MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Female drink driver let off by judge

Filed under: General — Lukenz @ 12:07 pm Fri 20th September 2013

No doubt all judges will have to use this as precedence when the next woman is charged with a drink driving offence. Pity these no similar reference set for males.


  1. Good story thanks Lukenz. I notice that Ms Corbett’s story included a bit of male-blaming (Ms Corbett’s friend who got up to go do some more drinking at 5am felt sick “…after two men bought drinks for her…”; obviously they must have forced her to drink them.) And a bit of ‘all men are latent sexual offenders’ stuff, claiming that ambulance staff told them the drinks must have been ‘spiked’ without of course having done any blood tests or providing any evidence of this. I doubt Ms Corbett provided any evidence even for her claim about what the ambulance staff told her, and (assuming any ambulance was involved at all) I would guess they simply agreed that drink-spiking was one possible explanation for the friend’s technicolour yawns. While drink-spiking probably occurs, the vast majority of claimed drink-spiking simply involved excessive alcohol consumption perhaps combined with mixing drinks, lack of sleep, inadequate food etc.

    In my opinion Ms Corbett should have been convicted on the strength of her male-blaming stories apart from anything else. Oh well, now she’ll be able to get on with her nursing career and rain her misandry on the male patients.

    Comment by blamemenforall — Fri 20th September 2013 @ 1:52 pm

  2. I note the police were upset she didn’t get convicted. But not too upset as to cause them to take the matter to a higher court.

    Comment by Lukenz — Fri 20th September 2013 @ 4:44 pm

  3. Police have appealed some recent discharges without conviction. It does seem that women get such mercy much more often than men do, but I’m not aware of any study on the matter.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 20th September 2013 @ 5:17 pm

  4. Letting someone off of a conviction ‘because it might damage their career’ is disgusting, no matter what the other circumstances in a case.

    Comment by Anon — Sat 21st September 2013 @ 12:28 am

  5. Amanda Jane Corbett, 19, a first-year nursing student, was stopped in Jervois Quay at 7.17am on July 21 as she was heading home with a group of friends, all of whom were too ill or drunk to drive. Her breath alcohol level was 265 micrograms. The alcohol limit for drivers under 20 is zero.

    Sometimes these discussions reach the unreasonable, then the need for judges becomes apparent. Being an offence in this case is a matter of months – it could have even been a matter of a day.

    I don’t have a problem with this decision; I think it is a good one. At the same time I would be sceptical of it being extended to a male teenager. Being dragged into court would scare the shit out of any decent kid. Stop being so unreasonable, guys.

    Comment by Downunder — Sun 22nd September 2013 @ 10:47 am

  6. This is appalling. She was even over the proposed adult limit of 250micrograms. The cop that picked her up possibly saved 5 lives if she was on her way over the Rimutakas.
    The judge is a woofter. One presumes she flashed her eyelashes has rich parents ,connected in the community. What an appalling message to send to young drivers. Not much chance of getting caught and if you do the judge will let you off if you can afford a lawyer.

    Comment by Steve — Mon 25th November 2013 @ 7:00 pm

  7. How can lawyers sell their services, if the judges don’t cut more slack to their customers?

    Be realistic, about what commerce is all about. Lawyers have got to live too!

    Have some sympathy for the poor lawyer in this case….. MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 26th November 2013 @ 8:25 am

  8. This is not a question of evidence or guilt/innocence.

    It is a sentencing issue. The discharge without conviction avoided disqualifacation, however it would have been fairer if there had been a $500 – $1000 court cost imposed inline with the financial penalty suffered by any other culprit.

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 26th November 2013 @ 9:35 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar