Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Liberals go fishing on bail for re-offenders

By johnboy - 9 May 2012 20

With considerable community distress on the subject of career criminals on bail killing people in the course of their illegal escapades the Liberals are laying the ground to make this a big honking deal:

“The Canberra Liberals understand that bail is an important element of the criminal justice system, but residents also deserve to know the safeguards the government has in place to protect them from people who reoffend while on bail,” Mrs Dunne said today.

“That’s why today, we will call on the ACT Labor government to outline, by 5 June 2012:
— The number of people, in the last two financial years, remanded in custody who were acquitted subsequently;
— The number of people granted bail in the last two financial years, who failed to comply with their bail conditions;
— The number of people granted bail in the last two financial years, who committed further offences while on bail; and
— How the government proposes to protect the public from the instances of non compliance and further offending while on bail.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
20 Responses to
Liberals go fishing on bail for re-offenders
1
HenryBG 9:33 am
10 May 12
#

Excellent.

Maybe I’ll vote Liberal next ACT elections.

Report this comment

2
Tetranitrate 9:49 am
10 May 12
#

Tetranitrate said :

– The number of people granted bail in the last two financial years, who failed to comply with their bail conditions;
– The number of people granted bail in the last two financial years, who committed further offences while on bail; and

I too would be very interested in seeing these numbers.

Report this comment

3
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 10:26 am
10 May 12
#

Hopefully this ends up with less scumbags getting bail.

Report this comment

4
HenryBG 12:07 pm
10 May 12
#

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

You would lose points every time your office lost a file or every time you create a delay of 18 months to deliver a judgment.

Any of your decisions being subjected to an appeal could lose you a few points, and any successful appeal should be a big loss of points, with obligatory re-training or demotion.

Granting bail, or failing to revoke it after bail conditions were breached, resulting in additional crimes being committed should be a huge loss of points.

Then, we could make 50% of the judges’ salary subject to their performance metric, where 100 points of bad judging would equate to 50% of their salary lost.

Additionally, we could have an annual referendum where the citizens of the ACT get to vote on the judgments they most approve of, and the ones they most disapprove of for the year, and this could tie in with a possible Christmas bonus for the judges who are sentencing in line with community expectations.

Report this comment

5
Heavs 1:18 pm
10 May 12
#

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Report this comment

6
HenryBG 1:54 pm
10 May 12
#

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

Report this comment

7
Jim Jones 2:32 pm
10 May 12
#

HenryBG said :

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

Who is going to oversee the scheme and mete out rewards and punishments? Wouldn’t be an arm of government would it?

Report this comment

8
Heavs 2:37 pm
10 May 12
#

HenryBG said :

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

You are seriously suggesting that tying the pay of the judiciary to the whims of the government of the day is a sensible way to proceed?

Report this comment

9
Jim Jones 3:37 pm
10 May 12
#

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

You are seriously suggesting that tying the pay of the judiciary to the whims of the government of the day is a sensible way to proceed?

Ha. Yes he is.

DEY TERRRK ERRR JERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBS!!!

Report this comment

10
dpm 4:45 pm
10 May 12
#

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

Who is going to oversee the scheme and mete out rewards and punishments? Wouldn’t be an arm of government would it?

How about a jury of their peers! Hahahaha! 😛

Report this comment

11
dvaey 5:49 pm
10 May 12
#

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

Who is going to oversee the scheme and mete out rewards and punishments? Wouldn’t be an arm of government would it?

This would be a place for an independant ombudsman-type role. Either that or more senior members of the judiciary (or a panel). If there were very strict guidelines to follow, ie. something like a mandatory 3-strikes rule for bail, it would be more clear cut.

Report this comment

12
Diggety 6:10 pm
10 May 12
#

Sounds like quite reasonable amendments.

Report this comment

13
gooterz 6:23 pm
10 May 12
#

dvaey said :

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

Who is going to oversee the scheme and mete out rewards and punishments? Wouldn’t be an arm of government would it?

This would be a place for an independant ombudsman-type role. Either that or more senior members of the judiciary (or a panel). If there were very strict guidelines to follow, ie. something like a mandatory 3-strikes rule for bail, it would be more clear cut.

Or make it like speeding fines and have a 3rd party hand out a quota of demerits. You get enough and you lose your licence :)

Report this comment

14
HenryBG 6:24 pm
10 May 12
#

dvaey said :

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

Who is going to oversee the scheme and mete out rewards and punishments? Wouldn’t be an arm of government would it?

This would be a place for an independant ombudsman-type role. Either that or more senior members of the judiciary (or a panel). If there were very strict guidelines to follow, ie. something like a mandatory 3-strikes rule for bail, it would be more clear cut.

Sounds reasonable. At the moment they seem to escape any kind of oversight.

As far as

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Heavs said :

HenryBG said :

Maybe it’s about time the ACT’s judiciary were subjected to performance metrics the same way the rest of the public service is?

Separation of powers is such a quaint notion.

How does subjecting the judiciary to some sort of scheme that measures and rewards competence based on some objective metrics in any way offend the principle of the separation of powers?

You are seriously suggesting that tying the pay of the judiciary to the whims of the government of the day is a sensible way to proceed?

Can you remind me, how are they appointed in the first place?

It wouldn’t currently be the whim of the government of the day to be making appointments using not-so-mysterious criteria apparently not including long experience at the bar (or even, any experience at the bar at all)?

All we need are simple, objective measurements which would reveal whether they are doing their jobs:

– inordinate delays in handing down judgments and sentences
– mistakes in allowing bail breaches to be ignored
– mistakes in allowing bail to be granted in the first place
– faulty judgments leading to successful appeals

Report this comment

15
Heavs 8:40 am
11 May 12
#

Maybe we should just do away with Judges all together. Maybe have cases tried by eligible citizens. Selected from random from, say, the electoral role. That way everyone who felt strongly about the law could do their part when it was their turn.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site