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.

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?

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.

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

The Catholics won’t let me finish the joke.

3 guys go into a bar, and….

…nah, that’s a different thread….