On bail Justin Monfries named as driver in Canberra hospital horror smash

minniemay said :

Diggety said :

minniemay said :

Diggety said :

HenryBG said :

So in the meantime, let me remind you what our taxes are paying for:

Thus, the logic of Australian white society is not always a sure sign of the approach that should be adopted in the assessment of evidence from those of Aboriginal descent.

Racism and incompetence from a judge. That’s what our taxes are paying for.

How on earth is that racist? If you read the judgment, you’ll see that the Aboriginality of his girlfriend (which is what this passage was referring to) was only relevant in terms of how she interacts with authority figures. It’s recognising cultural realities that may alter how people give evidence in court (and quite frankly the courts failed dismally to do this for far too long).

Differential treatment of persons based on race is racism.

From a judge, even worse.

You know that’s only the case if everyone starts from an equal baseline, right?

To suggest that indigenous people were not disadvantaged in court appearances before these kind of evidence guidelines is untrue (and bordering on the willfully ignorant).

When were Justin Monfries or his girlfriend “disadvantaged in court” due to their race?

Racism is racism, lady. Stopping condoning it.

dpm said :

It’s funny, the last time something *similar* to this happened in NSW, people (and the Govt) were so pi#$ed that they ended up creating Skye’s law.
In ACT, after a week it reverts down to people arguing that: “Yeah, but crime is going down, so it’s OK….’
So sad that innocent victims are treated so poorly here…

Is “Skye’s Law” the one that authorises police to put a .50 cal round through the engine block of any stolen car?

It’s funny, the last time something *similar* to this happened in NSW, people (and the Govt) were so pi#$ed that they ended up creating Skye’s law.
In ACT, after a week it reverts down to people arguing that: “Yeah, but crime is going down, so it’s OK….’
So sad that innocent victims are treated so poorly here…

Diggety said :

minniemay said :

Diggety said :

HenryBG said :

So in the meantime, let me remind you what our taxes are paying for:

Thus, the logic of Australian white society is not always a sure sign of the approach that should be adopted in the assessment of evidence from those of Aboriginal descent.

Racism and incompetence from a judge. That’s what our taxes are paying for.

How on earth is that racist? If you read the judgment, you’ll see that the Aboriginality of his girlfriend (which is what this passage was referring to) was only relevant in terms of how she interacts with authority figures. It’s recognising cultural realities that may alter how people give evidence in court (and quite frankly the courts failed dismally to do this for far too long).

Differential treatment of persons based on race is racism.

From a judge, even worse.

You know that’s only the case if everyone starts from an equal baseline, right?

To suggest that indigenous people were not disadvantaged in court appearances before these kind of evidence guidelines is untrue (and bordering on the willfully ignorant).

bundah said :

Yeah totally agree Henry! I’m unhappy with the status quo and believe we need a much tougher approach to reigning in crime and anti social behaviour however our governments and judiciary have done little to facilitate that process!

Lol. The stats have conclusively proven you wrong, but you still trot out the same tired ‘tough on crime’ crap peddled by tabloid media and populist politicians.

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

Here are the latest full set of stats from the Australian Institute of Criminology that give the lie to your claim that ‘everyone knows that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase’ nonsense: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts.aspx

I think you guys lack ambition.

Why are you happy that crime, per capita, is fairly static or going down?

With all our technology and all our expensive feel-good crim-friendly approach to law and order, shouldn’t crime be going down?

Look at the stats, in almost every category it *is* going down (property crime in particular). The one that bucks the trend is alcohol-related assault – which will not be impacted in any way by tougher sentencing or huff-and-puff-tough-on-scumbags type bollocks.

Furthermore, reducing crime rates (particularly property crime) is not ‘expensive’ – it saves feckloads of money.

So much for ‘society is out of control and we’re all rooned’.

