Aus - Bill to combat brawl deaths sets blood-alcohol level at .15 for 'intoxication'

poledriver

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
11,543
Aus - Bill to combat brawl deaths sets blood-alcohol level at .15 for 'intoxication'

People will be found to be "intoxicated" under the NSW government's proposed new one-punch laws if they have a blood-alcohol level equivalent to those of people charged with high-range drink driving offences.

Premier Barry O'Farrell on Thursday tabled the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Bill 2014, which defines intoxication as a blood-alcohol concentration of .15 - three times the .05 level used to measure low-range drink driving offences. It is expected the bill will be passed by the Parliament with the support of the Labor opposition.

Mr O'Farrell said the purpose of the bill was "to make our streets safer by introducing new measures to tackle drug and alcohol-related violence".

"The NSW government has heard the community's call for action. We are committed to continuing to address the drug and alcohol-fuelled attacks on our street and the increase in violence that is used in those attacks."

The bill says that there will be a "conclusive presumption of intoxication if the accused has more than .15 concentration of alcohol following a breath or blood sample analysis".

The legislation creates a separate offence with a minimum mandatory sentence of eight years and a maximum penalty of 25 years in jail for an assault causing death if the offence is committed by an adult when intoxicated - whether under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

A person who is not intoxicated will face a maximum penalty of 20 years in jail for hitting a person and causing their death whether or not they died as a result of the injuries received directly from the assault, or from hitting the ground or another object.

Alex Wodak, the director of the Alcohol and Drug Service at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney said the .15 blood-alcohol level was the level at which car drivers start to be charged with "high-range prescribed concentration of alcohol".

"That comes from a huge body of research into blood alcohol and risk of a car crash. But this figure has been plucked out of the air," Dr Wodak said.

"Some will be unconscious at this blood level and most will be very drunk ... But some drinking, say, three bottles of wine per day might be little affected. So the risk is that some [who are] innocent might be found guilty."

The proposed law requires that a breath test be taken within two hours of the alleged offence.

A blood or urine sample can only be required within four hours after the alleged offence.

A person may be taken and detained at a hospital for the purpose of taking a blood or urine sample.

Professor Alex Steel, a criminal law expert from the University of NSW, said the new offence was broader than for just dealing with "coward punches". It includes everyone who causes a person's death as a result of a fight.

"If an intoxicated person is goaded and provoked into a fight – even if they don't throw the first punch – they could be facing mandatory imprisonment," he said.

"The problem with mandatory imprisonment is that its only real effect is injustice.

"If the accused deserves eight years' imprisonment, the court system will impose that anyway, either at trial or on appeal.

"So the legislation only forces these terms when the courts think that it would be wrong to impose that sentence."

Professor Steel said that, if the Parliament thinks the courts are too lenient, it should appeal and seek a guideline judgment.

"That approach worked well for drink driving," he said.

NSW Greens MP and justice spokesman David Shoebridge said the legislation would cause injustice when it likely becomes law on Thursday.

"It is astounding that MPs first received a copy of this bill at 9.45am today and will be voting on it in a matter of hours," he said.

"Regardless of extreme provocation, regardless of intent and even if the consequences were wildly unlikely, there will be an eight-year minimum jail term."

The legislation is part of a raft of new measures announced by the Premier last week to combat alcohol-fuelled violence in Kings Cross and the Central Business District.

The bill also contains the final boundaries of the new "Sydney CBD Entertainment Precinct" where the new 1.30am lockouts and 3am "last drinks" rules will apply.

There was criticism last week that the map was unclear and publicans on the border did not know if the new laws applied to them.

The precinct runs along Cowper Wharf Roadway in Woolloomooloo, up Macleay and Victoria Streets in Potts Point and along Campbell Street, Darlinghurst.

Its western border cuts along Harbour Street and Hickson Road, taking in Cockle Bay but excluding Barangaroo, the site of James Packer's proposed casino.

