Before I write this I will say I do support laws for harm minimisation, although this should not be bound simply by fines, suspensions, jail time... But should instead include counselling, psychologists, psychiatrists (if required), rehabilitation, repeat (or even first time) offender education on the effects of drug and alcohol on driving - although i note that the drug laws would never allow proper assessment of this because "drugs are baaad mmmmmmkay?" (i have lost my license four times and have never had to do a single course on offending drug/drunk driving laws, it is lucky I am realising my behaviour is unacceptable because very soon i will be getting my ban quashed on appeal and getting my license back)....
We had large discussion about "Australia's laws" today in a lecture. The lecturer pointed out that the system is an absolute mess due to the way it was formed.
There is high court, supreme court, family court, special federal courts (including conciliation and arbitration commission), intermediate courts (including district courts, county courts, courts of request, general sessions and district criminal courts), magistrates courts (eg local), tribunals.
Then theres the facts that decisions made in one state do not have to follow in another state (although have some persuasion), the high court is not bound by previous decisions (nor is an appeal in a district court), theres jurisdictions...
Then theres constitution laws, statute laws, common laws, customary laws, equity and international laws...
There are precedents that can be used to defeat laws/charges...
Pretty much most lawyers do not understand the laws PROPERLY. One needs to comb through the "police fact sheet" with several law books handy and find where the pigs have made mistakes. Police are humans, we all make mistakes. If this fails, magistrates/judges make mistakes - this is usually the basis of an appeal although an appeal can relate to any of the aforementioned aspects of law.
Like I said the system is elastic.