Page 1 of 1

Richard Pusey

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2020 12:30 am
by Hardy
So shocking and almost unbelievable to hear the news about the fatal collision on the Eastern Fwy yesterday.

Richard Pusey was standing on the edge of the Eastern Freeway after being intercepted by police and was waiting for police to tow his Porsche away when a truck collided with the stationary vehicles.

After the collision he left the scene. I saw on the news tonight the police claim they are going to charge him under s.61 RSA, failing to render assistance. I was quite surprised when I saw that on tonight's news.

S.61
If owing to the presence of a motor vehicle an accident occurs whereby any person is injured or any property (including any animal) is damaged or destroyed, the driver of the motor vehicle—
(a) must immediately stop the motor vehicle; and
(b) must immediately render such assistance as he or she can; and


One of the many issues that will arise is whether Pusey was the driver of his vehicle at the time of the collision. He had left the vehicle, it had been impounded by police who no doubt had the keys, a second police car was called and it had arrived, and a tow truck was on its way.
In Tsolacis v Kelly the Court of Appeal held that a driver who alights a vehicle still comes within the definition of "driver" if the act of driving, parking and alighting were contemporaneous with the legal obligations imposed by s.59 of the Road Safety Act. Even if we assume the same applies to s.61, it is still probable that the Supreme Court would find Pusey was not the driver of his vehicle at the time of the collision. If that is the case, then he can't breach s.61 RSA by leaving the scene of the accident. Unlike s.59, section 61(1) appears to apply to a person who is sitting in the drivers seat at the time of the accident. Section 61(2) of the Act expressly applies to a person after they have parked a motor vehicle, but that subsection does not cover the circumstances of this accident. So the difficulty the police will have is satisfying the court that Pusey has all the obligations of a driver even though he was not in the driver's seat when the truck hit his parked car.

Re: Richard Pusey

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:40 am
by Gravy
I was genuinely upset to hear of this incident. Nobody should die in the process of doing their job, and four people in one go is just heartbreaking. My condolences to all VicPol members who frequent this forum.

I can't help but feel that Pusey is being disproportionately blamed for the outcome. Even Virginia Trioli on 774 this morning implied he was the cause, which just doesn't seem to fit with the facts as reported. It seems that he is suffering from judgement of his character which is then being projected onto these events. To my mind, the truck is the cause; Pusey's car was only a contributing factor.

Leaving aside his apparent failings in other respects (of which it seems there are many), he was complying with police directions and I'm sure many such intercepts happen all over Victoria without incident. It just so happens that this tragedy occurred in circumstances where the intercepted vehicle was a Porsche belonging to a colossal flog rather than a clapped out Commodore owned by a first-time offender. If it were the latter, I can't help but think that there would be far less attention on the driver of the car and much more attention on the truck.

He is certainly a failure of a human being for fleeing, let alone allegedly taking photos and sharing them - sweet jeebus that makes my skin crawl - yet that has nothing to do with the cause of the crash and it seems does not meet the criteria required to be an offense. Though that does not change that his actions were reprehensible.

All I'm saying is that he should be judged on the offences that he has committed and not blamed for things over which he had no control or were an entirely unforeseeable outcome.

Re: Richard Pusey

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:22 pm
by Hardy
Gravy, you echo my thoughts precisely. I hesitated to comment on issues which are so insignificant compared to the loss of lives, but I felt his situation can not be ignored.
I also heard Trioli this morning and wondered why she had so much to say about Pusey and not much to say about the truck driver. Probably because Pusey has proven himself to be a douche while there is a possibility the truck driver had a health problem that caused him to lose control. If that's the case, the truck driver may not be charged, but he will still end up with his licence suspended for quite a while under medical review. If the truck driver is innocent then Pusey is going to be the scapegoat.

I'm no fan of Pusey - nor any offender for that matter - but I do support the law being applied correctly, and I fear there will be a lot of pressure put on Pusey (by the media, by society, by prosecution) to plead guilty to serious offences which he has not committed. On one view, he is also a victim of this accident insofar as his car was written off through no fault of his own, apparently while he was taking a leak.

I also wondered, as an intellectual exercise, what will happen when he puts in his insurance claim. Will his insurer try to avoid liability on the basis of a drug driving allegation even though the truck collided with a parked car? Probably does not matter, because Pusey will succeed in recovering 100% of his loss from the truck driver and the truck owner and won't need to rely on his own policy.

Re: Richard Pusey

Posted: Thu May 14, 2020 4:19 pm
by Slattery

Re: Richard Pusey

Posted: Thu May 14, 2020 8:27 pm
by Hardy
Well that's gonna be appealed.

Re: Richard Pusey

Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 8:47 pm
by bluesky
Hardy wrote: Will his insurer try to avoid liability on the basis of a drug driving allegation even though the truck collided with a parked car? Probably does not matter, because Pusey will succeed in recovering 100% of his loss from the truck driver and the truck owner and won't need to rely on his own policy.


Would Pusey have to recover against the truck driver, or would he have a claim against VicPol who would then recover from the truck driver ('s insurance)?

Re: Richard Pusey

Posted: Sun May 17, 2020 12:02 am
by Hardy
He could claim against either.
The police had seized the car under s.84G, so they have an obligation to return it to him, unless the court makes a forfeiture order.