# "The Law is a Ass - a Idiot"



## Calliope (1 June 2013)

Mr Bumble certainly got that right. Our judicial system is so full of contradictions, inequities and stupidities  that I thought it was worth a thread. Every day provides us with a new example.



> A BRISBANE man today will mark his 19th birthday in custody for the alleged rape and murder of mother-to-be Joan Ryther.
> 
> He was remanded in custody this morning and will appear in Beenleigh Magistrates Court on Monday.
> 
> ...



(my bolds)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...r-of-joan-ryther/story-e6freoof-1226654913835


----------



## Ladybyrd (1 June 2013)

Totally agree. I can understand that they wouldn't release his name at the victims request if it was going to cause embarassment etc to the victim. But as that is clearly not the case and everyone knows who the victim is, I fail to see the reasoning


----------



## McLovin (1 June 2013)

What's the issue? 

The law may work on the principle of innocent until proven guilty but people don't.


----------



## Ves (1 June 2013)

Whilst, this is more a general comment, and probably not 100% relevant,  I read the text Calliope posted, and I, without really making any logical connections, or using any real thought processes, assumed the guy was innocent.

I'm not really sure why I came to this, admittedly, superficial conclusion, but is it a pre-conceived bias? Is it due to the way the article was worded? Is it something else from my previous experiential database?  These are probably interesting questions that form part of the doubt that we can have in the judicial process in this country.


----------



## McLovin (1 June 2013)

Ves said:


> Whilst, this is more a general comment, and probably not 100% relevant,  I read the text Calliope posted, and I, without really making any logical connections, or using any real thought processes, assumed the guy was innocent.




He is innocent.


----------



## Ves (1 June 2013)

McLovin said:


> He is innocent.



... as in until proven guilty or has he actually been cleared?


----------



## McLovin (1 June 2013)

Ves said:


> ... as in until proven guilty or has he actually been cleared?




Until proven guilty. I can certainly understand why they don't release the name of people accused of certain crimes. There would be a sizeable minority of the population that don't delineate between accused and guilty.


----------



## Ves (1 June 2013)

McLovin said:


> Until proven guilty. I can certainly understand why they don't release the name of people accused of certain crimes. There would be a sizeable minority of the population that don't delineate between accused and guilty.



I agree.   The world is full of preconceptions and biases, as my own thoughts demonstrated,  we don't really need to make everything public until there is a need.


----------



## Calliope (1 June 2013)

McLovin said:


> Until proven guilty. I can certainly understand why they don't release the name of people accused of certain crimes. There would be a sizeable minority of the population that don't delineate between accused and guilty.




It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence as you well know. It will be interesting to see if they will release his name after he has been formally charged on Monday.


----------



## Ves (1 June 2013)

Calliope - I know you deleted your post, but to answer the question, rape cases give anonymity to the accused because the % of convictions in sexual assault cases is very low.  There was plenty of debate on this in the UK a few years ago when they were legislating the "rape shield" laws.  Lots of backlash.


----------



## Julia (1 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence as you well know. It will be interesting to see if they will release his name after he has been formally charged on Monday.



Why do you say it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence?
To release his name before he has been convicted would be a travesty imo.

Aren't you equally saying that if the police rocked up and charged you with an offence, you would be happy to have this accusation - naming you - splashed all over the media even if you know you are innocent?


----------



## McLovin (1 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence as you well know. It will be interesting to see if they will release his name after he has been formally charged on Monday.




And until he has had his charges presented before a magistrate or (I'm assuming for murder) judge, his name should continue to be suppressed. At that point a judge can either issue a suppression order or allow him to be named.

I still don't see what the issue is? Assuming that the bolded bits of your OP are what you object to.


----------



## Calliope (1 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Why do you say it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence?
> To release his name before he has been convicted would be a travesty imo.




Melbourne man Adrian Ernest Bayley was charged with the rape and murder of ABC staffer Jill Meagher *and he has not been convicted*. Do you really think that the fact that we know his name is a travesty? Very few people go to trial with their identity concealed as you well know.

From the police point of view the main benefit of naming these people is so that other people  who have information can come forward.


