• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • PHMC
    January 25, 2013 - 11:18

    What a crock. Only in our two tier legal system can the crown withdraw an impaired charge. The judge looked at his previous record when determining sentence. Well she did not look too hard with him having a previous impaired. Should not matter how long ago. He obviously did not learn any lesson. $1200 fine which is pocket change & a year suspension which he will be more than happy with. He can drive around in the back of a taxi for the next year & charge those fees back to future clients. Someone mentioned disgrace. Second that.

  • Mary
    January 24, 2013 - 23:02

    In response to the comments above: If its been over five years since the previous offense the first offense is usually over looked. It's been we'll over fourteen years since Brace's previous offense, meaning if they were to sentence him to jail time they would really be trying to make an example of him. And yes, what they're saying is that his blood alcohol limit was above the legal limit but he was not impaired.

    • david
      January 25, 2013 - 09:09

      You might be missing a little something: he's a lawyer. A LAWYER. And, according to you Mary, this is at least his SECOND drunk driving offense? Well, I can see why you find this so unfair...the guy is clearly a pillar of the Newfoundland legal system. He gets called to the bar every night!

    • david
      January 25, 2013 - 09:16

      Libya. I remember Danny was all chuffed up over the idea of having Momar's tent pitch in Newfoundland....a good ol' power lunch. The jokes write themsleves, at our great, awful expense.

    • david
      January 25, 2013 - 09:17

      I didn't even know rocks had genitals.

    • anthony
      January 25, 2013 - 13:48

      it should be a mandatory jail sentence. they went back 28 years on me and gave me time .the system reeks of a two tier system

  • Anon
    January 24, 2013 - 15:34

    Gets off easy because he is a lawyer, this should not be. Lawyers should be setting examples not breaking the law. For anybody there should be a zero tolerance when it comes to drinking and driving. Penalties need to be stricter!

  • You should know better
    January 24, 2013 - 15:25

    This is unbelievable. I thought we were supposed to get tough on drunk drivers years ago. There doesn't appear to be any deterrant to curb drunk drivers. They are an absolute disgrace to every community. My teenage children know better than to drive drunk let alone get in a car with someone who has had even one drink. I would love to know MADD's response to this total slap on the wrist. I live in the area that he was DRUNK DRIVING and wonder what would have happened should it have been a regular person who doesn't have connections to those in the legal field. You are a disgrace Mr Brace and should have known better.

  • crista
    January 24, 2013 - 14:56

    don't be surprised people this jeff brace we are talking about,the well- known defence lawyer what a precedents this sends OMG!!!!

  • david
    January 24, 2013 - 14:46

    This is similar to when anyone in the media dies, and they get glorious public eulogies on the airwaves by all their peers.....if you're in "the club", the resources and perks of the club are yours when your time comes. And 'Justice' is one of the best clubs of which to be a member.

  • Political Watcher
    January 24, 2013 - 12:34

    So, the average person who gets caught a second time gets automatic jail time yet this person walks. We have a two tier justice system here; fist a cop gets off with a slap after being caught at an accident scene with open alcohol in her possesion now a lawyer gets a slap. Is it safe to say that these two cases now set precedent for future cases?

    • John
      January 24, 2013 - 13:13

      I am sickened by this... This is a mandatory 30 days in jail for a second offence and a 3 year mandatory driving prohibition. I guess it IS who you know... Brace and the Crown must be friends outside court. SO PLEASE tell me, what is the difference between "operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit " AND "operation of a vehicle while impaired.". Are they saying he was over the legal limit but NOT impaired???? I Demand answers