my refusal to wear a bicycle helmet

my refusal to wear a bicycle helmet
...is informed

Friday, March 5, 2010

Criminal conviction quashed!

(...with Georgie, my devoted 'court' groupie)

District Court v Local Court - no comparison!!!!!

Admittedly the appeal was dismissed, but hey! my conviction was quashed, and there were no fines, no court costs; just an abundance of courtesy, generosity, time, guidance...

...and also...I am no longer a criminal!

Basically the judge agreed with my submissions on procedural fairness, necessary belief and proportionality of response, but ultimately felt that necessity could not be applied to my 'lifestyle' choice of un-helmeted cycling - my concerns of catastrophic climate change & climate justice just did not persuade him in terms of 'immediate peril.'

Notwithstanding, justice has been done - he listened to me; I have been heard!

What a difference a 'different' court makes!!!!

...and you know what else? - I loved being at the bar table!!!!!

16 comments:

  1. So what does this mean then?

    WIll you be allowed to cycle around without the magic hat or will the cops pick you up again?

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is great I am glad for you,but what does all that Gobbledygook mean. Is the Judge covering his Rear End,saying one thing and meaning another while not saying anything at all.

    Running with the Hare and chasing with the Hound.Will you be officially allowed to Ride without the Plastic Hat thingy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Congratulations Sue - you must have had a killer counsel ;-)

    However, I assume this means you can't yet lawfully ride your bike without a helmet.

    Once you've celebrated clearing your name, what next?

    Congratulations again, I think this is a huge first step!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great news! Congratulations Sue. Although the law has not (yet) been repealed, the Judge does appear to have recognised that the choice you (and many others) make is hardly criminal.

    Well done.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you, guys, - so endeth my 'Chapter 1' - and yes, faced with the whole gammut of crime and the defence of necessity, the judge was constrained not to set a precedent that could expand the defence for more serious criminal matters, but he did AGREE with me (as did the DPP)and they both urged me to seek an exemption. 'Exemption' territory is murky to say the least - but I think it's the start of my 'Chapter 2'!!!!

    Thanks for all your support - I have been so encouraged by your words and sentiments - thanks a million!! x

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wonderful news, Sue. Congralulations!

    If there is anything I can do to assist with 'Chapter 2', let me know. Of course, if you are ever in Brisbane, give me a call.

    Kind regards,

    Dr Paul Martin
    MBBS, FANZCA

    ReplyDelete
  7. wee folding bike, - in a nutshell as far as the law is concerned, i still ought to be wearing a helmet - of course i won't be!

    - the cops can still pick me up for not wearing the magic hat but i will regale them with my intention to apply for an exemption

    - with regards to the exemption, once i've got it / or not got it as the case may be, i will then correspond with the ombudsman to continue the quest of pointing out the daftness of the legislation

    ReplyDelete
  8. Congratulations Sue & well done for standing up for a fight :>D

    ReplyDelete
  9. Great news Sue,

    ReplyDelete
  10. Congratulations Sue. I'm helping formulate submissions for transport regulations regarding bicycles in a small Pacific island nation and, while I always wear a helmet (saved my life once), I believe adults should not be forced to wear helmets. You are a pioneer!

    ReplyDelete
  11. hey! velomancer! thank you for your support & good luck with your important quest!

    ReplyDelete
  12. The right to make the wrong desicion is upheld. For that I am glad. For the defiant comment "passionately detest helmets & will never wear one" I am amused by its vanity.

    I passionately detest fire engines and will never use thier services - sounds about the same.

    ReplyDelete
  13. dear guest,
    sounds really silly to me - correlation and causation often get muddled

    ReplyDelete
  14. It turns out that motorists will drive an average of 4 inches further away from a cyclist if they are not wearing a helmet, a perfect example of homeostasis- in this case the tendency of people to take up the slack.
    I want those 4 inches back.

    ReplyDelete