----------



## Calliope (1 June 2013)

For those who think the law is not an ass, consider this;



> Former police officer Ken Olsen was taking a weekend drive south of Brisbane in December last year when he was rear-ended by a black ute.
> 
> The ute's driver Edward Sullivan, 21, relentlessly attacked Mr Olsen's car, putting the former police officer through 12 terrifying minutes of mindless road rage.
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (1 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> Melbourne man Adrian Ernest Bayley was charged with the rape and murder of ABC staffer Jill Meagher *and he has not been convicted*. Do you really think that the fact that we know his name is a travesty?



No.  Because he confessed.

You have not responded to my hypothetical about whether you'd think it was just quite fine for your name to be splashed across the media if the police took it into their collective heads to charge you with something you did not do.


----------



## Calliope (2 June 2013)

Julia said:


> No.  Because he confessed.




Sorry, my mistake. I thought you said; 

"To release his name before he has been convicted would be a travesty imo." when obviously you meant:

"To release his name before he had confessed would be a travesty imo."

As for your hypothetical. I don't walk into traps; and what did you mean by "if the police rocked up?"


----------



## MrBurns (2 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> For those who think the law is not an ass, consider this;




Perhaps the former policemen and his connections would prefer this bloke be free so they can deal with him in a more personal manner.


----------



## Calliope (2 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Perhaps the former policemen and his connections would prefer this bloke be free so they can deal with him in a more personal manner.




He pleaded guilty of course and got the plea bargain...hence he got a rap over the knuckles for an offence that was apparently attempted murder. As the victim said, this guy was using his vehicle as an offensive weapon. 

This thug, Edward Sulivan has previous form.


----------



## DB008 (2 June 2013)

Calliope said:


> He pleaded guilty of course and got the plea bargain...hence he got a rap over the knuckles for an offence that was apparently attempted murder. As the victim said, this guy was using his vehicle as an offensive weapon.
> 
> This thug, Edward Sulivan has previous form.




This Edward Sulivan guy, what a goose. Just imagine this thug behaving like this to your mum/dad or even a elderly lady/man? He should have had his license suspended for more than 6 months.

Another thread title says it all - 'Sentencing in Australia is a joke'


----------



## MrBurns (2 June 2013)

DB008 said:


> This Edward Sulivan guy, what a goose. Just imagine this thug behaving like this to your mum/dad or even a elderly lady/man? He should have his license suspended for more than 6 months.
> 
> Another thread title says it all - 'Sentencing in Australia is a joke'




In the UK or USA he would have got substantial jail time.

We are so weak it's not funny and the consequence is we have more than our fair share of nut jobs roaming the streets.

The mafia dispense their own justice, I know why.


----------



## Calliope (3 June 2013)

Apparently in Victoria they have no problems about naming suspects.



> A CROSS-DRESSER alleged to have committed an indecent assault is being sought by police.
> 
> Images of 20-year-old Reservoir man Graeme Austin dressed as a woman have been released by police, who have requested public assistance to locate him.
> 
> ...



.





http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...indecent-assault/story-fni0fee2-1226656380810


----------



## Bushman (6 June 2013)

Remember this guy; he killed six kids in Mildura when he was speeding etc in 2006. Six kids, all aged below 18. They are dead, he will be out next week. Unbelievable ... crash happened in 2006. Works out at about 1 year per teenager killed.

- Thomas Towle, who killed six teens in hit-run outside Mildura, is set for prison release ... 

For the record, here are their names - lest we forget and RIP. A tough, tough day for their parents: 

'Killed in the accident were brother and sister Shane, 16, and Abby Hirst, 17, Stevie-Lee Weight, 15, and Cassandra Manners, Cory Dowling and Josephine Calvi, all 16.'


----------



## MrBurns (6 June 2013)

Bushman said:


> Remember this guy; he killed six kids in Mildura when he was speeding etc in 2006. Six kids, all aged below 18. They are dead, he will be out next week. Unbelievable ... crash happened in 2006. Works out at about 1 year per teenager killed.
> 
> - Thomas Towle, who killed six teens in hit-run outside Mildura, is set for prison release ...
> 
> ...




and he'll probably go into hiding at our expense


----------



## Ves (18 June 2013)

If there is such a law of not being able to release the name of someone charged with rape then how come Stephen Milne (the AFL footballer) has been publically "outed" today?   Seems to contradict the rest of this thread.


