Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Apr 29, 2026 00:27

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 16:07 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7967982.stm
Quote:
The little white lie that grew

A POINT OF VIEW



Caught out in a fib to get out of a speeding ticket, do you put your hands up - or dig yourself deeper into a hole of your own making, asks Clive James.


It wasn't me at the wheel, honest
In a case which has deep resonance for Britain and the entire civilized world, the whole of Australia has been glued to the media in recent weeks, following the story of an eminent judge who has ruined his reputation because he tried to lie his way out of a speeding fine that would have cost him about £36.

At the age of 70, he is about to go to jail for a minimum of two years because he failed to cough up 36 quid at the right moment.

On the face of it, you can't call his disaster a tragedy. A tragedy, according to classical principles, is a fall from high degree because of some great flaw.

Marcus Einfeld, the judge in question, was certainly of high enough degree - none higher. Queens Counsel since 1977, Australian Living Treasure 1997, United Nations Peace Award 2002, the list goes on. He retired a few years ago but has continually been brought back to judge important cases about refugees because the Australian legal system can't do without his experience and prestige.


Einfeld, here protesting against mandatory detention, faces jail
Or anyway it couldn't. In 2006 a speed camera in Sydney caught his silver Lexus doing 6mph over the limit. At this point we have to forget about the dizzy speed of the car and try to slow down the thought processes going on in his head. There he is, at the top of his profession, with a national, indeed international, reputation for wisdom.

This is the man who was the founding president of Australia's Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. In 1987 he headed the Commission's enquiry into the living conditions of aborigines in the border area of New South Wales and Queensland, and he wept openly at evidence that a young aboriginal boy who had been denied a proper rugby ball had played instead with an old shoe.

Those were famous tears, and there is every reason to think that they were sincerely felt.

As a judge of great matters of justice, Marcus Einfeld had deservedly been revered for many years. He had a right to think of himself as the very incarnation of the law. Now here he was, with a speeding ticket in his hand, facing a fine of a paltry £36 for having exceeded the speed limit by a lousy 6mph.

Right to drive

And right there, the fatal error begins to take form. It wasn't so much the £36 fine. He could afford that. It was that the penalty points would bring him closer to losing his licence. Somehow the top judge and national treasure didn't see himself in a position where he was not allowed to drive.




If he had said he lent the car to a secret agent whom he could not name without rendering him vulnerable to attack, Marcus Einfeld might still be enjoying his place at the top of the heap



Hear Radio 4's A Point of View
Unusual, that. Many 70-year-old men of his exalted rank are very content to be driven, rather than having to do the driving. They have a man with a cap to drive them, so they can say from the back seat: watch out for the speed cameras, Bruce.

Perhaps Marcus Einfeld is one of those strange men - there are thousands of them in every country and they are nearly always men - who need to have a driving licence just so that they can get points on it, who think that the whole purpose of driving is to drive as far over the limit as they can and still get away with it, and still keep going for as long as the licence lasts even if they don't get away with it.

But the judge was only 6mph over the limit, which scarcely made him a boy racer. He must have thought the prospect of getting yet more points on an already point-scarred licence was an awful lot of inconvenience for practically nothing, and he must also have thought - and here the other half of the fateful mental pattern comes into play - he must also have thought of how easy it would be to get out of it.

All he had to do was say that someone else was driving the silver Lexus that day. So he said he had lent the car to an American friend, Professor Theresa Brennan. Satisfied, the magistrate dismissed the case, and the judge walked free. In just such a way, King Oedipus believed himself to be in the clear when he left Corinth.

If he - I mean the judge, not King Oedipus - had said that he had lent the car to an Australian government secret agent whom he could not name without rendering him vulnerable to attack by terrorists, Marcus Einfeld might still be enjoying his place at the top of the heap, admired by all.

But Professor Theresa Brennan was an actual figure, who could be traced. When a newspaper did trace her, it turned out that she was no longer in existence. At the time of the speeding incident she had already been dead for three years.


The judge is a respected defender of the displaced and downtrodden
It was probably already too late for Marcus Einfeld to save his career. Yet he might conceivably have climbed relatively unbesmirched out of the hole he was occupying, and even drawn some sympathy for the depth to which he had dug himself in by telling one of those little fibs that almost everyone tells over small matters.

But like President Nixon in the Watergate scandal, the judge, although trying to cover up an infinitely smaller crime - dodging a £36 fine instead of okaying acts of black-bag espionage against a rival party in clear defiance of the Constitution of the United States - the judge chose to go on digging himself further towards the centre of the earth.

He said he didn't mean that Theresa Brennan. He meant another Theresa Brennan. A Greek chorus at this point might have said that the judge was anything but a natural liar, because he lied so very badly, just like most of us.

We were left with the thought picture of a man of true stature with his life in ruins

Further proofs of his amateur status followed in quick succession.