Restaurants, small bars holding less than 60 people and hotel bars will be exempt from the changes.

Lord mayor Clover Moore and others have expressed concern patrons will migrate to venues outside the border to escape the restrictions and continue drinking in the early hours of the morning.

The government says the boundaries can be extended if required.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bill-to-c...ntoxication-20140130-31oh9.html#ixzz2rqkbQDJs
 
Damn that's some shit..

I guess as long as your not assaulting people while intoxicated this wont really matter.

.15 is pretty high id probably be out but im not a drinker. Im sure some peole need that to function..

Your guys dui limits of .05 is .03 less than my state of Idaho's .08 for drunk driving.

Do you guys get alot of drink driving arrests regularly? (any aus perspective would be cool)

We get tons of them during the week and weekends here in boise.
 
Last edited:
I think these mew wonders will do amazing. They will certainly send people to prison. but as the brain system that makes rational reasoning based from the consequences or repercussions is lobotomized by alcohol I see these new measures having little effect. Might want to address the real problem instead of punishing the sad outcomes IMO.
 
Damn that's some shit..

I guess as long as your not assaulting people while intoxicated this wont really matter.

.15 is pretty high id probably be out but im not a drinker. Im sure some peole need that to function..

Your guys dui limits of .05 is .03 less than my state of Idaho's .08 for drunk driving.

Do you guys get alot of drink driving arrests regularly? (any aus perspective would be cool)

We get tons of them during the week and weekends here in boise.


Yeah we do, the cops are always busy with RBT's (Random Breath Tests).
 
In my drinking days I could be .19 and 100% coherent, no slurring of the words or stumbling, and appear to be much more sober than I was. For me I was not a danger to anyone at that dose of alcohol as long as I didn't drive and I didn't own a car or have a license so it wasn't like I was going to. So this law unfairly restricts the freedom of people who have high alcohol tolerances but are otherwise hard working and responsible people. The government takes the most power when your most afraid...
 
Sounds like a conservative government thing to do. Fascist cunts.
 
Sounds like a conservative government thing to do. Fascist cunts.

Um sorry, but are you fucking for real?

I bite my tongue at a lot of shit but seriously you cannot be that fucked in the head to say that this is bad.

This will stop all of these goddamn SHREDDING FOR STEREO hectic cunts that run up and down the street starting punch ons with every fucker that they meet.


Did you actually read this thread?


The legislation creates a separate offence with a minimum mandatory sentence of eight years and a maximum penalty of 25 years in jail for an assault causing death if the offence is committed by an adult when intoxicated - whether under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

A person who is not intoxicated will face a maximum penalty of 20 years in jail for hitting a person and causing their death whether or not they died as a result of the injuries received directly from the assault, or from hitting the ground or another object.

If your not a stooge taking random swings at people then you're fine.
 
^^ Hyperbole aside, the conservative state governments are taking the war on civil liberties to absurd new heights at the moment... Don't even get me started on the federal government :!
 
absurd new heights?

this new law is simply requiring that people be accountable for their actions by placing restrictions on the hours in which people are responsibly served alcohol (as it has been proven that beyond that point, people are already intoxicated and danger occurs) and that if you choose to be reckless while under the influence and have a BAC of .15 or over you will be punished accordingly for your actions. i fail to see how this is a wager of our civil liberties? its more so an issue of accountability and responsibility in the choices we make.

...kytnism...:|
 
Mandatory minimums are great. Let's throw away the courts and due process too... oh wait, already done. I forgot, freedom is slavery, I'll be meditating about a foot, stomping on my face forever.
 
Perhaps they should use the current laws and punish violent offenders more harshly than they do currently. The majority of our community is sick of the minority not being able to handle their alcohol. All this talk about civil liabilities is ironic given that normal people are now afraid to walk down the streets of drinking districts because they might be punched by a drunken random. Surely civil liberties of these people who act in a civil manner is more important than those who break the law? For once the government is listening to the voice of the majority who voted them in.