#181

Jim Jones4:03 pm, 09 May 12

bundah said :

”
Jim Jones said :”

”
bundah said :”

”
Jim Jones said :”

”
bundah said :”

”
Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase ”
”
It’s not.”
”
It’s not?? is that the best you can do,how lame.It is an undeniable fact that violent crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase.Look at the statistics or spend some time on the streets and you might just have an epiphany!”
”
What statistics? You mean ‘Today Tonight’ and talkback radio?”
”
I look at the statistics regularly. Crime rates have been relatively stable (if anything, dropping) in Australia for a long time (there was a significant drop in the 1980s). There’s been a trend towards reduction in property theft and a slight rise in reported assault (firearm assault is down – pub brawls are up). Murder is down and manslaughter is steady.”
”
The ABS is here: http://www.abs.gov.au/
The AIC is here: http://www.aic.gov.au”
”
How about you read some facts instead of being an alarmist know-nothing?”
”
Alarmist know-nothing?? well that was an ostentatious display of self- aggrandizement on your part.”
”
http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.aspx”
”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/alcohol-and-drugs-take-a-large-toll/story-fn5ftg6s-1226309473245”
”
Ok while violent crime may have levelled out in the last year or two after having increased alarmingly over the preceding 15 years it is clearly obvious that socially unacceptable behaviour due predominantly to binge drinking has increased.I will take my cues from Giordian Fulde who is in the frontline and has a great deal of credibility unlike yourself!”

Lolz – quoting the Terrorgraph on LornOrder. Great job! Almost as good as the cherry picking you’ve done on alcohol-related violence (conveniently ignoring every other form of crime, no less).

Here are the latest full set of stats from the Australian Institute of Criminology that give the lie to your claim that ‘everyone knows that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase’ nonsense: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts.aspx

#182

HenryBG4:51 pm, 09 May 12

Jim Jones said :

”
Here are the latest full set of stats from the Australian Institute of Criminology that give the lie to your claim that ‘everyone knows that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase’ nonsense: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts.aspx“

I think you guys lack ambition.

Why are you happy that crime, per capita, is fairly static or going down?

With all our technology and all our expensive feel-good crim-friendly approach to law and order, shouldn’t crime be going down?

I was quoting Gordian Fulde you idiot!!

Yeah totally agree Henry! I’m unhappy with the status quo and believe we need a much tougher approach to reigning in crime and anti social behaviour however our governments and judiciary have done little to facilitate that process!

Jim Jones said :

Here are the latest full set of stats from the Australian Institute of Criminology that give the lie to your claim that ‘everyone knows that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase’ nonsense: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts.aspx

I think you guys lack ambition.

Why are you happy that crime, per capita, is fairly static or going down?

With all our technology and all our expensive feel-good crim-friendly approach to law and order, shouldn’t crime be going down?

bundah said :

Jim Jones said :

bundah said :

Jim Jones said :

bundah said :

Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase

It’s not.

It’s not?? is that the best you can do,how lame.It is an undeniable fact that violent crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase.Look at the statistics or spend some time on the streets and you might just have an epiphany!

What statistics? You mean ‘Today Tonight’ and talkback radio?

I look at the statistics regularly. Crime rates have been relatively stable (if anything, dropping) in Australia for a long time (there was a significant drop in the 1980s). There’s been a trend towards reduction in property theft and a slight rise in reported assault (firearm assault is down – pub brawls are up). Murder is down and manslaughter is steady.

The ABS is here: http://www.abs.gov.au/
The AIC is here: http://www.aic.gov.au

How about you read some facts instead of being an alarmist know-nothing?

Alarmist know-nothing?? well that was an ostentatious display of self- aggrandizement on your part.

http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.aspx

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/alcohol-and-drugs-take-a-large-toll/story-fn5ftg6s-1226309473245

Ok while violent crime may have levelled out in the last year or two after having increased alarmingly over the preceding 15 years it is clearly obvious that socially unacceptable behaviour due predominantly to binge drinking has increased.I will take my cues from Giordian Fulde who is in the frontline and has a great deal of credibility unlike yourself!

Lolz – quoting the Terrorgraph on LornOrder. Great job! Almost as good as the cherry picking you’ve done on alcohol-related violence (conveniently ignoring every other form of crime, no less).

