Chris Flannery

[RB30DETT]

I am amazed this hasnt already been posted here.


The Daily Telegraph
Edition 1 - State
WED 22 DEC 2004, Page 005
NRL star's guilty plea over crash

NRL footballer Chris Flannery was already suspended from driving when, with nine glasses of wine under his belt, he got behind the wheel of his car and collided with another vehicle and then took off without exchanging details.
The Roosters rugby league forward yesterday pleaded guilty at Waverley Local Court to a charge of mid-range drink-driving.
He had a blood-alcohol count of .120 after the incident at Double Bay on December 4. Despite ``aggravating factors'' of the collision and the suspension of his licence on October 6 for failing to pay a fine, 24-year-old Flannery was disqualified from driving for only nine months. Magistrate Jayeann Carney noted Flannery, of Kensington, was ``an outstanding athlete'' and imposed a fine of $700 plus court costs of $63. The maximum penalty for mid-range drink-driving is a $2200 fine or nine months jail.

 

[gregstar]

what's so unusual about this story these days?

 

[Detox]

I think this is quite poor.

Just because he may be an "outstanding athlete'' doesn't mean he should have gotten off so lightly.

So, does this mean if other people are an "outstanding athlete" they should get the same fine etc that he got? I bet that wouldn't happen.

Or, was it the fact he was famous? Look at Shannon Noll he's gone to court also, I bet he'll get hit with a heavier fine when he goes to court next month.

The fact he got off with a $700 fine is very sad in my opinion, he should have been given the same treatment as anyone else, be he obease or an outstanding athlete.

 

[phantom]

yes but the key word is talent

flannery has it
noll has none

 

[ozzie]

look I can tell you that the damage would also come out of Flannery's poclet and how many times have we seen dirve driving cases being treated lightly - no one was killed and talkimg from exerence he probably will be issued a warnig from the RTA that he could lose his licence for 5 years as a Habitual Traffic Offender.

In fact he may have already - but that is not up to the courts to rule on - it's an automatic suspension. It can be reduced by the court but only by the period since the first offence.

ie first dui - 2000
secomd offence - 2003
third offence - 2004

therefore if he recieved a fiine from the court he would receive a letter saying he has had an automatic one year suspension.

The main thing to remember for evey one is don't do it the second time..the first time you may get off under a section of the traffic rules ( i think it is 52a) which can put you on a good behaviour band and you can keep your licence. This would go out the window if someone was killed or badly injured

 

[RB30DETT]

The judge needs to be looked at in this case.

 

[ozzie]

The judge needs to be looked at in this case.

there was a thread in NRL about this so while I have close it - you may wish to carry on in there