Greg Inglis: 18 mths good behaviour bond for mid range DUI, speeding offences

[Valheru]

Pretty simple isn't it? He would only provide personal references for people that he personally saw fit to?

Just because he gave Inglis one doesn't mean he is bound to give every NRL player a reference. Just like the boss of any company who provides a character reference for an employee, just because they gave it one bloke doesn't mean they have to give it to everyone.

Todd Greenburg isn't Greg's employer

 

[Zadar]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sm...ecause-of-community-work-20190114-p50r7m.html



In sentencing Inglis at the Downing Centre Local Court on Monday, Chief Magistrate Graeme Henson said the "error of judgment" in his breaching the legal blood-alcohol limit was compounded by the previous night of drinking. "It must've been a fairly heavy night before," Mr Henson said. "But I accept that you did your best at that time to get it right."





Since when has an " error of judgement " been an excuse to basically get off a DUI charge?
Seriously, Inglis got credit for doing his best to " get it right" ?

The guy went mid range, 19kms over the speed limit.

For fks sake.....

So what sort of message does this send to the communities that Inglis “works” with?

If anything it sends them the wrong message, It’s ok to drink drive and speed if..............

 

[Fufu Andronez]

So what sort of message does this send to the communities that Inglis “works” with?

If anything it sends them the wrong message, It’s ok to drink drive and speed if..............

If you can play footy good

 

[9701]

This f**ken numpty gets a slap on the wrist for doing good in the community pfft, I served the country in the Australian Defence Force for 13 years and got done for 0.051 lost my license for a month and a $100 fine, if only I had of served the community instead of the country.

 

[MilkShark]

GUI, protected species

 

[Spot On]

Pretty simple isn't it? He would only provide personal references for people that he personally saw fit to?

Just because he gave Inglis one doesn't mean he is bound to give every NRL player a reference. Just like the boss of any company who provides a character reference for an employee, just because they gave it one bloke doesn't mean they have to give it to everyone.

No. Do for one, do for all. Inglis has fronted court before, been charged with assault (later charges were withdrawn) copped a fine and behaviour program.

If he sees fit to grant Inglis a chatacter reference then he must do the same for others.

As someone has pointed out, Greenburg aint paying Greg's wage.

So, is he willing to do the same for others?

 

[The Book of Steeden]

The weirdest part of it is Inglis isn’t even a star anymore who adds to the game - sure, he’s still a name, but he’s 31 going on 50. It’s almost at the point where I’m excited to see him line up against us, because I know Joey Manu will give him a bath every time these days. They’d be more dangerous with a hungry, young player of far less talent but who’s actually interested in having a go.

 

[Valheru]

This whole situation just smells.

I have no problem with section 10s for first time offenders especially if the punishment is likely to destroy the offender's livelihood and prevent them from working and being a participant in society i.e. young labourers etc.

This is clearly not the case with Greg, he is a first time offender I suppose but his ability to earn money would not have been hampered with a conviction. I think we would all have a bit more respect for Greg if he copped a conviction and went to these communities he allegedly does so much for and admitted to them his mistake and regret of his actions and the fact he put lives at risk and educate those people who look up to him to not do the same.

I know he didn't make the decision to not convict himself which comes back to the point of Greenberg providing a character reference for him despite 2-3 weeks ago telling the clubs to tell their players to pull their heads in. It actually defies belief and you would think this type of case would be a perfect opportunity for Greenberg to show the clubs and the game's stakeholders that no one is above reproach.

Don't get me wrong, I am not one to hang players out to dry and ask for blanket bans etc. but in this case I think a suspension of license for a short time and a couple of NRL games suspension would send a clear message instead of Greenberg going out of his way to essentially get him off because he sees him as a good bloke.

 

[The Book of Steeden]

This whole situation just smells.

I have no problem with section 10s for first time offenders especially if the punishment is likely to destroy the offender's livelihood and prevent them from working and being a participant in society i.e. young labourers etc.

This is clearly not the case with Greg, he is a first time offender I suppose but his ability to earn money would not have been hampered with a conviction. I think we would all have a bit more respect for Greg if he copped a conviction and went to these communities he allegedly does so much for and admitted to them his mistake and regret of his actions and the fact he put lives at risk and educate those people who look up to him to not do the same.

I know he didn't make the decision to not convict himself which comes back to the point of Greenberg providing a character reference for him despite 2-3 weeks ago telling the clubs to tell their players to pull their heads in. It actually defies belief and you would think this type of case would be a perfect opportunity for Greenberg to show the clubs and the game's stakeholders that no one is above reproach.