----------



## sptrawler (18 June 2013)

Bushman said:


> Remember this guy; he killed six kids in Mildura when he was speeding etc in 2006. Six kids, all aged below 18. They are dead, he will be out next week. Unbelievable ... crash happened in 2006. Works out at about 1 year per teenager killed.
> 
> - Thomas Towle, who killed six teens in hit-run outside Mildura, is set for prison release ...
> 
> ...




It really is tragic when these things happen, to a degree it is due to peoples ignorance of the fact a car is as serious a weapon as a gun. 
It is still a projectile whether it is fired out of a cylinder, or you are sitting in the projectile.
This belief, to a certain extent is due to our conditioning, where bad people fire guns and cool, exciting people drive cars recklessly.
It is a hard one to call, however I think if that person re offends in any way that can be percieved as reckless, they should be throw back in jail for double the initial time.

For the families of the victims, it is a lifetime of hurt, the victims you hope didn't suffer too much. 
We really do worry too much about the welfare of the perpetrator, while the victim is quickly forgotten.


----------



## MrBurns (18 June 2013)

It takes a lot of speed and recklessness to kill 6 people in one go, he should have got longer.
But this is the land of "no worries mate" if rapists with 20 convictions can roam the streets to eventually kill someone (Jill Meagher) anything goes.


----------



## dutchie (18 June 2013)

Why should this thug be offered manslaughter. It should be murder no questions asked. 

Send a strong message to others who think they can king hit others with no consequence. The victim is dead. His family has lost their son for life.

Kieran Loveridge, the man who fatally king hit Thomas Kelly, pleads guilty to manslaughter

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-18/thomas-kellys-attacker-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter/4762208


----------



## Calliope (18 June 2013)

dutchie said:


> Why should this thug be offered manslaughter. It should be murder no questions asked.
> 
> Send a strong message to others who think they can king hit others with no consequence. The victim is dead. His family has lost their son for life.
> 
> ...




The offence of murder is one in which one person kills another with* the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury.
*
The charge of murder is usually downgraded to manslaughter because the thug will usually be acquitted of murder.
In a similar case to this a few years ago in Queensland they made the mistake of charging the guy with murder...and he was acquitted.

All the thug has to say is "I hit him Judge, but I didn't mean to kill him" and he will be restored to the bosom of his adoring family. 

Such is the law.


----------



## McLovin (19 June 2013)

dutchie said:


> Why should this thug be offered manslaughter. It should be murder no questions asked.




The Crown has one bite at the cherry. If they go for murder and can't prove it then that's that. It would be hard to prove that someone punching someone in the head intended to kill them.


----------



## dutchie (19 June 2013)

McLovin said:


> The Crown has one bite at the cherry. If they go for murder and can't prove it then that's that. It would be hard to prove that someone punching someone in the head intended to kill them.






Calliope said:


> The offence of murder is one in which one person kills another with* the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury.
> *
> The charge of murder is usually downgraded to manslaughter because the thug will usually be acquitted of murder.
> In a similar case to this a few years ago in Queensland they made the mistake of charging the guy with murder...and he was acquitted.
> ...




Yes I understand the current law. I propose that the mandatory charge is murder and that the onus is upon the thug to prove that it was not. This proof should be as difficult as possible to do. " I did not mean to kill him" should not be a defense!


----------



## MrBurns (19 June 2013)

dutchie said:


> Yes I understand the current law. I propose that the mandatory charge is murder and that the onus is upon the thug to prove that it was not. This proof should be as difficult as possible to do. " I did not mean to kill him" should not be a defense!




What about 2nd degree, do we have that here ?


----------



## McLovin (19 June 2013)

dutchie said:


> Yes I understand the current law. I propose that the mandatory charge is murder and that the onus is upon the thug to prove that it was not. This proof should be as difficult as possible to do. " I did not mean to kill him" should not be a defense!




No thanks. If someone wants to accuse another of doing something, then it's up to the accuser to provide proof. Otherwise we may as well go back to star chambers.


