Melbourne Protest Rally

Nope because i made my point and you counter it i won't then counter it
again as it becomes the paulh loop you are so famous for

She admitted her guilt in court in the priliminary hearing.
The judge set bail conditions where they appeared to be too lenient for
what she admitted to.
I don't want to see her locked up before the main hearing but I don't
want her to be driving.
Thats what I've been saying all along
She *admitted* her guilt.
She *admitted* her guilt.
She *admitted* her guilt.
Now The rest of your argument about innocense before guilt is moot
unless she changes her plea in which she is entitled to.
The magistrate should not have allowed her back on the road.
Why do you then go on an on about legal hokey pokey?
I thought the whole thing was rather simple to understand.

read above.

 

True but Moike asked me to consult them so I did.

 

LOL
I'll pay you that one but I aint mistaken

 

Wake up Smee, we're in Howard's Australia now, don't expect compassion
or justice for the poor or the disadvantaged. It's every man for himself.

JL

 

No no Big, he admitted to being wrong (the first time it had ever
happened on usenet)

JL

 

Unless Victoria has considerably different principles to NSW on which
it's bail system is based Moike, I'm sorry but you're pursuing a very
misleading path.

Posting Bail is used to ensure attendance in court (not as a punishment
as you are very clearly going down the path of) HOWEVER one of the
principles of allowing bail rather than remanding in custody is the
potential threat to society of the accused being released on bail (there
is an inbuilt assumption that there is a *possibility* they may be
guilty, the judge gets to decide whether there would appear to be a real
threat and hence whether bail should be allowed) Nb as no one has posted
(that I've noticed) the exact charge, I AM making the assumption it is a
criminal charge and hence bail is relevant (reasonable assumption IMNSHO
given bail has been mentioned about a zillion times).

I don't think Smee stating that in the circumstances that she should be
prevented from driving as a bail condition pending trial is unreasonable.

JL

 

hmmmmmmm that assport is looking better and better.

 

fwiw, Qld bail act,
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/B/BailA80.pdf

16 Refusal of bail
(1) Notwithstanding this Act, a court or police officer authorised by
this
Act to grant bail shall refuse to grant bail to a defendant if the
court or
police officer is satisfied—
(a) that there is an unacceptable risk that the defendant if released
on
bail—
(i) would fail to appear and surrender into custody;
(ii) would while released on bail—
(A) commit an offence; or
s 16 22 s 16
Bail Act 1980
(B) endanger the safety or welfare of a person who is
claimed to be a victim of the offence with which the
defendant is charged or anyone else’s safety or welfare;
or
(C) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the
course of justice, whether for the defendant or anyone
else; or
(b) that the defendant should remain in custody for the defendant’s
own protection.
(1A) Where it has not been practicable to obtain sufficient
information
for the purpose of making a decision in connection with any matter
specified in subsection (1) due to lack of time since the institution
of
proceedings against a defendant the court before which the defendant
appears or is brought shall remand the defendant in custody with a
view to
having further information obtained for that purpose.
(2) In assessing whether there is an unacceptable risk with respect to
any
event specified in subsection (1)(a) the court or police officer shall
have
regard to all matters appearing to be relevant and in particular,
without in
any way limiting the generality of this provision, to such of the
following
considerations as appear to be relevant—
(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(b) the character, antecedents, associations, home environment,
employment and background of the defendant;
(c) the history of any previous grants of bail to the defendant;
(d) the strength of the evidence against the defendant.
(3) Where the defendant is charged—
(a) with an indictable offence that is alleged to have been committed
while the defendant was at large with or without bail between the
date of the defendant’s apprehension and the date of the
defendant’s committal for trial or while awaiting trial for another
indictable offence; or
(b) with an offence to which section 1315 applies; or
15 Section 13 (When only the Supreme Court may grant bail)
s 17 23 s 17
Bail Act 1980
(c) with an indictable offence in the course of committing which the
defendant is alleged to have used or threatened to use a firearm,
offensive weapon or explosive substance; or
(d) with an offence against this Act;
the court or police officer shall refuse to grant bail unless the
defendant
shows cause why the defendant’s detention in custody is not justified
and,
if bail is granted or the defendant is released under section 11A,16
must
include in the order a statement of the reasons for granting bail or
releasing
the defendant.
(4) In granting bail in accordance with subsection (3) a court or
police
officer may impose conditions in accordance with section 11.17
(5) This section does not apply if the defendant is a child.18


Generally taken to mean that bail will be granted unless there are
particularly good reasons to refuse.

...
Bill_H

*** replace the email addy with bill_h at iinet dot net dot au
Some days it's just not worth the bother chewing through the restraints

 

Little boy Liiiiiiiikes his assport.... [1]

G-S

[1] With apologies to Kent Brockman ;-)

 

Yah but I suspect that the court took the view that by only allowing her to
drive to and from work it is preventing her from being a risk... or more
accurately is reducing the risk to a minimal enough risk that the conditions
are acceptible.

