Melbourne Protest Rally

Why not?

Harsh moike

 

Yes, plus driving dangerously, driving without due care, negligent
driving,culpable driving, failing to give way... we KNOW she's capable
of all those.

And just because a) she's sober and b) 99% of the drivers on the road
are capable of all of the above doesn't mean that, given she's a PROVEN
threat to the rest of the pop'n, it's not reasonable to declare her a
potential threat and make it illegal for her to keep driving.

While the issue of compliance is a well known and well argued one, it's
not the point (and btw I did actually address that at the bottom of the
note where I noted that removed her car would be more effective). By
removing her legal right to drive, the court is placing a condition of
bail, in the event she was caught breaching that condition she would be
breaching bail and hence would be locked up, in which case compliance
becomes certain....

Irrelevant but a nice straw man.

The question is assessable risk to the population by her being allowed
to drive which can then be managed by a bail condition, a condition
which is both common and reasonable in the circumstances.

Firstly it's not the court's problem whether a bail condition impacts on
her ability to earn her living. A failure to give bail and hence be
remanded in custody until the trial date would REALLY **** with her
ability to work, wouldn't it ?

Secondly it's not been in anyway shown that failure to allow her to
drive to work (and hence be forced to take a taxi or public transport)
would prevent her earning an income.

Thirdly so what if she can't earn an income this is about managing the
risk to the community from someone who killed another human. How do you
know she won't get depressed and get back on the grog again ?

What a crock. Show me where you know it to be true that she will lose
her job by removing her licence. Straw man again.

Plenty of people have managed to get by with suspended licences before
now, and as a result of much less serious infractions - I've been
suspended twice for running out of points, merely being caught speeding
without having run anyone down and killed them. In the first instance I
lived in a village 20Km away from my employment with NO public transport
whatsoever. I dealt with it. So can she. And quite frankly if she can't,
stiff shit.

Bullshit. Remove the car or lock her up until trial if you don't believe
she won't drive again. Besides, it's a bail condition so if she breaks
bail she's going to gaol, I suspect that's enough to keep her out of the
drivers seat anyway.

I don't know how you can draw that conclusion on the available facts -
do you know her well enough to know she's drunk and driven before, do
you know her mental state well enough to know she's not a threat to
other people, is there in fact not enough evidence to show she's a
proven threat and should be prevented from driving between now and a
court appearance ?
JL

 

I would have thought an admission of guilt was sufficient proof to
warrant a conclusion under bail setting scenario. I'm not stating that's
enough to warrant a conviction or sentence, but certainly enough for a
judge to draw a conclusion.

Ummm good point, if I could choose who was standing in front of the
targets I might have a different opinion.

Fair enough, I'll cop that. However I think there's 2 salient points
which are sufficient for me to conclude that a bail condition of licence
removal until court appearance is warranted
- she drove with a BAC of > 0.1%
- She ran down and killed someone and left the scene (both of which she
has publicly admitted)

Well, I suspect that everyone attended the protest for a subtly
different reason, I doubt in fact that any two people's motivation were
identical.

I'm not sure that is true, I've certainly heard of cases where a
condition of bail has been licence suspension, however without solid
stats I can't argue it. I'm surprised you can be so sure he went along
with existing practise though.

JL

 

Irrelevant as well you know.

You know full well the decision on what conditions and whether a judge
allows bail does not require the same level of proof, or indeed rigour
as a trial. There is sufficient information available to the judge to
make a decision (as indeed he did)

Once someone is arrested on a criminal charge that they are remanded
into custody pending trial, or they can be released on bail which can be
as simple as their own recognisance (IIRC the term) or can involve
dollars bond as per many a yankee cop show or other terms and conditions
(such as handing in passports or drivers licences).

Granted, but that doesn't make magistrates infallible, omniscient or
universally in touch with community concerns. And that's the whole
point. It's just as reasonable for the community to protest about a bail
condition (or lack thereof) as it is reasonable for them to protest
about a sentence (severity or lack thereof) where it falls within the
judge's discretion it's appropriate for him/her to take note of the
protest. On the other hand if he's handed out the max sentence and the
community thinks it's too lenient then that's a politician's problem to
fix via legislation.

Show me something that shows that to be true, as opposed to a conclusion
drawn from the fact that that's what he handed out. In other words a
magistrate out of touch with community sentiment could be willing to
allow an unacceptable level of risk to the community. That doesn't make
it appropriate.