----------



## Julia (19 June 2013)

McLovin said:


> It would be hard to prove that someone punching someone in the head intended to kill them.






dutchie said:


> Yes I understand the current law. I propose that the mandatory charge is murder and that the onus is upon the thug to prove that it was not. This proof should be as difficult as possible to do. " I did not mean to kill him" should not be a defense!



I agree with McLovin.  Dutchie, there would be plenty of instances where the same punch by the same person would  have entirely different effects, dependent on underlying factors with respect to the victim.


----------



## JTLP (19 June 2013)

In other news...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...years-non-parole/story-e6frg6nf-1226666134662

So...agree 100% with the sentence...murder should always cop a HEFTY life imprisonment. But I can't feel that just because this girl was 'somewhat' famous (was she really even?) then the guilty party got a fair whack with the book.

Our murder cases with 2 apparent 'commoners' get probably 20 years with parole after 15...with their crimes being no less heinous. What a slight on the system I say.


----------



## Tink (19 June 2013)

Agree, and makes me angry too, dutchie, they should have the full extent of the law, why are they punching people anyway?
A majority of the time they have a criminal history. 
I can feel a restlessness brewing in society regarding these cases.


----------



## dutchie (19 June 2013)

Everyone knows that if you king hit someone they may die from the blow.

Everyone knows that if you king hit someone they may fall over and hit their head on the pavement (or some hard object) and that kills them.

Therefore any person who decides to king hit someone may kill that person - that is premeditated murder.


----------



## MrBurns (19 June 2013)

That gives anyone license to king hit anyone and plead manslaughter if the happen to kill them......the justice system needs a big overhaul or frankly people will take the law into their own hands.


----------



## McLovin (19 June 2013)

If we apply that standard and ignore the element of intent and instead apply something along the lines of "has the possibility however remote of causing death", it follows that punching someone should result in a charge of attempted murder (how many State of Origin players would be facing a judge tomorrow morning?). As should pushing someone over, tripping someone....the list goes on and on.


----------



## MrBurns (19 June 2013)

However if such an assault causes death the charge should be 2nd degree murder or similar, manslaughter should be reserved for accidental death caused by negligence, ie: lack of concentration while driving.


----------



## sptrawler (19 June 2013)

Obviously it is a prerequisite to have high profile media coverage, to get a reasonable outcome.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/b...jill-meaghers-rape-murder-20130619-2ohrb.html

There has been a lot of violent rape/murders that recieved a considerably shorter sentence.
Hopefully this will set the precedent for future sentencing.


----------



## McLovin (19 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> However if such an assault causes death the charge should be 2nd degree murder or similar, manslaughter should be reserved for accidental death caused by negligence, ie: lack of concentration while driving.




Second degree murder, in countries that have it, still requires intent to commit either murder or GBH, no different to NSW. Without intent you can never have murder.


----------



## MrBurns (19 June 2013)

McLovin said:


> Second degree murder, in countries that have it, still requires intent to commit either murder or GBH, no different to NSW.




intent to commit GBH is there..........we should have a second degree murder charge...


----------



## McLovin (19 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> intent to commit GBH is there..........we should have a second degree murder charge...




I'd say it's not, if it was they would have gone for the murder charge.


----------



## MrBurns (19 June 2013)

McLovin said:


> I'd say it's not, if it was they would have gone for the murder charge.




Wouldn't you say a king hit is done with the intent to commit GBH ?

I would think that would be fairly easy to prove, especially if the victim is dead.


----------



## McLovin (19 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Wouldn't you say a king hit is done with the intent to commit GBH ?




Not really. Punching someone is no doubt intent to commit assault but not to commit GBH. Intent is harder to prove than recklessness and it's a somewhat gray area between the two that depends on the indivudual circumstances of the case. I highly doubt the DPP took the decision they did lightly.




MrBurns said:


> I would think that would be fairly easy to prove, especially if the victim is dead.




The outcome does not prove intent anymore than killing a pedestrian in the course of driving home drunk proves intent to kill a pedestrian.


----------



## MrBurns (19 June 2013)

McLovin said:


> Not really. Punching someone is no doubt intent to commit assault but not to commit GBH. Intent is harder to prove than recklessness and it's a somewhat gray area between the two that depends on the indivudual circumstances of the case. I highly doubt the DPP took the decision they did lightly.
> 
> The outcome does not prove intent, anymore than killing a pedestrian in the course of driving home drunk proves intent to kill a pedestrian.




