Advertisement

Anthony Paton off the roads until 2016

By 6 January 2014 36

The day Anthony Paton killed his son and ruined the life of the woman he hit on the wrong side of the road he was unlicensed, driving an unregistered car, and wildly drunk at 0.281.

His sentencing has gone online:

I now sentence you to imprisonment for four years and four months for culpable driving causing the death of Andrew Paton and for two years and six months for the culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm to Ciala Myers. The grievous bodily harm sentence will be served so as to add eight months to the total sentence, resulting in a head sentence of five years with a non-parole period of two years and nine months. But for your assistance in the administration of justice, I would have set the head sentence at six years with a non-parole of three and a half years.

The sentence will be backdated to 25 July this year, when you were remanded in custody, and so it will run until 24 July 2018. The effect the backdating and the non-parole period is that you will be eligible for parole, at the earliest, in about 29 months, being 24 April 2016.

You are also disqualified from driving indefinitely until such time as your disqualification is set aside by order of a court.

You may sit down, Mr Paton.

Please login to post your comments
36 Responses to Anthony Paton off the roads until 2016
#1
IrishPete5:27 pm, 06 Jan 14

0.281 perhaps?

Why did it take 5 years to convict him and another 4 months to sentence him? Didn’t someone blitz the ACT Courts?

IP

#2
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd5:34 pm, 06 Jan 14

What the hell?

What is this I don’t even????

#3
Ian6:22 pm, 06 Jan 14

So he’ll be out and driving pissed again on 25 April 2016.

#4
Deref7:07 pm, 06 Jan 14

“Let the punishment fit the crime”.

Not in this case though.

#5
IrishPete8:29 pm, 06 Jan 14

Ian said :

So he’ll be out and driving pissed again on 25 April 2016.

The depends on SAB. He may only be released with restrictions on drinking, and random breath analysis by his supervising officer. He might be required to go to a rehab on release.

Ultimately, though, once he’s release he is responsible for staying sober and not driving. If he stuffs up, his parole will be cancelled.

If he does get pissed, it’ll be a lot cheaper for him after two and a half years of abstinence.

IP

#6
Mysteryman9:19 pm, 06 Jan 14

From the Canberra Times: The witness said the man was highly distressed and told her the four men in the car had been drinking and smoking cannabis in the lead-up to the collision.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/man-begged-to-slow-down-before-fatal-crash-20130723-2qhpo.html#ixzz2pc1B2QDT

I went to school with the deceased and while the events leading up to the crash don’t surprise me, it’s still a tragic loss. What a terrible way to learn a lesson that should be common sense.

#7
A_Cog11:01 pm, 06 Jan 14

And yet, and yet…

It doesn’t seem long enough.

#8
Heavs10:40 am, 07 Jan 14

How did a bloke on benefits for his whole life afford a) a house and b) to drink a case of beer a day

#9
carnardly3:32 pm, 07 Jan 14

and he pleaded NOT GUILTY???

well, of course – it wasn’t his fault the accident occurred… someone else pulled the handbrake. (rolls eyes!) I guess his speed and pissed status didn’t have anything to do with it though …. riiiiighhhht…..

#10
johnboy3:46 pm, 07 Jan 14

Well he was so pissed he couldn’t remember anything. Could have been anyone’s fault!

#11
Ian5:45 pm, 07 Jan 14

carnardly said :

and he pleaded NOT GUILTY???

well, of course – it wasn’t his fault the accident occurred… someone else pulled the handbrake. (rolls eyes!)

I guess his speed and pissed status didn’t have anything to do with it though ….

riiiiighhhht…..

I suppose he could argue he did it but the specific charges were not the right ones and he is not guilty of them.

#12
Pork Hunt6:16 pm, 07 Jan 14

Ian said :

carnardly said :

and he pleaded NOT GUILTY???

well, of course – it wasn’t his fault the accident occurred… someone else pulled the handbrake. (rolls eyes!)

I guess his speed and pissed status didn’t have anything to do with it though ….

riiiiighhhht…..

I suppose he could argue he did it but the specific charges were not the right ones and he is not guilty of them.

How so?

#13
IrishPete6:30 pm, 07 Jan 14

johnboy said :

Well he was so pissed he couldn’t remember anything. Could have been anyone’s fault!

So what does this mean “But for your assistance in the administration of justice”? Did he buy the judge a beer?

