I must respectfully disagree with your position.
I don't think he missed the point at all, as I feel the point never was about the life jacket.
The only issue before the court was the legality of the stop (if it was a stop at all).
I do not agree with the decision the majority of the court came to ( I tend to side with the minority, Justice Broderick, who felt it was not the intention of the MP to conduct a stop). But I do agree that not having a life preserver in this case was just plain stupid.
The individual in question felt he was not treated fairly. He didn't post an anonymous gripe to the Winni web site complaining about the MP's. He didn't write a letter to the editor. He didn't sit home and stew about his situation.
Nope, the gentleman in question simply excercised his constitutional rights to a fair trial and appeal process. And in the end a sole citizen was able, by himself, to prevail against the Government position.
That's the magnificent beauty of our system.
And if that is a waste of time, then one can only wish more citizens had that kind of time to waste!