And bail has never been about zero risk, it has been about a small enough
risk, with enough conditions that in the opinion of the court the risk is
minimal *shrug*.

When you get down to that point it really becomes personal opinion about
what is acceptable risk and what isn't.

A lot of people posting seem to have the viewpoint that she shouldn't have
been allowed to drive, and are basing that on a feeling of right or wrong...
and if I were basing my comments upon fair... or upon right or wrong I'd
agree.

Sorry, but however much it might annoy people it simply isn't relevant at
this point.


G-S

 

She's proved her willingness to act inappropriately, a fact that's
uncontested. I think Smee has a valid point and the bollocking he got
was unreasonable.

Is it clear cut whether she should or shouldn't ? No, as you note below,
that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to have differing assessment of risk.

You wouldn't exactly allow Martin Bryant day leave to the shooting range....

Absolutely, that's why we have judges not talkback radio looking after
bail conditions. Having said that, I don't really think we're talking an
overly unreasonable or onerous condition to remove her licence prior to
sentencing, that suspension can be taken into account as part of her
sentence.

The hyperbolic statements made about "preventing her working" are
exactly that, pure speculation.

No, but threat to community is relevant, and if the judge thought
removing her licence would reduce that risk then I think that would be a
perfectly reasonable bail condition. I also can't see any problem with
people protesting that they think the lack of that bail condition has
unduly endangered them. (Which doesn't actually necessarily mean I agree
with them).

Of course we both know that impounding her vehicle would be more likely
to be effective. There's way too many people willing to ignore licence
suspensions.

JL

 

What; the guillotine? For lawyers?
Fuckin' good idea Smee!!
Clem
(Can we do the politicians too?)

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:59:10 +1100

What risk are we looking at?

- driving drunk?
- driving late?
- driving in an unfamiliar area?

To keep her job, will she drive illegally anyway? And if so, would she
do more than drive to and from?

does he need to, to keep his job?

Seems to me that until there is a trial and sentencing, sentencing her
to lose her job is unreasonable. SHe will, no doubt, lose it anyway if
she is disqualified or goes to jail. But causing her to lose it is
pre-empting that.

So restrict the driving to something that reduces the chance of
re-offending to a workable minimum.

After all... it's not as if she's done it before, so it's fairly clear
that sober and not tired she's capable of piloting a car without hitting
random motorcycles.

Zebee

 

Can we use a blunter blade for the pollies, please?

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Just make sure you hit the neck area not the head... coz nothing will
penetrate those heads!


G-S

 

I think 'proved' is premature YMMV. Certainly on the information we have I
believe it, and so does everyone I've spoken to, but none of that is proof.

Of course.

Well... who were you suggesting we put on the range ;-)

I wouldn't have thought so either, but my point was merely that neither I
(or you) are the judge, and we don't have access to all of the facts.
Drawing conclusions from insufficent evidence is problematic at best.

As is this thread

I can't see a problem with people protesting about this either. But I would
prefer that the protest had been targeted more towards altering existing law
so that (something along these lines anyway) persons alledged to have killed
a person with a motor vehicle have an automatic suspension of licence until
the matter is decided, rather than protesting the ruling of a judge who no
doubt went along with existing practice.

That would work too of course.


G-S

 

But have you found out yet what bail is for?

and you are sure that they have invariably had bail conditions that bar
them from any driving?

No, I said you should ask the legal studies teacher what bail is for.

Better still, look it up in a book.

Moike

 

John Littler wrote:

No, we have the small matter of a trial....

It's really hard to get an argument going with someone who po\uts your
best points for you.

The magistrate was in a much better position than you, me or Smee to
judge the implications of the bail conditions.

It seems the magistrate accepted it as something more than speculation
that if she were prevented from driving at all, she would lose her job.
Under the circumstances, the magistrate deemed that a total prohibition
*would* represent an "overly unreasonable or onerous condition".

And when someone clearly demonstrates that they see bail conditions as a
form of retribution, I see nothing wrong with trying to correct their
misunderstanding.

Were the protesters really claiming that their principle objection was
that they were personally endangered by this decision?

Moike

 

SmeeR11S wrote:

You really need to have a chat with the legal studies teacher about the
meaning of bail.

Questions of guilt, or admissions are irrelevant.

Why should she have bail conditions that prevent her from working?

Any response that relies on the seriousness of her offence, its
consequences, her admissions or pleas will be wrong.

I think I see your problem....

Moike

 

methinks John Littler made the points I was trying to make.
what he said I have been trying to say.
ps it was a legal studies teacher I spoke with