IP

#14
Pork Hunt7:32 pm, 07 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

johnboy said :

Well he was so pissed he couldn’t remember anything. Could have been anyone’s fault!

So what does this mean “But for your assistance in the administration of justice”? Did he buy the judge a beer?

IP

Scotch, an expensive scotch at that..

#15
Ian9:00 pm, 07 Jan 14

Pork Hunt said :

Ian said :

carnardly said :

and he pleaded NOT GUILTY???

well, of course – it wasn’t his fault the accident occurred… someone else pulled the handbrake. (rolls eyes!)

I guess his speed and pissed status didn’t have anything to do with it though ….

riiiiighhhht…..

I suppose he could argue he did it but the specific charges were not the right ones and he is not guilty of them.

How so?

Maybe he accepted it was dangerous or negligent driving rather than culpable?

#16
Persephone11:02 pm, 07 Jan 14

Wow. This is shocking. The time certainly don’t fit the crime.
When families of victims take matters into their own hands, it’s because clearly the justice system is broken.
When Mr Paton concludes his prison sentence, I hope they set his new home right next door to the judge that served this p!ssweak sentence.

#17
vet1118:45 am, 08 Jan 14

I’ve actually taken the time to read the judgement, and must begrudgingly admit that (compared to other sentences being handed down for similar offences) it was probably a pretty fair sentence. You need to bear in mind that he was found guilty of culpable driving offences, not manslaughter or other violent offences that may require intent or reckless indifference.

I think that’s the problem with the system. I argue that someone drink driving, with BAC in the high range, who has previous convictions and therefore should be reasonably aware of the potential consequences of their actions, is behaving with reckless indifference. As such, I fail to see why these people are considered less culpable than someone guilty of manslaughter.

I personally believe that someone like Mr Paton should be facing similar charges as, for example, Keiran Loveridge.

If any good comes out of this, I hope Mr Paton can be cured of his alcohol problem.

#18
Antagonist9:05 am, 08 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

johnboy said :

Well he was so pissed he couldn’t remember anything. Could have been anyone’s fault!

So what does this mean “But for your assistance in the administration of justice”? Did he buy the judge a beer?

IP

Try reading the rest of the sentence genius: “… s 35A, recently inserted in the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), permits me to give a sentencing discount in recognition of what is described as assistance in the administration of justice, which specifically includes such things as making admissions before or during a trial, and also appears to permit recognition of conduct, not just by an accused but also by his lawyers, that facilitates the course of the trial.

And from the paragraph immediately following: “… I have already noted the significant admissions made by Mr Paton before the trial; these substantially reduced the volume of evidence that had to be called by the prosecution and absorbed by the jury, and reduced the issues that the jury had to determine, and thereby allowed the jury to focus on the matters genuinely in doubt. Furthermore, counsel for Mr Paton adopted a reasonable approach to matters such as questions about the admissibility of evidence and the directions to be given to the jury, and to his cross-examination of witnesses. This meant that the real issues were before the jury uncluttered by material or argument that was misleading, confusing or irrelevant. As a result, the evidence in the trial was completed in just over two days and the jury was able to reach a verdict in less than two and a half hours. This assistance will be recognised in sentencing.:

I am not going to defend this clown for one second, but you are not being clever here by cherry picking quotes. You actually come across as an uneducated douche.

#19
curmudgery10:29 am, 08 Jan 14

. . . assistance in the administration of justice.

Simple – it’s a quid pro quo. They’re mates! – both engaged, in their own unique way, in the serious and weighty matter of the administration of justice. Tell the truth, don’t argue the factual evidence and you’ll get a lighter sentence for whatever you’ve done. The victims are no less dead or injured, but they don’t matter because . . . they’re not engaged in administration of justice. See?

I thought it was part of a Judge’s responsibility to assist the jury by identifying for them “material or argument that was misleading, confusing or irrelevant” and by cautioning lawyers who try to introduce such material or argument. But I could be wrong.

#20
IrishPete9:01 pm, 08 Jan 14

Antagonist said :

IrishPete said :

johnboy said :

Well he was so pissed he couldn’t remember anything. Could have been anyone’s fault!

So what does this mean “But for your assistance in the administration of justice”? Did he buy the judge a beer?

IP

Try reading the rest of the sentence genius: “… s 35A, recently inserted in the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), permits me to give a sentencing discount in recognition of what is described as assistance in the administration of justice, which specifically includes such things as making admissions before or during a trial, and also appears to permit recognition of conduct, not just by an accused but also by his lawyers, that facilitates the course of the trial.

