Ezra Mam

[Dr. Voodoo Man]

Make me.

You are twisted man,.

[eddie]

Let's not monkey around................................this little prick deserves to be slammed.

[mightyrooster]

I don’t get it. He’s been charged with driving under the influence of drugs and losing control of his vehicle. But no mention of the damage this losing control caused? No mention of the victims? Are the victims supposed to sue him or something?

[Rooster1908]

I don’t get it. He’s been charged with driving under the influence of drugs and losing control of his vehicle. But no mention of the damage this losing control caused? No mention of the victims? Are the victims supposed to sue him or something?

There may have already been some sort of settlement in exchange for not being charged with causing injuries.Niy sure if that could happen but

[ism22]

I don’t get it. He’s been charged with driving under the influence of drugs and losing control of his vehicle. But no mention of the damage this losing control caused? No mention of the victims? Are the victims supposed to sue him or something?

I had a quick geez through QLD's relevant legislation and decided to back-out as I'm not an expert in QLD driving offences.

However, there seems to be some overlap between the criminal code (which has a really nasty, black and white, strict liability offence for incidents where you crash... while on drugs... without a license... strict liability means the mens rea of negligence/recklessness is irrelevant). I'd need to read the history of that offence but it's a nasty one with a max penalty of 5 years.

I don't know why they chose to stack together a heap of lesser offences under the relevant driving offences leg (or what the ticket for losing control of a vehicle actually is) but they did. This is assuming the papers are reporting the charges correctly (which they may not).

[mightyrooster]

There may have already been some sort of settlement in exchange for not being charged with causing injuries.Niy sure if that could happen but

I did wonder about that. I was thinking Broncos Pty Ltd covering the cost on his behalf.

[mightyrooster]

I had a quick geez through QLD's relevant legislation and decided to back-out as I'm not an expert in QLD driving offences.

However, there seems to be some overlap between the criminal code (which has a really nasty, black and white, strict liability offence for incidents where you crash... while on drugs... without a license... strict liability means the mens rea of negligence/recklessness is irrelevant). I'd need to read the history of that offence but it's a nasty one with a max penalty of 5 years.

I don't know why they chose to stack together a heap of lesser offences under the relevant driving offences leg (or what the ticket for losing control of a vehicle actually is) but they did. This is assuming the papers are reporting the charges correctly (which they may not).

Thanks issy. I was trying to compare it to the Sandon Smith situation, which I know is a different state and all, but maybe the victim with the foot injury is the one suing for damages. And as 08 said, the family of the little girl have reached a private settlement.

[Schooner]

Anyone injured in a car accident makes a claim against third party insurance. You cant normally sue the offending driver separately. Im not sure if Ezras third party insurance is void because he was on drugs. If so they could then sue him. His vehicle insurance should be void so he would have to play for damage to the vehicles. A private settlement cant prevent police charges for driving offences.

[rented tracksuit]

Not sure there would have been any third party insurance as his car was unregistered.

[mightyrooster]

Anyone injured in a car accident makes a claim against third party insurance. You cant normally sue the offending driver separately. Im not sure if Ezras third party insurance is void because he was on drugs. If so they could then sue him. His vehicle insurance should be void so he would have to play for damage to the vehicles. A private settlement cant prevent police charges for driving offences.

That all makes sense. Thanks. So the initial charges suggest the police believe the injury to the victims is not sufficient to warrant a higher charge? This will give the NRL an excuse to give him a lighter ban. Whereas he should be de-registered from the NRL for a minimum 12 months. Am I being cynical?

[Steggles]

That all makes sense. Thanks. So the initial charges suggest the police believe the injury to the victims is not sufficient to warrant a higher charge? This will give the NRL an excuse to give him a lighter ban. Whereas he should be de-registered from the NRL for a minimum 12 months. Am I being cynical?

Not cynical at all. Given the severity of the incident and the extent of his wrongdoing, I would expect the NRL should ban him for a couple of years. If Maguire is fair dinkum about changing the culture at the Broncos, they should tear up his contract immediately. Hopefully we never see him again in the NRL.

[player 1]

You are twisted man,.

I know - they don't come any worse than me...

[Rooster1908]

I know - they don't come any worse than me...

They do you know . Theres Me Rooster1908 . ThenJack Fur Coat , then of course there is Mighty Rooster but of course Shes a girl and not a man. Voodo hates most so your not alone

[Dr. Voodoo Man]

I know - they don't come any worse than me...

Seriously you are bitter and think the referees, the game's administrators and now the legal system have all conspired to defeat the Sydney Roosters. That makes you somewhat of a dill.

[Dr. Voodoo Man]

They do you know . Theres Me Rooster1908 . ThenJack Fur Coat , then of course there is Mighty Rooster but of course Shes a girl and not a man. Voodo hates most so your not alone

How dare you? Jax is awesome.