I don't believe that was said. In fact I believe you immediately jumped
to that conclusion as you have done any time the subject of "vehicular
manslaughter*" has come up. I suspect there is some sort of emotional
attachment or personal experience related to the way you react, as you
are extraordinarily defensive to the point of dismissing people's views
as to the seriousness of the crime and the danger people like this
present to the community.

I don't know, you'll have to ask them. I wasn't at the protest.

JL
*If you'll excuse me an Americanism

 

Bullshit Moike, they are entirely relevant.

Let's just say for argument's sake that someone admits, after being
arrested, to slaughtering a half a dozen people by driving through the
local pedestrian mall at high speed in their Nissan Patrol because
they're depressed about the amount of money their Shitcati cost on it's
last service*.

Let's say the people in question's blood and guts are all over the 4wd
in question and there are witnesses.

It's going to take a while before they're sentenced, a couple of weeks
to months is the normal lead time.

Do you think they should be allowed back on the road ? Or would you
rather see their licence and vehicle removed and have them checked into
the nearest mental institution pending trial ?

While somewhat exaggerated that's not markedly different to the
situation we're discussing. Given the facts are less severe it's also
appropriate that the bail conditions are less severe, I personally think
given the admission of guilt, the physical proof on her car (according
to newspaper reports) that it would be a reasonable bail condition to
not allow her legal access to the weapon that has already killed one person.

a) you don't know that to be true
b) I don't care, she's killed someone, whether deliberately or
accidentally, that should have consequences pending trial, it's not in
the community interest to allow her the opportunity to kill more people

Bullshit again.

The seriousness of her offence is directly related to the methodolody
applied to the bail conditions, do you think it's coincidence that the
amount of bail generally increases when the seriousness of the offence
increases, that the same bail applies to giving lip to the copper when
pissed as to a murder charge ? That is indeed one of the parameters
considered, along with the probability of the defendant showing up in
court and the danger they present to the community if allowed out of custody

No I think you see what you want to see, I think you're actually far
blinder than you're accusing Smee of being

JL
(*not to give you ideas or anything Biggus, just let me know next time
you're near the Pitt St mall OK ?)

 

Ahh yes, but he _did_ draw a conclusion. It seems (and we are speculating
here you know that he decided that the admission was enough to be
justified in severly restricting the charged persons driving.

It is that conclusion you disagree with (and actually so do I), but the
point is that it would require something along the lines of mandatory
suspension of licenses to avoid this in future. That won't be achieved by
protesting against the judge's decision IMO. However newsworthy the protest
might be.

I would conclude that removing the licence would be the correct thing to do
also, but the judge did not. It is his responsibility to make the call, and
I can only assume that he had reasons to make that call, as you assume he
did not. We have gotten to the point of guessing

True, but not really relevant.

Judges are rather more likely to follow established process than not, sure
that's not a sure thing, but I'd suggest it would be the way to bet.

And since (as I've mentioned) we don't have all the facts, and are both
guessing, it makes sense to guess the more likely alternative ;-)


G-S

 

Indeed he did. Hence there must have been enough information for him to
be able to do so.

Absolutely, and hence there is a protest ride purportedly about the fact
she was allowed to keep driving a couple of days a week. That is to say
a number of people thought the restriction insufficient in the
circumstances.

Not at all. There is plenty of scope within a magistrate's powers to
restrict from driving at all in order to gain bail.

I respectfully disagree, given the action was within the magistrate's
powers which he chose not to exercise I think the protest was an
entirely appropriate way for those who attended to express their
discomfort at his choice

I think your conclusion re judge is entirely rational, however you are
wrong in thinking that I assume he didn't have reasons. I'm merely of
the opinion that perhaps, being only human, he wasn't entirely
understanding of the threat that many in the community feel people who
have acted in this manner present to the community.

Fair enough, I'll buy that.

On the other hand if an establised process is flawed then it is
necessary for the community to make that concern known. It is certainly
true that many in the motorcycling commmunity consider the sentences
given for "vehicular manslaughter*" to imply that the killing of
motorcyclists through carelessness and inattention is of little
consequence. This view then pervades back to the bail conditions.

Very good sir, I'll pay that indeed. However there is another entirely
plausible alternative - as a car driver he doesn't see the crime in the
same light as a bike rider does - hence the dissonance between perceived
threat to the community.