Finally, in a skein of inventions that we needn't bother to unravel, he managed to implicate his own mother, aged 94, when he claimed to have been using her Toyota Corolla that day, so he couldn't have been at the wheel of his silver Lexus.

Alas, there was security camera footage to prove that his mother's Toyota Corolla had not emerged from the garage of her apartment block between daylight and dusk. We were left with the thought picture of a team of trained investigators examining a whole day's worth of CCTV footage to establish that a Toyota Corolla had remained stationary throughout. With that thought picture, and with the thought picture of a man of true stature with his life in ruins.

Truth and nothing but

Did any of this really matter? Well, obviously the original offence didn't matter much. At 6mph over the limit, the judge wasn't going to hurt anyone.


Six mph he won't ever forget
And the first lie shouldn't have mattered much either. People really do lie all the time. Often they lie to protect themselves, sometimes they lie to protect their loved ones, and there is even such a thing as a saving lie, a lie that wards off the dreadful consequences of the truth.

Ibsen wrote a play about that, called The Wild Duck. None of this means that lying is a virtue. Almost always, it's a vice to be avoided. But it's a universal vice, and its prevalence is the very reason why any properly functioning legal system has a harsh law against perjury, because a court is where the lies have to stop, or there can be no justice.

And what the judge did was knowingly to put himself on the road to perjury. He was on the road at only 6mph over the limit and he could have stopped himself by coughing up 36 quid, but there was an inner momentum.

Just why that should have been so is a question he'll be occupying himself with for the next two years at least. Everyone else will be thinking about it too, but his will be easily the finest mind concerned with the subject. He doesn't need me or anyone else to tell him that a judge who commits perjury, over no matter how trivial a matter, has sinned against the spirit of his profession.

That's why his case really is a tragedy, and not just a farce. It's a tragedy because he not only fell from high degree, there really was a tragic flaw: a capacity to forget, at the critical moment, the central ethical precept of the calling to which he had given his life.

Suddenly, belatedly, and for almost no reason, he put himself in the position of a doctor who is arraigned for selling body parts, and, because he was selling only fingernails, defends himself by saying it hadn't been him that sold the fingernails, it was Professor Theresa Brennan, or another Theresa Brennan, or his mother at the wheel of a Toyota Corolla. The doctor wasn't supposed to be selling anything, so he should have owned up.

The tragic climax came when the distinguished Judge Marcus Einfeld found himself on the telephone to his mother

But the judge doesn't need to hear that from me, or from any other of the thousands of Australian experts - editorial writers, television commentators and philosophers of all descriptions - who are now picking this matter over.

The judge is already hearing about it from himself. He's hearing about the fatal road that led from the speed camera to the truly tragic climax, which wasn't the moment when one of his fellow judges had to send him down for three years, two of them without parole.

The tragic climax came when the distinguished Judge Marcus Einfeld found himself on the telephone to his mother saying: "Mum, remember how you lent me your Toyota that day?" and she said "Marcus, what have you got yourself into?"

And suddenly he was a little boy again, as all men are when the truth they must face is about a mess of their own making.


_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 16:31 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Perceived injustice derived from stupidly strict enforcement of speeding laws has led us to the point where even the most eminent upholders of the law are led to these lengths.

He was silly to try this escape route but he must have seen the law as unjust and wrong to act this way.

Or he felt he was beyond it and immune.

Is it right that an exemplary lifetime of good work can be overturned by this triviality?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 22:03 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
Mad Doc already played on PH on this story.

I read his response just now.

OK. I think the judge was silly to fib as he should know better than that. I think it was because he ist a judge of such repute that he get the two years without the parole :roll:


I do not think he felt he was immune. I think he fear the immobility.. perhaps the shame of lost licence for a few months?


But then you weigh up against the shame of being convicted of perverting course of justice .. more deeply shocking when the person happen to be most distinguished judge. You then start to wonder if his judgements when convicting others were completely sound. :shock: :? I think this ist what tarnish him Malcolm Liebchen :love: The fact he told such whopping fibbles ist no "triviality" :roll: They were quite unbelievable ones really. He ist no natural fibbler which mean his work as judge perhaps sound after all. But that work count for nothing when you only as good as your last drive or judged on one major moment of madness - however "out of normal good character".

But he the last type you expect? Or ist he? Two in Manchester jailed for making ghost licences from false address in IoM. Successful businessmen apparently. Plus the lawyers who invented the hired help from abroad that time. :roll:

These are not spotty chavs nor (have I got the right word THIS time in jack the flies-open lads or has my foster lad just got me into more "diddums denn" :roll: (longest jackanory story... :popcorn:)

So what drive them to do it? WHY on earth would they do so? They can all afford chauffeurs after all for the duration.


