who owns hotcopper, page-14

I stand corrected. It was 165 ks .

From the NSW hansard 1997. Google is amazing!


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Is it a fact that J*** S******** - a prominent advertising media millionaire - was recently charged by the New South Wales Police Service for driving at 165 kilometres an hour on a New South Wales road? Is it a fact that a magistrate treated Mr S******** as a first offender and recorded no conviction, fine or loss of points? As this amazing decision has clearly undermined the road safety campaign in New South Wales, will the Attorney General conduct a review of this case and request the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal the decision?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: As I understand it, the decision of the court - that is, the learned magistrate, Mr Williams - in Mr S********’s case was to dismiss the charges under section 556A of the Crimes Act 1900 and Mr S******** was ordered to pay court costs. Mr S******** has had, as I understand it, four minor infringements in more than 40 years of driving. Section 556A of the Crimes Act allows a sentencing judge or magistrate, when an offence has been proved, to dismiss the charge or to place the offender on a bond, having regard to the character, antecedents and mental condition of the offender; to the nature of the offence; to the extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed; or to any other matter the court thinks it proper to consider. In other words, judicial officers have a broad discretion when they find the charges proved and they can dismiss them pursuant to section 556A of the Crimes Act.

I do not have any adverse comments to make about the exercise of the magistrate’s discretion in this case. Of course, if the police believe that the penalty imposed is inadequate, they can refer the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider lodging an appeal. I have seen the comments of the magistrate on sentencing, and did not see anything untoward in the reasoning process or the exercise of discretion. The mere fact that some honourable members may have exercised their discretion in a different way if they were the magistrate is not the point.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It would not happen to me.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I know nothing about the driving record of the Hon. D. J. Gay, so I make no comment about that. Obviously, if individuals have difficulty with the decision, they can take steps that are open to them to deal with it. I do not propose to take any steps in relation to this decision by the magistrate.