JL
*Sorry, while an ugly phrase it *is* content rich !

 

One would think so, of course no one has all the information, not even the
people involved.

But if the protestors lack all the information that the judge had when he
made that decision, and have formed thier conclusions based upon inadequate
information, then I suspect the protest could possibily been better held
elsewhere and elsewhen.

Of course, but if your aim is to stop this occuring again, not just to
indicate displeasure then doesn't it make sense that restricting the scope
of the magistrates powers should be the target? Or do you believe that
protesting outside the court will influence the magistrates decision? I
don't personally, nor do I believe it will influence other magistrates in
future cases. Other groups might well force the courts to consider factors
not currently considered, but I find it unlikely the magistrates would
choose to do that as a result of a protest.

Yes, but he did _not_. Hence I would assume from his decision that in
future cases magistrates would also be more likely than not to decide
similarly. Hence my preference for aiming the protest at the law makers,
not the law interpreters.

Or that there were factors he wasn't allowed to consider in making his
decision? Perhaps one of those being 'community feeling of threat' as you
put it. Perhaps a method of allowing submissions from effected groups needs
to be put into law?

Yes I agree, but to whom do we make that known? And where do we do that?

Vehicular manslaughter and the seriousness or otherwise of it are issues for
those making law. And as I understand it even if you could convince the
judge, then rulings in the magistrates court do not as such set precedent,
that requires a higher court (feel free to correct that one with the
complicated details if you want but I was trying for a first approximation).

That sounds plausible at first reading, but I would like to believe that the
magistrate would treat a case involving a car driver and a bike rider killed
in similar circumstances in effectivly the same way.

I'm not sure that running the line... motorcyclists are more vunerable hence
cases involving them should be treated differently is the way to go. That
might well lead in the long term to even more restrictions being placed upon
us!


G-S

 

So... What's the purpose of bail?
and how did this decision subvert that purpose?

Moike

 

John Littler wrote:

Which is precisely what the Magistrate did by barring her from driving
except for the purposes of getting to and from work.

er.. yes it is. A court should not impose an unnecessarily damaging
bail condition.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons why she was not remanded in custody
(along with the fact that there was no real reason to do so).

Do you mean it han't been shown in this newsgroup? This newsgroup is
not the courtroom.
According to available reports, the magistrate imposed the condition
precisely because he accepted that a total ban would prevent her earning
her income, so it would appear to have been established in court.

Have you met the person concerned? The magistrate has.
Do you know anything of the circumstances? the magistrate does.
Were you in the court? the magistrate was.

You can't predict future behaviour 100%, but taking away someone's
ability to work while awaiting trial would certainly aggravate any risk
of depression- induced misbehaviour.

How much actual risk is involved in letting her drive just to and from
work? I don't know the answer, but I'm prepared to accept the opinion
of the magistrate who was there in the court.

Look up "straw man" in your book on debating.
the fact that the magistrate reportedly made the determination on that
basis indicates at least a strong probability.

(or are you using the defence of the struggling 10 year old.. "prove it!")

There you are talking about convictions. There is a strong probability
that this person will be convicted and lose her licence, but imposing
that penalty in advance is not part of the bail process.

If and when convicted, she would have to deal with it.

But that has no bearing on bail conditions.

See if Smee has found out yet what bail is for, and get him to explain
it to you.

Moike

 

No, that's news to me. I would think a trial was quite relevant to the
issue of proof.

They *may* be remanded. The usual practice, and the stated intent of
the Bail Act is to release the accused on bail unless there is a real
risk that the accused will not present for trial, will interfere with
the judicial process, or represents a real danger to society.

we are not talking about sentencing. That comes after trial.

Do you know the purpose of bail?

I would have thought that the decision of the magistrate in this case
was pretty convincing evidence of the conclusion he drew.

Where is the risk in letting her drive just to work?

Look back through the arguments.

google.. google... google. Can't see it.

There you go again. The granting or refusal of bail, and the setting of
conditions thereto have no relationship to the seriousness of the crime.
If convicted, I believe this person would deserve to feel the full
force of the law. If I were in charge, she would never drive again
(once released from custody).

But when we start think that the seriousness of the offence justifies
imposing pre-emptive punishment, we undermine one of the bases of our
already shaky legal system.

nor I, but below are some quotes from a "letter of appreciation" from
Glen Roberts, who appears to represent the organisers....