If you are to point the blame at anyone I'd start at the legal fraternity who for years have argued lenient or non existent sentences for violent offenders with long records of anti social behaviour. I'm not advocating locking up first time offenders but it seems very little deterring the same idiots when it comes to law and order. I have no sympathy for people who can't drink responsibly because they are a major hand brake for any realistic drug law reform.
 
If you can't use a drug like alcohol sensibly how the hell are you expected to used a stronger drug? Moderation is the key to using most substances safely. Even meth, heroin and coke are used by many people as a sometimes vice with no ill health. Unfortunately a significant minority, let's say 10% or 15% of the population have no self control, no social or moral handbrake and show no history of restraint when it comes to current legal drug use. I don't imagine every person will become an addict if the floodgates are open, but even 10% of society becoming a stoner stereotype is too much for most people to accept.

I'd be happy for my local drinking district to become an Amsterdam like coffee shop precinct but I still won't be taking my kids there for a family stroll
 
If you are to point the blame at anyone I'd start at the legal fraternity who for years have argued lenient or non existent sentences for violent offenders with long records of anti social behaviour.

Tabloid fantasy - 100% pure and unadulterated horse shit.

If you want, we can start digging into the sentencing stats to prove just how misinformed this opinion is?
 
i fail to see how this is a wager of our civil liberties? its more so an issue of accountability and responsibility in the choices we make.

...kytnism...:|

Holy shit. Are you for REAL? 8o

I expected better from BLers than a rehashed "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear" fallacy, I honestly did.

These laws don't allow for ANY mitigating factors - intent is a cornerstone of the legal system, under these laws an unintentional hit - or a provoked hit - could potentially see people doing longer sentence than somebody who has wilfully and intently murdered someone.

Despite the tabloid induced mistrust of the judiciary, as highlighted above, our judges are actually extremely professional and sentencing is one of the hardest jobs they have to do throughout a criminal trial, they have to take into account everything they know of the case and weigh that against community expectations and come up with a finely calibrated sentence that fits the crime.

Take that away and, as opi8 says - fuck it - why even bother with trials any more? If we start stripping away legal protections that have been the cornerstone of our democratic system for over 800 years then - why stop there?

Seriously, I think people in this country desperately need a better civic education before we sleepwalk our way into a total police state :|
 
Last edited:
And, to add insult to injury, the problem that is supposedly so urgent we need to enact a whole new raft of draconian laws that strip away age-old civil liberties has actually been in a long term decline - the whole thing is a media beat-up designed primarily to sell more newspapers. Barry O'Farrell, who resisted calls for kneejerk reactions after that kid died on NYE - it was only after a sustained newspaper and shockjock campaign that he withered under the pressure. This is NOT how a responsible, thoughtful society governs itself.

I don't know about you but I'm not comfortable with grubby tabloid journalists dictating how society should and shouldn't be run.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/01/28...faxs-shameless-campaign-of-misrepresentation/

Alcohol and violence: Fairfax’s shameless campaign of misrepresentation
BERNARD KEANE | JAN 28, 2014 12:45PM

Desperate newspapers and a rejection of basic facts has proved a toxic combination in NSW over the issue of alcohol-related violence.

This is the story of how a desperate media company has corrupted public debate, leading to significant curbs on basic rights and bad policy in NSW.

An 18-year-old man, Daniel Christie, was critically injured in an assault in Sydney on New Year’s Eve. He died on January 11 after his family decided to take him off life support. The man alleged to have hit Christie, one Shaun McNeil, was subsequently charged with murder.

The death of Daniel Christie, like the deaths of other young men in similar circumstances, is an appalling tragedy. His family are plainly suffering the most dreadful grief. And I say that as the father of teenage boys.