Well I still think a punch of severe intensity, enough to kill someone constitutes intent to commit GBH it is a grey area but when someone dies the perpetrator should not be given the benefit of the doubt, the assault resulted in death.......that should be enough.


----------



## McLovin (19 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Well I still think a punch of severe intensity, enough to kill someone constitutes intent to commit GBH it is a grey area but when someone dies the perpetrator should not be given the benefit of the doubt, the assault resulted in death.......that should be enough.




How do you know he died from the punch and not from hitting the pavement? How do you know that the punch wasn't actually relatively weak it just knocked him off balance and he fell and died as a result of the fall? These are all legitimate questions that the defence would have used to argue against the murder charge. All it takes is reasonable doubt.

Fortunately, we still live in a country that believes someone is given the benefit of the doubt of their innocence.

FWIW, I hope this thug gets locked up for a long time.


----------



## MrBurns (19 June 2013)

McLovin said:


> How do you know he died from the punch and not from hitting the pavement? How do you know that the punch wasn't actually relatively weak it just knocked him off balance and he fell and died as a result of the fall? These are all legitimate questions that the defence would have used to argue against the murder charge. All it takes is reasonable doubt.
> 
> Fortunately, we still live in a country that believes someone is given the benefit of the doubt of their innocence.
> 
> FWIW, I hope this thug gets locked up for a long time.




Yes I understand all that but if there are witnesses they would attest to the situation, if death occurred because of head hitting the ground that makes no difference but if the victim stepped back to dodge the attack and fell, well that's different. 

It's hard but they should lay some rules out to make it a bit clearer.


----------



## Julia (19 June 2013)

JTLP said:


> So...agree 100% with the sentence...murder should always cop a HEFTY life imprisonment. But I can't feel that just because this girl was 'somewhat' famous (was she really even?) then the guilty party got a fair whack with the book.
> 
> Our murder cases with 2 apparent 'commoners' get probably 20 years with parole after 15...with their crimes being no less heinous. What a slight on the system I say.



Thank you for raising this, JTLP.  I've been thinking the same.  Not to at all take away from the grief and anger of Jill Meahger's husband and family whose distress I can't begin to imagine, I do feel for all of his previous victims (and for that matter other victims of violent crime) who have received not a fraction of the sympathy and attention given to Jill Meahger. 

 I gather from a brief comment on 7.30 this evening that his previous victims worked in the sex industry.
Even Jill's husband, amongst his anger, was able to reflect on the apparent reality that murder of these previous victims didn't rate such a severe sentence or as much attention.

Do we really have to accept that because one person was middle class and employed in a 'respectable' job, their violent demise counts for more than those who perhaps never had the capacity to work in less salubrious occupations?





McLovin said:


> If we apply that standard and ignore the element of intent and instead apply something along the lines of "has the possibility however remote of causing death", it follows that punching someone should result in a charge of attempted murder (how many State of Origin players would be facing a judge tomorrow morning?). As should pushing someone over, tripping someone....the list goes on and on.






McLovin said:


> Not really. Punching someone is no doubt intent to commit assault but not to commit GBH. Intent is harder to prove than recklessness and it's a somewhat gray area between the two that depends on the indivudual circumstances of the case. I highly doubt the DPP took the decision they did lightly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MrBurns (19 June 2013)

I'm of the opinion of people go round punching others they should go inside until we can be assured they wont do it again...............once again it's hard.


----------



## boofhead (19 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Yes I understand all that but if there are witnesses they would attest to the situation, if death occurred because of head hitting the ground that makes no difference but if the victim stepped back to dodge the attack and fell, well that's different.




Witnesses can be less reliable than you appear to realise. Catalyst and other shows have recreated situations to provide examples based on studies recently done. People forget things, don't notice details and more importantly people have false memories. During situations of surprise, chaos or shock the memory becomes less able than normal.

The more laws are modified - the more the laws become either widesweeping covering things they shouldn't or develop a lot more corner cases or contradictions.