I have some understanding of this. You see .. I have been advised not to drive for another two weeks on medical grounds. I may even get longer if I not sit down more :roll: (I cannot rest properly - I have way too many kittens to look after here. So ein Mist! :banghead:)

But I know what it feel like .. not to be able to just get into car und go about my business as normal. (I keep going to pat the car to let it know I soon be back with him. How weird ist that? :yikes:)

OK ...so it for my own Rest und Recovery..(also I still hurt a bit too)

So I am fairly "grown up" about it.. (apart from staring at car keys .. :shock: ) und telling that wus I am married to how to drive from the back seat - having a :hissyfit:

but I think I now try a bit more to understand part of the "why" they do it.

fear of losing lifestyle... mobility.... just loving the feel of the car..simply just driving :legorally: ... or just the embarrassment of a driving ban which seem so trivial compared to criminal record for lying to a court of law

Then perhaps the anger that a machine pinged at a cash cow point which has nothing remotely to do with safety.. then the form to complete may hatch a "cunning plan" of Baldrick's turnip calibre in some desperate or plainly miffed minds. :roll:

I skim the surface. I could go on for hours as you all know :hehe:


I think this may be a part of this. I think I only skate on the surface though.

Perhaps folk can consider further.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 04:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:38
Posts: 105
Location: Sydney, Australia
Living in Sydney I have managed to point out in the major local newspaper (and some of the electronic versions of newspapers in other State) that if it had been a real Police Officer who had pulled the judge there would have been no doubt about his identity (it is the law that you carry your licence which has a photo on it) and further that he would have automatically been breathalysed (I have no reason to doubt his sobriety notwithstanding our pitifully low blood alcohol limit of .05 - 50 microgrammes etc). His vehicle would also have been given a visual check. However we have the "Camera Craziness" too.

It is a sad reflection on the dumbing down of road safety measures that it tempts otherwise good people to lie and cheat.

From September, if the local narks do not manage to get the changes over-ruled, up to 10 kph over will only be one point similar to most other States.

_________________
The only thing that should be prohibited is prohibition.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 22:25 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
MFL wrote:
Living in Sydney I have managed to point out in the major local newspaper (and some of the electronic versions of newspapers in other State) that if it had been a real Police Officer who had pulled the judge there would have been no doubt about his identity (it is the law that you carry your licence which has a photo on it) and further that he would have automatically been breathalysed (I have no reason to doubt his sobriety notwithstanding our pitifully low blood alcohol limit of .05 - 50 microgrammes etc). His vehicle would also have been given a visual check. However we have the "Camera Craziness" too.

It is a sad reflection on the dumbing down of road safety measures that it tempts otherwise good people to lie and cheat.

From September, if the local narks do not manage to get the changes over-ruled, up to 10 kph over will only be one point similar to most other States.


Maybe you explain a bit more to explain why this judge risk so much for rather little. :?


I admit . i see part of it. I will always try to see the other side ( but stall with mindblowing effect on speed cams as I know they willl never work,)

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 23:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
Those that are placed on a high pedestal always have the furthest to fall.

Whilst it is of great concern that someone in this position feels so compelled to lie, and lie more than once, and that a society is so blind, not see the error of their ways, plus the extremes to which people are prepared to go to, and risk their lifestyles, because of bad policies, it is however appalling that a judge of all people is actually unable to stop his error and stand up and be counted befor it got into this terrible state !
How worrying that those in power are so very blind, and cannot see what is so blantley starring them in the face. (I suppose if they are blind, how can they see!)
When rules are making criminals of those that make the Law then surely it has to be time to question the Law ?
Not that we haven't been trying for years already but surely they MUST catch up and see through the money to the great damage that is being done.
Perhaps when he is released from prison he will help and become the biggest influence in removing these appalling money gadgets from all streets.
Anyone know which prison he is in ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 01:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:38
Posts: 105
Location: Sydney, Australia
I cannot read Marcus Einfeld's mind but I suspect that there would have been a combination of ego, points avoidance and the sense of not having done wrong (as opposed to having broken the law) pushing him to lie. Having started he could not go back until the evidence and the imminent Court case forced him to rationalise his position and admit what he had done. One of our local newspaper opinion writers observed that for people such as Einfeld (and most of us) lying at this level does not come naturally and thus is almost always very badly done.

His punishment is severe; not only the sentence with a minimum 2 year non parole period but he will lose many honours such as his Order of Australia (AO). He will keep his judicial pension.

I do not know where he will serve his sentence. Initially he will be held in a high security prison in protection (so that real criminals cannot get to him) until he is classified. He will almost certainly be classified as low risk (non violent, unlikely to escape, cooperative) as well as needing to be kept away from those he may have sentenced so it will be a low security place probably in the country. The actual location will probably be kept confidential.

_________________
The only thing that should be prohibited is prohibition.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.040s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]