Here are the latest full set of stats from the Australian Institute of Criminology that give the lie to your claim that ‘everyone knows that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase’ nonsense: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts.aspx

Jim Jones said :

bundah said :

Jim Jones said :

bundah said :

Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase

It’s not.

It’s not?? is that the best you can do,how lame.It is an undeniable fact that violent crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase.Look at the statistics or spend some time on the streets and you might just have an epiphany!

What statistics? You mean ‘Today Tonight’ and talkback radio?

I look at the statistics regularly. Crime rates have been relatively stable (if anything, dropping) in Australia for a long time (there was a significant drop in the 1980s). There’s been a trend towards reduction in property theft and a slight rise in reported assault (firearm assault is down – pub brawls are up). Murder is down and manslaughter is steady.

The ABS is here: http://www.abs.gov.au/
The AIC is here: http://www.aic.gov.au

How about you read some facts instead of being an alarmist know-nothing?

Alarmist know-nothing?? well that was an ostentatious display of self- aggrandizement on your part.

http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.aspx

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/alcohol-and-drugs-take-a-large-toll/story-fn5ftg6s-1226309473245

Ok while violent crime may have levelled out in the last year or two after having increased alarmingly over the preceding 15 years it is clearly obvious that socially unacceptable behaviour due predominantly to binge drinking has increased.I will take my cues from Giordian Fulde who is in the frontline and has a great deal of credibility unlike yourself!

Does anyone know if either women were covered under TCH current Collective Agreement for travel to and from work?

Worst thing about this sad affair, is that no one has actually learned from it. The evening following this, I was coming back from Queanbeyan down Hindmarsh, turning left onto Yamba (away from the hospital) and had to do an emergency brake, as I thought the coast was clear/relatively empty (enough space from oncoming cars.) Somehow a mysterious TOOL doing more than 100km/h past TCH who obviously didn’t want to miss the lights rotation decided he was more important. I ended up seeing him turning in Julia Flynn Ave, and then left into O’Malley entry.
The irony is that the front of his car was a most excellent Killing tool, as it was mostly covered up by one of the biggest RooBar’s (cattle bar anyone? whatever they call them.) Stretching from slightly outside the wheel flares and above the bonnet.

I think the only thing missing from this Tool was the nice bunch of aerials (CB, etc…) which I have seen decorate other such ute’s…

Where do these hick’s come from? I wouldn’t have been so pi$$ed if not less than 24 hours prior, some poor woman got killed in the place he was doing 100 in… (last I checked it was 60km/h in that zone…)

give me a freakin’ break… I think they put the damn point-point camera’s in the wrong place… should have put a fixed cam at 2 points along Yamba outside TCH. (start and 2/3 way through…)

screaming banshee said :

Lookout Smithers said :

johnboy said :

There’s no atrocity you won’t try and find an excuse for is there LS?

I haven’t ever tried to excuse any atrocity? Not even my own wrap sheet. I only try and point out that crime reporting is never accurate and people should approach with an open mind. No one likes horrific crimes in their community JB. I can’t judge anyone for their actions, what gives me the right? Or anyone else for that matter. JB you did not even have to courage to fess up to a recent error you made in reporting someone’s name . I know it happens and no reasonable person would have hung you for it at all. Yet you didn’t say a word on this site. I think maybe because you write so one sided on the issue of crimes and related events there is no way you can be seen as credible. No one is when it comes to judgement of others but for others themselves. Though it is very annoying having things published about you that are false and misleading. Particularly if you have yet to publicly comment on the matter. I won’t excuse anyone for bad deeds, mate the same goes for slandering someone else with only a blog to go on. Its a dogshit effort and the person with sound character will make the effort. I am a fan JB, don’t get me wrong. All things on this site a great.Even the obvious cops!!

My reading of those events is that ‘someone’ got his or her knickers in a twist over it and made a mountain out of a mole hill. I suspect that lack of the apology that you were clearly logging in every day to check for has more to do with the proceedings around the matter.

What were you reading ? Are you attacking my rambling? I do tend to go on.