Trial by media is powerful (as seen in the above posts) and can backfire. A Tasmanian maybe a decade ago was convicted of rape or sexual assault on an elderly woman. He maintained he was innocent throughout. He was convicted. He started to serve time. Later his conviction was overturned as someone else was eventually convicted of the crime. He was named upon conviction. His personal business was killed - it is hard to operate a single person business when it is a labour based business from prison. After release he found it difficult to get any employment. He still caries the burden.

Care also needs to be taken to not harden criminals that have served time. That is when released they are more disatisfied with society they're more likely to break laws.


----------



## JTLP (19 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Thank you for raising this, JTLP.  I've been thinking the same.  Not to at all take away from the grief and anger of Jill Meahger's husband and family whose distress I can't begin to imagine, I do feel for all of his previous victims (and for that matter other victims of violent crime) who have received not a fraction of the sympathy and attention given to Jill Meahger.
> 
> I gather from a brief comment on 7.30 this evening that his previous victims worked in the sex industry.
> Even Jill's husband, amongst his anger, was able to reflect on the apparent reality that murder of these previous victims didn't rate such a severe sentence or as much attention.
> ...




Well that is interesting that he raised that point. It's unfortunately not going to bring back any loved ones; but it should be a message to bench that society isn't really happy with this mediocre sentences.

I think the thing that the public will struggle to understand (myself included) is when the words 'chances of rehabilitation' are thrown around. Victims of crimes don't really get rehabilitate do they? They live in fear/anxiety/anger or worse death; yet the people committing these crimes have an apparent chance at living a life of normality again? Not saying we can have people locked up in jail forever but there really is some strange blurred lines.


----------



## Tink (20 June 2013)

Great posts Mr Burns and McLovin.
I hope the laws do get changed and strengthened.

Fists and a punch ARE weapons

A statement needs to be made.


----------



## Calliope (24 July 2013)

Will the Victorian Parole Board accept responsibility for Jill Meagher's death by releasing a dangerous serial rapist on parole.?? Tom Meagher has been asking why for some time, without any answers.


----------



## Tink (26 July 2013)

Agree Calliope, they have questions to answer.
Bayley is already trying to appeal his sentence, back on the front page.

Yet prior to his sentencing, he said, he should never have been released, the parole board was wrong, and that he wanted the death penalty, now he wants to lessen the sentence on legalities.

Toms wife is dead and can no longer speak, yet these people continuously cause grief to the victims families.


----------



## johenmo (7 August 2013)

*Re: "The Law is a Ass - an Idiot"*

*Test case on whether Aboriginality can be used as a defence
6 AUG 2013, 5:50 PM   -   SOURCE: BROOKE BONEY, NITV NEWS*

This could create an interesting precedent.  If upheld, can the experiences of refugees from troubled/war-torn areas  be used as a defence?  And extending it further, why not be able to use what is customary in someone's original country as a defence e.g. treatment of women or children?  I can see the rights of victims being eroded.  

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1797053/Test-case-on-whether-Aboriginality-can-be-used-as


----------



## Tink (8 August 2013)

Yes, Johenmo, this is concerning and makes me question where we are heading, when victims arent being heard anymore. 
We seem to be going down more and more of this slippery slope. 
With freedom comes responsibility but I can see thats not the case the more that we are pandering to all these different issues.

Parole is another issue where people are only doing half to a third of their sentence.


----------



## MrBurns (15 August 2013)

> Baby killer wins compensation over vegetable diet
> 
> A Queensland prisoner who killed and dismembered his own baby daughter has won a $3000 compensation payout because he was forced to eat vegetables in jail.
> 
> ...



http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national...-killer-wins-compensation-over-vegetable-diet


----------



## Tink (21 August 2013)

Damning Government report slams Adult Parole Board for releasing serious offenders far too easily


> THE PREMIER Denis Napthine has vowed parole laws will be changed to enshrine "community safety" as the Adult Parole Board's priority as a damning report reveals the file on Jill Meagher's killer did not have a full rundown of his criminal history.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...s-far-too-easily/story-fni0fee2-1226700180903

Like all these government things, it makes you wonder. Unbelievable, signing him out without even seeing him (Bailey).


----------



## Boggo (2 October 2013)

How is this for lunacy, this happened in Adelaide a few days ago.