The Sydney Morning Herald was campaigning on alcohol-related violence before the attack on Christie. It had run a number of comment and reporting pieces in December about what its journalists portrayed as rising levels of violence in Sydney. Public health lobbyists pushing for higher alcohol taxes and bans on bottle shops, such as Dr Gordian Fulde of St Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, were happy to join in the Herald’s campaign. Fulde has been campaigning against alcohol for over a decade, although he has also spoken about the effects of ice, cocaine and cannabis; he has also claimed that kebab shops are a threat.

Fulde is insistent that violence is getting worse in Sydney and that alcohol is to blame. It is a claim that the Herald was happy to repeat. It is also a claim that is blatantly false. Not false in a “we can agree to disagree” sense, or in a “lies, damned lies and statistics” way; it is plainly false and self-evidently so to anyone who bothers to check. Last year’s Review of the Liquor Act 2007 and Gaming and Liquor Administration Act 2007 showed that violent incidents on licensed premises had fallen 28% from 2007, and alcohol-related assaults had fallen 35% between 2008 and 2012. Assaults across NSW had also fallen significantly, as had hospital presentations for acute alcohol-related problems.

And for those who believe that review was a Big Grog conspiracy, you can go to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research site and look at the data yourself. In fact, just how wrong the public health lobby and the Herald are in their claims about violence and alcohol can be demonstrated in three graphs. Assaults in Sydney have fallen significantly, including in actual numbers regardless of population growth, in recent years:

Assaultsdata.jpg


And Australians are drinking significantly less than they drank in the 1970s and 1980s, and less than five years ago.

Alcohol.jpg


And the most recent data (it will be updated later this year) shows binge drinking among teens is stable or down, too.

bingeing1.jpg


Only the Herald’s Inga Ting had the courage to buck the trend at Fairfax, using actual data to show that Australians were already heavily taxed when it comes to alcohol and that lifting the price was unlikely to have the effect claimed by the public health lobby.

But her colleagues struggled with the facts. Sean Nicholls reluctantly addressed that BOCSAR figures showed big falls in assaults. Instead of admitting they contradicted Fairfax’s campaign, he claimed instead that the data were “confusing” and “an environment ripe for cherry picking of statistics by governments and lobby groups”. Apparently it wasn’t quite ripe enough, because Nicholls was unable to cherry-pick any numbers himself to support claims about rising violence. Dr Don Weatherburn of BOCSAR immediately responded to Nicholls’ “confusion” by releasing detailed statistics showing falls in assaults on and off licensed premises in Kings Cross.

Fulde had a different take on the reason the data didn’t match his claims about rising violence — that the number of assaults might not be increasing, but their severity was. But no one has been able to present any evidence to back that up. By Fulde’s logic, there should have been an increase in the number of incidents of non-driving manslaughter in recent years. But that number shifts randomly between zero and four in any given year in inner Sydney — there were four in 2012 and four in 2003; zero in 2001 and zero in 2013. In the whole of the Sydney area, manslaughter is significantly down on 1990 levels.

The indisputable fact that the level of street violence in Sydney has significantly improved and that Australia’s “booze-soaked culture” is one of declining alcohol consumption and less binge drinking didn’t deter Fairfax, especially after the death of Christie. Belatedly, the SMH was joined by the Daily Telegraph, baying for blood over the issue of king-hit assaults or, as to use the more politically correct term, “coward punches”.

This takes us to the most relevant statistics about this whole sordid affair. The Sydney Morning Herald’s circulation is in freefall — it lost more than 15% of its circulation in the year to September. And in 2013, it fell 7 points in its readers’ trust, according to Essential Research’s trust in media survey, tumbling to 64%. The Telegraph is Australia’s least-trusted metro title — trusted by only 41% of its readers — and its circulation fell by nearly as much as the Herald’s in the year to September. They are two dying newspapers, each desperate to outdo the other.