Don't get me wrong, I am not one to hang players out to dry and ask for blanket bans etc. but in this case I think a suspension of license for a short time and a couple of NRL games suspension would send a clear message instead of Greenberg going out of his way to essentially get him off because he sees him as a good bloke.

Inglis’ response to the whole thing has been pretty repulsive as well. He’s made it plenty clear he regards it as no big deal. & with the despicable Greenberg’s blessing, it seems.

 

[carcharias]

This whole situation just smells.

I have no problem with section 10s for first time offenders especially if the punishment is likely to destroy the offender's livelihood and prevent them from working and being a participant in society i.e. young labourers etc.

This is clearly not the case with Greg, he is a first time offender I suppose but his ability to earn money would not have been hampered with a conviction. I think we would all have a bit more respect for Greg if he copped a conviction and went to these communities he allegedly does so much for and admitted to them his mistake and regret of his actions and the fact he put lives at risk and educate those people who look up to him to not do the same.

I know he didn't make the decision to not convict himself which comes back to the point of Greenberg providing a character reference for him despite 2-3 weeks ago telling the clubs to tell their players to pull their heads in. It actually defies belief and you would think this type of case would be a perfect opportunity for Greenberg to show the clubs and the game's stakeholders that no one is above reproach.

Don't get me wrong, I am not one to hang players out to dry and ask for blanket bans etc. but in this case I think a suspension of license for a short time and a couple of NRL games suspension would send a clear message instead of Greenberg going out of his way to essentially get him off because he sees him as a good bloke.

That’s because Greenberg is a lowlife .
I’ve said it since day one.
The merkin couldn’t lie straight in bed.
He is only looking out for himself.

 

[The Book of Steeden]

That’s because Greenberg is a lowlife .
I’ve said it since day one.
The merkin couldn’t lie straight in bed.
He is only looking out for himself.

This 1,000%.

 

[Timmah]

Don't get me wrong, I am not one to hang players out to dry and ask for blanket bans etc. but in this case I think a suspension of license for a short time and a couple of NRL games suspension would send a clear message instead of Greenberg going out of his way to essentially get him off because he sees him as a good bloke.

The sentence is the disgusting part IMO, the magistrate has gone the wrong way by not convicting him and giving him a pissy GBB.

I think the other part of it that's easily forgotten is that he missed two internationals and was stripped of the captaincy - so he didn't exactly escape punishment. But I agree he probably should have been stood down for the Rabbitohs' pre-season if nothing else. Almost seems like he's being rewarded by being eligible for the All Stars game.

 

[Valheru]

The sentence is the disgusting part IMO, the magistrate has gone the wrong way but not convicting him and giving him a pissy GBB.

I think the other part of it that's easily forgotten is that he missed two internationals and was stripped of the captaincy - so he didn't exactly escape punishment. But I agree he probably should have been stood down for the Rabbitohs' pre-season if nothing else. Almost seems like he's being rewarded by being eligible for the All Stars game.

Yeah I do remember him missing the 2 internationals but correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that a decision made by Mal Meninga?

As I said, I don't think he deserves anything ridiculous or lengthy but I just see this as a very easy opportunity for Greenberg to send a clear message with everything else going on at the moment.

 

[Timmah]

Yeah I do remember him missing the 2 internationals but correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that a decision made by Mal Meninga?

As I said, I don't think he deserves anything ridiculous or lengthy but I just see this as a very easy opportunity for Greenberg to send a clear message with everything else going on at the moment.

Says NRL issued the ban here: https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/10/02...s-of-drink-driving-charge-out-of-his-control/

I think the real test for Greenberg will come in the next month or two with a lot of the charged players over summer set to face court - and how they are/aren't punished depending on outcomes thereafter.

 

[Life's Good]

Its laughable that being stripped of the captaincy was deemed as punishment in the eyes of the magistrate when, in the real world, it carries little significance. I mean, what is the deterrent to stop him doing it again?

You then get a tradie charged and convicted(rightly, because he was DUI)and his punishment hampers him to at least make him stop & think before trying it on again.

The Inglis defence: is your client the captain of the Kangaroos?
Georgina Mitchell16 January 2019 — 12:05am


A man has been disqualified from driving for three months after his lawyer compared his drink-driving case to that of NRL superstar Greg Inglis.

Steven Said Kazzi, 40, was pulled over for a random breath test in the early hours of October 23, 2018 after police saw his Toyota Hilux driving along the Princes Highway at Banksia.

NRL star Greg Inglis outside the Downing Centre Local Court on January 14. CREDIT:AAP

It was "immediately apparent" that he was "well affected" by alcohol, according to police facts, with red eyes and slurred speech.