Jim Jones said :

bundah said :

Jim Jones said :

bundah said :

Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase

It’s not.

It’s not?? is that the best you can do,how lame.It is an undeniable fact that violent crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase.Look at the statistics or spend some time on the streets and you might just have an epiphany!

What statistics? You mean ‘Today Tonight’ and talkback radio?

I look at the statistics regularly. Crime rates have been relatively stable (if anything, dropping) in Australia for a long time (there was a significant drop in the 1980s). There’s been a trend towards reduction in property theft and a slight rise in reported assault (firearm assault is down – pub brawls are up). Murder is down and manslaughter is steady.

The ABS is here: http://www.abs.gov.au/
The AIC is here: http://www.aic.gov.au

How about you read some facts instead of being an alarmist know-nothing?

Almost all reputable studies show that you are less likely to be a victim of a crime now than at any other time in Australia’s history.

The two things that have increased are people’s ill-founded belief that there is rampant lawlessness going on out there, and tabloid gutter style media scare campaigns.

bundah said :

Jim Jones said :

bundah said :

Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase

It’s not.

It’s not?? is that the best you can do,how lame.It is an undeniable fact that violent crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase.Look at the statistics or spend some time on the streets and you might just have an epiphany!

What statistics? You mean ‘Today Tonight’ and talkback radio?

I look at the statistics regularly. Crime rates have been relatively stable (if anything, dropping) in Australia for a long time (there was a significant drop in the 1980s). There’s been a trend towards reduction in property theft and a slight rise in reported assault (firearm assault is down – pub brawls are up). Murder is down and manslaughter is steady.

The ABS is here: http://www.abs.gov.au/
The AIC is here: http://www.aic.gov.au

How about you read some facts instead of being an alarmist know-nothing?

Lookout Smithers said :

johnboy said :

There’s no atrocity you won’t try and find an excuse for is there LS?

I haven’t ever tried to excuse any atrocity? Not even my own wrap sheet. I only try and point out that crime reporting is never accurate and people should approach with an open mind. No one likes horrific crimes in their community JB. I can’t judge anyone for their actions, what gives me the right? Or anyone else for that matter. JB you did not even have to courage to fess up to a recent error you made in reporting someone’s name . I know it happens and no reasonable person would have hung you for it at all. Yet you didn’t say a word on this site. I think maybe because you write so one sided on the issue of crimes and related events there is no way you can be seen as credible. No one is when it comes to judgement of others but for others themselves. Though it is very annoying having things published about you that are false and misleading. Particularly if you have yet to publicly comment on the matter. I won’t excuse anyone for bad deeds, mate the same goes for slandering someone else with only a blog to go on. Its a dogshit effort and the person with sound character will make the effort. I am a fan JB, don’t get me wrong. All things on this site a great.Even the obvious cops!!

My reading of those events is that ‘someone’ got his or her knickers in a twist over it and made a mountain out of a mole hill. I suspect that lack of the apology that you were clearly logging in every day to check for has more to do with the proceedings around the matter.

Lookout Smithers said :

johnboy said :

There’s no atrocity you won’t try and find an excuse for is there LS?

. I can’t judge anyone for their actions, what gives me the right? Or anyone else for that matter.

Are you serious?? Humans are constantly making judgements re others behaviour,actions,appearance etc. I believe it’s hard wired in ones psyche!

What a terrible set of circumstances. I hope everyone gets past this and that it never happens again. Bad, bad luck.

johnboy said :

There’s no atrocity you won’t try and find an excuse for is there LS?

I haven’t ever tried to excuse any atrocity? Not even my own wrap sheet. I only try and point out that crime reporting is never accurate and people should approach with an open mind. No one likes horrific crimes in their community JB. I can’t judge anyone for their actions, what gives me the right? Or anyone else for that matter. JB you did not even have to courage to fess up to a recent error you made in reporting someone’s name . I know it happens and no reasonable person would have hung you for it at all. Yet you didn’t say a word on this site. I think maybe because you write so one sided on the issue of crimes and related events there is no way you can be seen as credible. No one is when it comes to judgement of others but for others themselves. Though it is very annoying having things published about you that are false and misleading. Particularly if you have yet to publicly comment on the matter. I won’t excuse anyone for bad deeds, mate the same goes for slandering someone else with only a blog to go on. Its a dogshit effort and the person with sound character will make the effort. I am a fan JB, don’t get me wrong. All things on this site a great.Even the obvious cops!!