Faced with both of the city’s newspapers running a fictional campaign, NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell gave in. He’d previously invoked the evidence of the declining nature of the problem of violence in Sydney, and alcohol-fueled violence in particular, but in the end he had no politically palatable choice: he announced a package of policies. A new offence was created and coupled with a mandatory minimum sentence. Arbitrary lockouts and closing times were imposed on venues within an arbitrarily defined area. Bottle shops, doubtless to the delight of the clubs and pubs that keep being targeted as the villains in all this, must now shut at 10pm. Supplying steroids was elevated to an offence on par with dealing in heroin.

Surprisingly, kebab shops remain unmolested at this point, but for how long, who knows.

O’Farrell’s package was awful. Mandatory minimum sentences don’t deter people, give more power to governments and their agents at the expense of courts and often lead to a wider variety of sentences rather than greater uniformity (they’re a reflexive law-and-order measure for US politicians; see what the conservative Cato Institute has to say about them). Suddenly steroids are being treated like the worst kinds of narcotics. The rest of the measures appear designed to infuriate and inconvenience drinkers and generate additional revenue for clubs and pubs. The targeting of bottle shops is particularly concerning because bottle shops are on the hit list of the public health lobby, which is devoting considerable resources to demonizing drinking at home (using the Orwellian term “pre-loading”) and claiming there are too many bottle shops, it is too easy to buy alcohol online and alcohol is too cheap.

O’Farrell’s package was so bad even Campbell Newman, serial violator of Queenslanders’ basic liberties, thought it was too much.

But there’s a longer-term problem here. Public debate on an important issue has been degraded, and poor policy outcomes produced, as the direct result of the blatant rejection of evidence and logic by a major media outlet. Normally this is the sort of charge that is leveled at News Corp’s papers, but in this case it is Fairfax. The Herald was the outlet that in October declared it would no longer publish letters from climate denialists. This was its rationale:

“Climate change deniers or sceptics are free to express opinions and political views on our page but not to misrepresent facts. This applies to all our contributors on any subject.”

Clearly it doesn’t apply to Fairfax’s editors and journalists who have shamelessly peddled claims that were obviously false in pursuit of an hysterical campaign that led to curbs on people’s basic rights, and bad criminal justice policy.

So tell me again why this problem is SO urgent that, in a matter of weeks without any real consideration of the long term consequences, we need to rush through new laws, new sentencing that strips the judiciary of the kind of independence that has been at the centre of Westminster democracy for centuries?

The actual evidence is stunningly clear - the existing laws and the existing alcohol control measures were already working- so why the need to reactively change something that is already working?
 
Last edited:
Tabloid fantasy - 100% pure and unadulterated horse shit.

If you want, we can start digging into the sentencing stats to prove just how misinformed this opinion is?

Do you remember the mental guy who caused Brisbane mall to be evacuated last year? He held a gun to his head and held the cops at bay for 4-5 hours. He then pointed the gun the police and wanted them to kill him.In the end they shot his hand and arrested him. (If it was America it would have been between his eyes). Caused thousands of people to cower in shops and untold thousands of dollars lost to businesses. Also he had a history of domestic violence.

He was sentenced last week and is due out September on parole after time already served. Are you fucking kidding me? Less than 18months for holding the CBD at ransom with a fucking gun? Not good enough in my and the majority of my peers opinion.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...atthew-hillier-sentencing-20140123-31b69.html
 
^ And have you seen the price of eggs in China lately? Geez. It's getting out of hand.
 
Not good enough in my and the majority of my peers opinion

Yeah, let's leave it up to the mob - because that's how the law should work. I mean, hell, you and your peers are just as qualified as some stupid judge to make that judgement. And, just like the judge in this case, I am sure you and your peers are in possession of ALL the facts pertaining to the case and have come to a sober and reasoned position after an extended period of reflection and insight.

And you got all of that from the pages of the Courier-Mail, too I'm sure *nods*

Yup.
 
Top