And from the paragraph immediately following: “… I have already noted the significant admissions made by Mr Paton before the trial; these substantially reduced the volume of evidence that had to be called by the prosecution and absorbed by the jury, and reduced the issues that the jury had to determine, and thereby allowed the jury to focus on the matters genuinely in doubt. Furthermore, counsel for Mr Paton adopted a reasonable approach to matters such as questions about the admissibility of evidence and the directions to be given to the jury, and to his cross-examination of witnesses. This meant that the real issues were before the jury uncluttered by material or argument that was misleading, confusing or irrelevant. As a result, the evidence in the trial was completed in just over two days and the jury was able to reach a verdict in less than two and a half hours. This assistance will be recognised in sentencing.:

I am not going to defend this clown for one second, but you are not being clever here by cherry picking quotes. You actually come across as an uneducated douche.

I didn’t read the whole judgement, I read JB’s quote from it. Please feel free to direct your ill-mannered criticisms to the proprietor or the RiotACT – I’ve heard he only bans people for a few months. Maybe less if you buy him a beer.

Reading what you have provided it seems clear that not only did the defendant buy the judge a beer, but his legal representatives did too.

A one-sixth discount for someone who didn’t plead guilty is pretty generous. I wonder was this the intent of the legislators? I think one-third is the expectation for an early guilty plea (though in my opinion it shouldn’t be given unless the also dob in all their co-offenders, Ice dealers and so on).

IP

#21
vet1118:28 am, 09 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

Antagonist said :

IrishPete said :

johnboy said :

Well he was so pissed he couldn’t remember anything. Could have been anyone’s fault!

So what does this mean “But for your assistance in the administration of justice”? Did he buy the judge a beer?

IP

Try reading the rest of the sentence genius: “… s 35A, recently inserted in the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), permits me to give a sentencing discount in recognition of what is described as assistance in the administration of justice, which specifically includes such things as making admissions before or during a trial, and also appears to permit recognition of conduct, not just by an accused but also by his lawyers, that facilitates the course of the trial.

And from the paragraph immediately following: “… I have already noted the significant admissions made by Mr Paton before the trial; these substantially reduced the volume of evidence that had to be called by the prosecution and absorbed by the jury, and reduced the issues that the jury had to determine, and thereby allowed the jury to focus on the matters genuinely in doubt. Furthermore, counsel for Mr Paton adopted a reasonable approach to matters such as questions about the admissibility of evidence and the directions to be given to the jury, and to his cross-examination of witnesses. This meant that the real issues were before the jury uncluttered by material or argument that was misleading, confusing or irrelevant. As a result, the evidence in the trial was completed in just over two days and the jury was able to reach a verdict in less than two and a half hours. This assistance will be recognised in sentencing.:

I am not going to defend this clown for one second, but you are not being clever here by cherry picking quotes. You actually come across as an uneducated douche.

I didn’t read the whole judgement, I read JB’s quote from it. Please feel free to direct your ill-mannered criticisms to the proprietor or the RiotACT – I’ve heard he only bans people for a few months. Maybe less if you buy him a beer.

Reading what you have provided it seems clear that not only did the defendant buy the judge a beer, but his legal representatives did too.

A one-sixth discount for someone who didn’t plead guilty is pretty generous. I wonder was this the intent of the legislators? I think one-third is the expectation for an early guilty plea (though in my opinion it shouldn’t be given unless the also dob in all their co-offenders, Ice dealers and so on).

IP

For God’s sake IP, JB has linked to the judgement. Please read it before you go (yet again) passing comment on something you have not even made an attempt to educate yourself about.

#22
IrishPete12:40 pm, 09 Jan 14

vet111 said :

All 4000 words of it? No thanks. I asked a question (in a facetious manner). i got an answer. It was the tone of the answer that irritated, not the content.

The tone of your comment isn’t much better. I guess my Masters in Criminal Justice wasn’t an attempt to educate myself about the criminal justice system. Must try harder.

IP

#23
vet1111:33 pm, 09 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

vet111 said :

All 4000 words of it? No thanks. I asked a question (in a facetious manner). i got an answer. It was the tone of the answer that irritated, not the content.

The tone of your comment isn’t much better. I guess my Masters in Criminal Justice wasn’t an attempt to educate myself about the criminal justice system. Must try harder.