A mate of mine who is a gyprock installer was working with others on building site when a group of kids on mini bikes ride up the street, then turn around and ride back, this time with handfulls of gravel that they throw at the builders vehicles as they ride past.
A carpenter happens to be having his lunch in his ute when his vehicle gets hit too so he drops his lunch and takes off after these kids.

They come to a roundabout and one of them hits the kerb and both the rider and the passenger go flying across the road. The others escape but the chippy keeps these two there until police etc arrive.

The outcome is that the parents are now suing the chippy for injuries caused to their precious little offspring even though they are under age, were not licenced and were riding unregistered bikes on a public road without helmets and they hit the kerb in an attempt to escape.

All the people who witnessed it are now being called to give evidence on behalf of the chippy. 

I reckon they should sue the parents for stupidity.


----------



## Whiskers (2 October 2013)

Boggo said:


> How is this for lunacy, this happened in Adelaide a few days ago.
> 
> A mate of mine who is a gyprock installer was working with others on building site when a group of kids on mini bikes ride up the street, then turn around and ride back, this time with handfulls of gravel that they throw at the builders vehicles as they ride past.
> A carpenter happens to be having his lunch in his ute when his vehicle gets hit too so he drops his lunch and takes off after these kids.
> ...




Didn't the police fine the kids or at least give them an official warning?


----------



## Boggo (2 October 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Didn't the police fine the kids or at least give them an official warning?




Nobody seems to know what is happening with them !


----------



## Whiskers (2 October 2013)

Boggo said:


> Nobody seems to know what is happening with them !




Tell your mate, that if he actually gets served with a lawsuit, to lodge a countersuit asap for stone chip damage, destruction of property, harassment, trauma (from fear of eye, or other personal injury during the attack) etc.

I've found a well structured and worded countersuit (or threat thereof if they send a threatening solicitors letter) will often send them packing or at least substantially mitigate ones losses if it goes to court.

My mother has had similar issues with kids on push bikes (drugie parents can't afford motorised bikes) throwing stuff, damaging garden etc. She put up a high wire fence on one side, but they started climbing over it, until I laced some hi tensile barb wire along it and more people complained more often to the police.

Serve it back to the little terds and their inconsiderate and apparently $h!tful parents, with interest!


----------



## Calliope (15 October 2013)

It's about time the Queensland Government did a reality check and dropped this costly and futile pursuit of Jayant Patel. Enough's enough.



> A JURY has been unable to reach a unanimous verdict in the trial of Jayant Patel, who was accused of maiming his patient Ian Rodney Vowles.
> 
> The former Bundaberg Hospital surgeon, 63, pleaded not guilty at the opening of a two-week re-trial in the Brisbane District Court last month in which he was accused of causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Vowles.
> 
> ...




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...eon-jayant-patel/story-fnii5v70-1226740292820


----------



## Julia (15 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> It's about time the Queensland Government did a reality check and dropped this costly and futile pursuit of Jayant Patel. Enough's enough.



If you were the patient whom Patel consigned to a lifetime of a colostomy, when it was completely unnecessary, you might feel somewhat differently.


----------



## Calliope (15 October 2013)

i know revenge is sweet, but in this case it's not going to happen. It's time to put the crime-fighting money saved into further pursuit of criminal gangs. I don't think Patel is a further threat to us, locking him up would achieve nothing. With gang members it would at least disrupt their criminal activities for a while.


----------



## MrBurns (15 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> i know revenge is sweet, but in this case it's not going to happen. It's time to put the crime-fighting money saved into further pursuit of criminal gangs. I don't think Patel is a further threat to us, locking him up would achieve nothing. With gang members it would at least disrupt their criminal activities for a while.




The law has to deal with this but the horrific cost shows that things must change to fast track a result.
The cost of this is probably mind boggling.


----------



## Julia (15 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> i know revenge is sweet, but in this case it's not going to happen.



There is a clear difference between revenge and justice.  Patel caused major damage to many people, death in some cases.  The State should not walk away from seeing him brought to account for this, no matter the cost or the time involved.



> It's time to put the crime-fighting money saved into further pursuit of criminal gangs.



They are two entirely separate matters.