Mr Kazzi, who admitted to drinking eight scotches between 5pm and 2am, was taken to Kogarah Police Station where he returned a blood-alcohol reading of 0.116.


He was charged with mid-range drink driving and pleaded guilty.

Loading
On Tuesday, as Mr Kazzi was sentenced at Sutherland Local Court, his solicitor Rana Saab invoked the case of Mr Inglis.

Mr Inglis, who was caught speeding at 99km/h in an 80km/h zone while driving with a blood-alcohol level of .085 in October last year, was not convicted on Monday when he was sentenced to an 18-month community release order.

In sentencing Mr Inglis, Chief Magistrate Graeme Henson acknowledged the footballer's community work and the "punishment" of him being stripped of his Kangaroos captaincy.


Ms Saab brought up Mr Inglis's case as she argued her client should not be subject to a mandatory interlock order - which requires a breath-testing device to be connected to his car - because he is a mechanic and drives a variety of cars as part of his job.

Magistrate Philip Stewart dismissed the Inglis comparison, saying each case is decided on its subjective circumstances.

Magistrate Philip Stewart dismissed the Inglis comparison

He asked if Mr Kazzi is an Aboriginal former captain of the Kangaroos who has performed charity work. Ms Saab responded that he was not.

Mr Kazzi was fined $900, disqualified from driving for three months, and had a conviction recorded.


He must have an interlock device fitted on his car for 12 months when he is permitted to drive again.

Mr Kazzi has appealed to the District Court, arguing the penalty is too severe.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...captain-of-the-kangaroos-20190115-p50rhz.html

 

[Exsilium]

He asked if Mr Kazzi is an Aboriginal former captain of the Kangaroos who has performed charity work. Ms Saab responded that he was not.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...captain-of-the-kangaroos-20190115-p50rhz.html

Is the magistrate drawing a general comparison or do you need to be Aboriginal, a football star who does charity work to get off drink driving charges?

This has me confused. I thought the law applied to everyone?

 

[Spot On]

Says NRL issued the ban here: https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/10/02...s-of-drink-driving-charge-out-of-his-control/

I think the real test for Greenberg will come in the next month or two with a lot of the charged players over summer set to face court - and how they are/aren't punished depending on outcomes thereafter.

At least they'll have a character reference from Todd though.

 

[Life's Good]

Is the magistrate drawing a general comparison or do you need to be Aboriginal, a football star who does charity work to get off drink driving charges?

This has me confused. I thought the law applied to everyone?

Apparently not.

 

[Timmah]

Its laughable that being stripped of the captaincy was deemed as punishment in the eyes of the magistrate when, in the real world, it carries little significance. I mean, what is the deterrent to stop him doing it again?

If someone had already had a work-based punishment (demotion or denial of promotion for example) after being charged but prior to sentencing, chances are it would be a factor in the judges decision (or at the very least form part of the defence put to the court).

Also, the deterrent to stop him doing it again is that he's on a Good Behaviour Bond which means any f**k-ups in the next 18 months will mean he doesn't avoid conviction (and for what it's worth, I believe it was a pissweak sentence particularly when compared to what Elliott and Fine got for what most would consider less serious offences).

This has me confused. I thought the law applied to everyone?

Are you advocating for society to remove judge's discretion and just apply the same mandatory sentence to all persons for all crimes committed regardless of circumstance?

 

[Valheru]

If someone had already had a work-based punishment (demotion or denial of promotion for example) after being charged but prior to sentencing, chances are it would be a factor in the judges decision (or at the very least form part of the defence put to the court).

Also, the deterrent to stop him doing it again is that he's on a Good Behaviour Bond which means any f**k-ups in the next 18 months will mean he doesn't avoid conviction (and for what it's worth, I believe it was a pissweak sentence particularly when compared to what Elliott and Fine got for what most would consider less serious offences).

Are you advocating for society to remove judge's discretion and just apply the same mandatory sentence to all persons for all crimes committed regardless of circumstance?

Did he really cop any meaningful employment based penalty though? I guess it can be argued he lost match fees for representing Australia but the ARLC aren't his employer and playing for Australia isn't a guarantee of his employment.

I don't think any logical person would want to remove judge discretion and the treatment of each person on a case by case basis but I do find it completely ridiculous that a magistrate (albeit not the one who heard Greg's case) imposed a tougher penalty on a similar incident and when the defence attorney brought up Greg's case effectively said that the defendant wasn't of the correct race, profile and community stature to escape conviction.