"Had Magistrate Ian Gray seen the
enormity of her actions in the first place, we may not have had to
take the action as we did."

"the VMU has pledged to
continue to lobby the Parliamentarians in a battle to win back the
rights of the majority, to make "the punishment fit the crime"."

Do you think he exhibits an understanding of the meaning and purpose of
bail?

Moike

 

So you still haven't found out what bail is and what it is for.....

but fair, Smee

Moike

 

was it you who accused someone else of putting up a "straw man"?
tsk tsk.

there are very few points of similarity. significant differences include
the question of intent and mental state.

What is the putpose of bail?

as elsewhere, the magistrate seems to think so.

There you go again. "that should have consequences pending trial" But
you're not talking about punishment or retribution, are you?

How much risk to the community is there in allowing her to drive just to
and from her workplace?

The different bail conditions generally relate not to the severity of
the crime per se, but to the increased likelihood that a person facing
very serious criminal charges might be more likely to skip town.

In this case, the magistrate seems to have concluded that the accused
was unlikely to skip town, and that restricting her to driving to and
from work would not pose a significant danger to society.

Moike

 

Educate me Moike
What is the purpose of Bail?

 

quick google....
http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/public/53692001098929037281.doc

Greg James J in Khazal said at [47] – [48] that:
.... the Bail Act does not exist for the purpose of sentencing persons to
imprisonment prior to their trial. It provides for a system of
conditional liberty to ensure ... protection of individuals in the
community and the community, to ensure that people attend their trial
and to ensure that they commit no further offences whilst on bail.

Does that help?

Moike

 

Yes it does
My points are valid as are yours, we just differ on the outcome.
Maybe the magistrate thought she may not have been a danger to the
community if he allowed her to drive for work purposes.
Maybe the community thought otherwise.
How do we know she will not commit further offences whilst on bail?
like drive outside the specified times she was set?
What if her work made her stay 3 hours longer than her bail conditions
allowed and she drove outside those tomes?
does that mean she will be locked up?
I know this is pure speculation but thats what this thread has been on
and off and I have enjoyed it for the points it has brought up.
Better than the usual "is optimax good?"

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:22:40 +1100

Everyone on bail has the ability to do that.

The idea is that the fear of losing the money is a deterrent. As is the
increased sentence likely if found guilty and you offended while on
bail.

Are you arguing that no one gets bail?

And if she is likely to do that, then why would she not drive if
forbidden completely?

Are there times set, or is it direct to and from?

If she breaches bail conditions, then I expect the outcome will depend
on the severity of the breach.

If you were forbidden to use a motorvehicle except to and from work,
on penalty of losing say a 30 thousand dollar bond, what would it take
for you to breach the conditions?

What level of offence do you think someone has to commit before you
consider them incapable of any right actions at all?

Zebee

 

Why do you immediately jump to conclusions i don't want bail for anyone?
I'm questioning the magistrates decision to grant a person certain bail
conditions (ie allow the person to keep driving even though all
literature and every other source tells the community you are not
allowed to drive if you are caught dring driving ) after they have
admitted they have killed someone after driving under the influence.
Sure she can have bail but the magistrate should not have allowed her to
continue driving as part of her bail conditions.
This means that all the commercials and all the literature and all the
advertisements we see on dui are incorrect.

 

Was she going to skip town?

does letting her drive to work represent a real danger to the community?

Do you know (yet) what bail is for?

The driving ban on people who cop an on-the-spot for over .05 applies
from 28 days after the offence. This is to allow time for the accused
to elect to take it to court.

If they take it to court, it apples after conviction.

There is no blanket ban on people accused of drink driving. It is only
after a conviction, or the expiration of the 28 days (which amounts to
not contesting the charge).

Moike

 

Your points:
"I'm talking about her preventing further damage by not being allowed to
drive as part of her bail conditions."

The magistrate who was there thought she would not represent a danger.

"I'm talking about the impact on the victim's family because of the
knowledge she is still allowed to drive after admitting to drink driving
and killing someone under the influence."

So do you now accept that tis has no relevence in a bail hearing?

"I'm talking about the legal system where driving under the influence is
supposed to be instant dismissla/suspension but it appears that some
people get away with it while most do not."

But there is no instant suspension.



Moike