> I don't think Patel is a further threat to us, locking him up would achieve nothing. With gang members it would at least disrupt their criminal activities for a while.



It's not about him being an ongoing threat.  I cannot imagine anyone is going to employ him after this.
It's about being accountable for gross misuse of his trusted position as a doctor.


----------



## CanOz (15 October 2013)

Its also about sending a message, no?

I can't believe anyone would think this is a waste of money. This guy clearly caused some serious harm to people....


----------



## Calliope (16 October 2013)

CanOz said:


> *Its also about sending a message, no?*
> 
> I can't believe anyone would think this is a waste of money. This guy clearly caused some serious harm to people....




Indeed it is! And the message so far is that the DPP is incapable of convincing a jury that an obviously guilty man (who has been tagged by the media as Dr Death) should be incarcerated for his obvious criminal negligence and incompetence. 

Prior to the recent trial the bill had reached $3.3 million. There is only so much money in the pot. Obviously other criminal prosecutions have been given inadequate resources.



> But, Mr Moynihan's staff believed "it was a "fait accompli" that all charges would proceed to trial
> "There is no doubt he (the DPP) will proceed with the lot of them," one prosecutor said. "Of course he will."
> 
> *But criminal law specialist Bill Potts said pursuing further charges was "a waste of tax-payer money".*
> ...



(My Bolds)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ore-charges-loom/story-e6freoof-1226596784793


----------



## Calliope (20 March 2014)

A well-connected law clerk has escaped punishment after a cowardly king-hit in a pub which a lenient magistrate has said was not “gratuitous violence”.

In letting Virgil Macquarie Power, 29, off without a conviction, Magistrate Bernadette Callaghan also scoffed at campaigns against coward punches being prioritised over domestic violence, which she said was more common.


[video]http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.html#ec=h5amg5bDqPj4v7DVUtkbWAOQsnDbb3bp&pbid=d7724830c63641b4b5782eadefb84891&docUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.news.com.au%2Fheraldsun%  2Fmiss-judgement%2Findex.php%2Fheraldsun%2Fcomments%2Fmag  istrate_scoffs_at_one_punch_can_kill_campaigns%2F[/video]


----------



## Calliope (20 March 2014)

> The Sunshine Coast Daily reported on its front page today that police are consulting with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions about potential appeals against sentences meted out in two recent assault cases.
> 
> *Power is the son of a Noosa solicitor, grandson of a judge, and great-great great grandson of a Supreme Court judge.*




No further comment.:roll eyes:


> *Mr Power was represented by one of Queensland's most expensive criminal lawyers, Tony Glynn QC.*
> *
> Ms Callaghan even asked the prosecutor who Mr Glynn was representing when the court opened and said the Power case would be heard first because of his seniority*.



http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/magistrate-sparks-outrage-cowards-punch-comment/2204523/


----------



## DB008 (12 May 2014)

Wow.

Just wow.


*Son uses father as unsuspecting drug mule to cart $13m meth oil*



> Sworn Ibrahim family enemy Alex Macris helped to save his father from life in prison after admitting he used him as an unsuspecting drug mule to transport $13 million worth of methamphetamine oil in jerry cans, a court has heard.
> 
> Police arrested Stelios Macris, 75, after they found 50 kilograms of meth oil in the boot of his Ford Falcon station wagon and the spare bedroom of his central coast property in 2011.
> 
> ...





http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/son-uses-father-as-unsuspecting-drug-mule-to-cart-13m-meth-oil-20140510-zr8pq.html#ixzz31S5l4YOM


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2014)

DB008 said:


> Wow.
> 
> Despite admitting the drugs were his he will not face prosecution




Words fail me.


----------



## Calliope (16 December 2014)

Sydney siege: Family of Man Haron Monis’ murdered ex-wife Noleen Hayson Pal express disgust at former husband THE DAILY TELEGRAPH DECEMBER 16, 2014 2:52PM 



> THE family of Man Monis’ murdered ex-wife have expressed their anger at the Australian justice system as they remember the mother-of two.
> 
> Monis’ former partner Noleen Hayson Pal, 30, was stabbed 18 times and set alight outside her Werrington unit in April 2013.
> 
> ...




Magistrate Pierce said the crown's case was weak and they were no danger to the public.


----------

