Yes, today I went to court. Up at 5.30am, train to Sydney (Parramatta), courthouse at 9.30am. Actually, it was for one of my sons. He was picked up for a 0.03 alcohol reading while driving his very drunk mates home. Normally, 0.03 means nothing, since the limit is 0.05. But since he is on his P’s (provisional license), he is allowed 0.00. He got off lightly, 3 months suspension.
But it was the other cases that were absolutely rivetting. I thoroughly enjoyed myself, especially with the following:
1) A dopehead who got picked up with a blood-dope reading, driving unlicensed. Not the first time, since he’d done it about 5 months ago as well, and then a year earlier, and then… So the judge threatened him with prison and said, ‘what have you got to say for yourself?’ His reply, ‘I’m a decent person …’ The judge: ‘No you’re not’. He got 3 years and a massive fine. And then he asked: ‘is this for the whole of Australia or just NSW?’ And, when the judge told him it was the whole country, ‘what about New Zealand?’ Guess where he’s going.
2) A drunk who was picked up with a blood alcohol reading of 0.182. Now that is plastered, cactus, lying the gutter stuff. Extreme is about 0.150. But he was picked up parking in front of a bottle shop and going in to get another case of beer. And this was the third time he’d been caught. He went off to jail.
3) The well-dressed and spoilt rich kid who was picked up driving at 166 km in an 80km zone – unlicensed. Not the first time – 3rd or 4th in fact. He barely escaped jail and got 2 years suspension with a massive fine. And he was really, really pissed off.
Bloody brilliant. I could have stayed all day!
4 November, 2009 at 10:15 pm
The legal system can be great entertainment if you pick your court right. The lower courts are the best, as you found out. A magistrates/local court can sometimes be Judge Judy like in breezing through cases in 15-20 minutes. It’s all petty shit, there’s rarely a complex dispute over evidence or something as obscure as ‘guilt’.
Thing is it’s usually host to an underclass of repeat offenders. When I was doing court observations back in th first year of my law degree I remember snapping at some of the other students who were enjoying it all a bit too much “poor people don’t just exist for you cunts amusement.”
But on the other hand I had very socially conscious activist-inclined middle class law graduate friends who went all to pieces when they started practicing law and couldn’t deal with the fact that just because someone is poor and/or substance-dependent, mentally ill, homeless, indigenous, a survivor of abuse, or a refugee, doesn’t mean that they can’t be an asshole and guilty as all fuck as well.
What the novice court voyeur should avoid, though, is trying their luck at a superior court hoping to catch something grizzly like a murder. Chances are you’ll come in 1/3 of the way through a complicated fraud case and sit watching a dozen lawyers dispute the admissibility of hand-written accounting records from the time of the ’87 financial crash. Best to stick with the junkies and drunk drivers.
P.s. Roland, did you have your $70 polyester suit on?
5 November, 2009 at 8:16 am
Yah, I picked it up on a council cleanup, but sitting there made me think about the judiciary as a repressive state apparatus, but then I thought, no, what they’re trying to do is keep a crook system running: powerful car companies, plenty of alcohol and drugs, self-propelled chariots left in the hands of anyone and everyone (it was all traffic offenders). And those who took the approach ‘fuck the system’ copped it. I must admit I enjoyed it most when the spoilt rich kid copped his penalty. Mind you, it would get pretty boring after about a day.