RObert:>>"Obviously! In that anger did she overstate her case, probably. All very human reactions though. Did it deserve six months in jail? Definitely not!"<<

RObert, definitely yes. I heard a cop on the news making the comment that this decision would make every cop who was about to pull up a burqa wearing Muslim hesitant, he went on to say that they would of course do their job and stop the vehicle. But I thought what if two vehicles of interest attracted the cop’s attention as happens on nearly every shift, one driven by a face and the other one driven by a burqa, who would he chase?

csteel the difference between me,ALP forever and forever, and the green left is I think I can support my claims with truth.
I can FREELY in the name of constant improvement and accountability, see past some in my party's belief in a word that white washes truth SOLIDARITY,I find fault in my team/sides actions
I could set out a case,GREEN/LEFT makes the case, inventing it as they go along.
NOW tell me please, do, how did you get the idea the judge said he could not rule on that?
And remind me then why she was sentenced to 6 months in prison.
I will inform you off this, in court a law giver said, [he may have been one challenged by mental illness] he could not prove it was her in the black postal pillar box her husband forces her to wear.
SOG look again at her actions her record her intentions.
6 months was a fair sentence ,if she had served it it would have not been for her fashion sense.
But for lieing, charging a cop with a crime he did not commit.
Being a recidivist trouble maker, haveing [joke] Friends without any IQ at all.

Dear Belly,

You keep banging on about the ALP and the Green/left, time to drop it mate and realize you belong to the GOB party (Grumpy old bastards).

Don't fret because I will be joining you in the not too distant future, I am already showing signs of it now. If I had the power I would ban facial tattoos on anyone under about forty.

However Belly I'm sure that in earlier years you would have had a far more expansive notion of what constituted justice. Age tends to bring with it its own set of fears, fears for self, family, culture and country. The young don't share them but they are real to you. 

I am also certain those fears will come to me and they will battle with my notions of truth, justice and especially tolerance.

Perhaps I will end up like you but so be it and I may well find myself ranting at some reasonable bloke on a site run by Graham Young Jnr. But I will tell you one thing for sure, my moniker will be Sixpack.

My only hope for others reading the exchange is there is someone like myself to highlight when I am talking rot.

ROAD TRANSPORT (GENERAL) ACT 2005 - SECT 171/173

S171...

Authorised officer may require production of driver licence and name and address from driver or rider
(cf former Act, s 19)
(1) An authorised officer may, in the execution of his or her functions under the road transport legislation, require the driver or rider of a vehicle or horse to do any or all of the following:
(a) produce his or her driver licence (in the case of the driver of a motor vehicle),
(b) state his or her name,
(c) state his or her home address.
(2) A person must not:
(a) refuse to comply with a requirement of an authorised officer under subsection (1), or
(b) state a false name or home address.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(3) In subsection (1), a reference to a driver of a vehicle (in the case of a motor vehicle) includes, where the driver is the holder of a learner licence and the motor vehicle is not a motor cycle, a reference to a holder of a driver licence occupying the seat in or on the motor vehicle next to the driver...

Cont. below....

cont...

...S173.

Authorised officer may require responsible person for vehicle and others to disclose identity of driver who commits offence
(cf former Act, s 21)
(1) If the driver of a motor vehicle is alleged to have committed an offence under the road transport legislation:
(a) the responsible person for the vehicle, or the person having the custody of the vehicle, must, when required to do so by an authorised officer, immediately give information (which must, if so required, be given in the form of a written statement signed by the responsible person) as to the name and home address of the driver, and
(b) any other person must, if required to do so by an authorised officer, give any information that it is in the person’s power to give and that may lead to the identification of the driver.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(2) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) (a) if the defendant proves to the satisfaction of the court that he or she did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the driver’s name and home address.
(3) A written statement purporting to be given under subsection (1) (a) and to contain particulars of the name and home address of the driver of a motor vehicle at the time of commission of an alleged offence under the road transport legislation that is produced in any court in proceedings against the person named in the statement as the driver for such an offence is evidence without proof of signature that the person was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence if the person does not appear before the court.
(4) In this section, "responsible person" has the same meaning as it has in Chapter 3

Cont..below

Cont from above..

...Here are the rules applicable to the situation. When studied a little deeper, It becomes clear why the Police Officer desisted from his efforts to check her ID against the license photo. Obviously, the right to not reveal the face behind the burka can be legally used as a means to escape the law under the road traffic act outlined above. A neat scam..