The ABC informs us that the infamous “Ainslie mother” has been arrested for breaching her bail conditions, but had her bail restored by Chief Justice Higgins.
the ACT Supreme Court heard the woman was taken into custody on Tuesday night after she failed to attend Corrective Services as directed in her bail conditions. Her lawyer, David Claxton, told the court his client misunderstood the instructions.
Loading ...
Can I suggest the lawyer face disciplinary action since, if you accept his argument, he did not properly explain the bail conditions to her?
So the screeching harridan breached her bail? Anyone surprised?
She grossly neglected her children, made threats against the person looking after her other children, behaved like a banshee in court and was bailed.Surely she she have been held in custody or sent off for psychological evaluation.
This is typical of courts. It’s no wonder that magistrates dont get any respect. These people breach the magistrates orders, and it seems the magistrates are more than happy for this to happen.
My suggestion:
Bail is a luxury, you breach it, you stay in lock up till your hearing. End of story.
How about the subject of the whole matter (and consumer of taxpayer-funded services) faces disciplinary action?!
Ter, restoring bail
Who’da thunk it?
I agree with Jean Claude! Completely
Once again we are indebted to out friendly trans-Tasman neighbours for sending over more human filth. First it was Russell Crowe, now this bitch.
V8-Prius, shut yer mouth – or I’ll ask the cuzzies to send Helen Clark over!
Mr Evil said :
with fresh stocks of velcro gloves for you?
Please comply V8
Helen Clark – shudder
peterh said :
Mmmmmmmmmm, I love the smell of lanoline in the morning!
Another case of Magistrates and lawyers not being accountable to the community.
Election season is around the corner – all parties should be all over issues like this.
DJ said :
they should, but they aren’t – there are too many other opportunities to score points – datacentres, land sales, the NCA & Light rail… all much more interesting than a obviously mentally ill individual.
In fairness to Magistrates, it was actually a decision handed down by a Judge (Higgins) of the Supreme Court.
If I recall correctly, she was initially refused bail by a Magistrate three times prior to applying to the Supreme Court, and getting it first time. You’ve got to wonder why a Judge (or maybe it’s just Higgins) felt so differently to the Magistrate about granting bail.
My mistake – I did actually mean to refer to Higgins… rage making my hands shake while I type.
DJ, you been drinkin’ moonshine again?
You can drink that stuff too?
Sorry DJ, but the bench is not a political issue. How they are selected and appointed may be, but once they’re in, they are untouchable. (separation of powers under Westminster etc) NSW has a long standing policy of appointing former solicitors known to have a penchant for not gaoling people. Means the government cant shout loud about law and order and stiffer penalties knowing that it’s not actually going to cost them anything. Not that that would ever happen here of course.
Closest solution I can come up with is to dangle a couple of fat golden handshakes to encourage early retirement, but it wont be cheap.
Ok, so after they are appointed there is nothing we can do but to pay extortion money to get rid of them? Where is the accountability to the community? To anybody in fact? I see the judicial system in the ACT as being softer than a marshmallow and every time a Judge comes from interstate it gets roasted by them.
If the government enacts legislation with mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences (rape, murder etc) surely the doddering and absent minded on the bench have no choice?
Do you support mandatory minimum sentencing?
IMHO, Higgins simply has a better understanding of people with mental illness than most magistrates/judges. Nobody here has really made a case for why this woman should be put away.
If she is mentally ill then she would have all sorts of problems keeping appointments.’
I hope she gets the help she needs.
She violated her bail, that should be enough to put someone in the slammer.
She was given a chance and shew blew it. She has shown she has absolutely no repsect for the law, those dispensing it, or the community at large.
Why does do people automatically assume that someone has a mental problem when they are arrested and charged with some sort of anti social crime such as this?
Here’s a dangerous thought, what if she is simply an uncaring, selfish, self serving, nasty, anti social bitch?
She did not comply with the rules society had instructed her to follow, due to circumstances that she initiated. That a good enough reason ?
FFS is it an ever decreasing minority group – those who take the legal process seriously ?
Thumper/Maelnar,
Sorry fellas but I have dealt with Higgins and I know him to be a wise and fair chap.
What I have read of your posts (and I could be wrong here, but) leads me to conclude that any uncaring, selfish, self serving, nasty, anti social bitches would more likely be yourselves!
Except I have not broken the law, have not broken bail conditions, do not treat the rest of society like rubbish, do not scream abuse at magistrates and police, do not blame society for everything, am not anti social, have never left my kids berift of food, shelter, or any basic necessities.
Oh, and I’m kind to small furry animals.
So your conclusion is wrong.
You’ve never broken the law?
Sorry, I have been caught speeding twice.
Lock me up…
Care to comment on the rest?
Or shall we stay totally irrelevent by being selective in your quote?
I think Higgins is smarter than you and in a better position to decide.
I was recently disgruntled by a decision made regarding a different case. The case was very personal to me and I thought/think it was a soft verdict. But this is a guy who repeatedly raped children for possibly 50 yoears or more.
Sounds like this Ainslie mum is just a bit of a looney! Also seems she has done very little harm to others and you seem to have a very black and white approach.
Do you still speed?
I think Higgins is smarter than you and in a better position to decide.
I’m sure he is. I have no problem with that.
And no I don’t speed, at all, ever. So what is your point?
Better still, care to comment on the relevant points I made? And not on your disgruntled outlook over another case that has nothing to do this one.
I’ll point them out once again shall I?
broken the law, broken bail conditions, treat the rest of society like rubbish, scream abuse at magistrates and police, blame society for everything, anti social, left kids berift of food, shelter, or any basic necessities
that about covers it.
@ Thumper,
I fully agree with your points. If Magistrates could interpret how the public feel certain issues should be dealt with, then crooks might think twice before firstly, breaking the law, and secondly, breaching bail conditions.
Unfortunately it’s not an offence to breach bail. Not that it would make a difference considering the light sentences that are handed out in the ACT.
No I don’t need anyone to tell me that some people on bail are innocent till proven guilty. They are all innocent here!!!!
Finally, fear needs to be restored in the crooks minds before they go out and do whatever they feel, the only way to do that is to sentence appropriately. A sawn off shot gun in a shop keepers face gets a suspended sentence. What druggie would care about that????
I thought the woman’s family had come over to help her comply with bail conditions.
There are just some people who do not have respect for “the law” and do not care to comply with any court orders. I know a couple of women who continually thwart court orders and in reality there is very little that would assist them with complying.
In general, I feel that consequences on mothers are very “soft”. When in fact, parenting is a very serious responsibility and I feel screwing that up should reap serious penalties.