within the hundreds and hundreds of cases relating to the applicable standard in particular circumstances.
Mike

“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?
Mike

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?
Dadd

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.
RoFlmaTiC

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.
GGG

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.
Cupid Stunt

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