IP

Wow, a masters in criminal justice and you still:

a) complain about having to read a relatively short judgement;
b) have no idea how the law actually works, vs the way you think it should work; and
c) try and justify your lack of knowledge by blaming the tone of another poster?

You must be so proud. Please tell us all where you went to uni, so we can avoid it.

#24
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd4:25 pm, 09 Jan 14

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

#25
Queen_of_the_Bun5:08 pm, 09 Jan 14

vet111 said :

IrishPete said :

vet111 said :

All 4000 words of it? No thanks. I asked a question (in a facetious manner). i got an answer. It was the tone of the answer that irritated, not the content.

The tone of your comment isn’t much better. I guess my Masters in Criminal Justice wasn’t an attempt to educate myself about the criminal justice system. Must try harder.

IP

Wow, a masters in criminal justice and you still:

a) complain about having to read a relatively short judgement;
b) have no idea how the law actually works, vs the way you think it should work; and
c) try and justify your lack of knowledge by blaming the tone of another poster?

You must be so proud. Please tell us all where you went to uni, so we can avoid it.

Wow. All this hatin’ is stuffing up the quotin’!

#26
howeph5:18 pm, 09 Jan 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

Jeepers. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

IP asks a tongue in cheek question and you guys/gals jump on him; again. Showing your insecurity much?

#27
IrishPete7:23 pm, 09 Jan 14

howeph said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

Jeepers. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

IP asks a tongue in cheek question and you guys/gals jump on him; again. Showing your insecurity much?

They are trolls, howeph, it’s what they do. They can’t help it. Pity them, do not put them down, further threatening their self-esteem.

None of them has the slightest clue what they are talking about most of the time, particularly not in the criminal justice field. (feel free to post your qualifications and experience peeps.) That’s the only possible explanation for not recognising actual knowledge and experience (15+ years of it, across several different jurisdictions; 20+ if I count a role on the fringes of the CJS).

In fact, they are probably all the same person, sadly posting under different identities.

Everyone always wants the last word on these threads, me included, but I think I shall leave this one to the trolls to cannibalise each other. It won’t be a pretty sight or a pleasant sound.

IP

#28
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:52 pm, 09 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

howeph said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

Jeepers. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

IP asks a tongue in cheek question and you guys/gals jump on him; again. Showing your insecurity much?

They are trolls, howeph, it’s what they do. They can’t help it. Pity them, do not put them down, further threatening their self-esteem.

None of them has the slightest clue what they are talking about most of the time, particularly not in the criminal justice field. (feel free to post your qualifications and experience peeps.) That’s the only possible explanation for not recognising actual knowledge and experience (15+ years of it, across several different jurisdictions; 20+ if I count a role on the fringes of the CJS).

In fact, they are probably all the same person, sadly posting under different identities.

Everyone always wants the last word on these threads, me included, but I think I shall leave this one to the trolls to cannibalise each other. It won’t be a pretty sight or a pleasant sound.

IP

That acusation is ridiculous. In your expert opinion, should I lawyer up and get a defamation case going against you?

#29
Queen_of_the_Bun8:22 pm, 09 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

howeph said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

Jeepers. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

IP asks a tongue in cheek question and you guys/gals jump on him; again. Showing your insecurity much?

They are trolls, howeph, it’s what they do. They can’t help it. Pity them, do not put them down, further threatening their self-esteem.

None of them has the slightest clue what they are talking about most of the time, particularly not in the criminal justice field. (feel free to post your qualifications and experience peeps.) That’s the only possible explanation for not recognising actual knowledge and experience (15+ years of it, across several different jurisdictions; 20+ if I count a role on the fringes of the CJS).

In fact, they are probably all the same person, sadly posting under different identities.

Everyone always wants the last word on these threads, me included, but I think I shall leave this one to the trolls to cannibalise each other. It won’t be a pretty sight or a pleasant sound.

IP

I enjoy your usually thoughtful posts, IP, and am often on your side. As I was when I posted about the hatin’.

But you do have a habit of labelling other posters as trolls when you disagree with them, or they disagree with you, or they ask you for sources, which could be why today’s conversation has taken this unseemly turn.

#30
Blen_Carmichael9:15 pm, 09 Jan 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

I fear you are not according our Confucius-quoting criminologist (MCJ) of Captains Flat the respect he feels he deserves.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.