OpenYourMind said :

I joked about using the $50million jackpot from last week’s OzLotto to resurrect Mully. If Ozlotto hadn’t jackpotted again this week, I’d be thinking that someone took me up on the suggestion. Even if Monfries isn’t Mully, this thread is going the right way about winning a Mully award.

What’s the bet if you connect the dots, they knew each other.

Jim Jones said :

bundah said :

Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase

It’s not.

It’s not?? is that the best you can do,how lame.It is an undeniable fact that violent crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase.Look at the statistics or spend some time on the streets and you might just have an epiphany!

I joked about using the $50million jackpot from last week’s OzLotto to resurrect Mully. If Ozlotto hadn’t jackpotted again this week, I’d be thinking that someone took me up on the suggestion. Even if Monfries isn’t Mully, this thread is going the right way about winning a Mully award.

If he is so scared of jail he is going the wrong way about avoiding it. He is a lying c*#t of a “man” who deserves nothing more than to rot in a jail cell and then hell, tormented by inmates, guards and Satan alike “evilkid666” what an idiot.

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

johnboy said :

There’s no atrocity you won’t try and find an excuse for is there LS?

How, precisely, is LS excusing an atrocity?

By discussing welfare dependency rationally?

He is not discussing welfare rationally, he is merely regurgitating the Left’s ideological beliefs about it, beliefs which have led to failure and to a vast increase in aboriginal welfare dependence and aboriginal imprisonment.

You would think the Left would be hiding its head in shame following the obvious failure of their approach to public education, the failure of their turfing all the loons out onto the streets from where a large proportion have ended up in gaol, and of course the total failure of their racist and patronising approach to aboriginal Australians.

Whateverdude. The statements he’s made about cutting welfare leading to increased crime levels has been proven by similar actions in similar countries (most noticeably the US). If you have any evidence that cutting welfare will decrease crime levels, I’d be reeeeeally keen to see it.

Lazy I said :

This guy is 24 years old, he is an adult, what his parents / family say to him would likely have no impact on his decisions, they don’t control him.I don’t understand how punishing them would make a scrap of difference.

Hang on, you might be using the Wrong Kind of Logic, remember what Refshauge told us as he released Monfries back into the community:
the logic of Australian white society is not always a sure sign of the approach that should be adopted in the assessment of evidence from those of Aboriginal descent.

Jim Jones said :

johnboy said :

There’s no atrocity you won’t try and find an excuse for is there LS?

How, precisely, is LS excusing an atrocity?

By discussing welfare dependency rationally?

He is not discussing welfare rationally, he is merely regurgitating the Left’s ideological beliefs about it, beliefs which have led to failure and to a vast increase in aboriginal welfare dependence and aboriginal imprisonment.

You would think the Left would be hiding its head in shame following the obvious failure of their approach to public education, the failure of their turfing all the loons out onto the streets from where a large proportion have ended up in gaol, and of course the total failure of their racist and patronising approach to aboriginal Australians.

Lazy I said :

Dilandach said :

bundah said :

The simple reality is that while ever there is little or no fear of consequence of one’s actions anti-social behaviour will continue to be commonplace.Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase governments need to get serious about tackling these issues before more law abiding citizens become victims.Unfortunately it is clear that maintaining the status quo at present is the preferred option!

If his immediate family are on benefits, they should be cut. No questions, no appeals. Just straight away cut.

After word gets around that if you’ve got a deadbeat relative who’s dead set on committing crimes and that they’re putting your benefits at risk, the problem will be sorted out ‘in house’. Breaking the generational welfare dependence is a large part of these increasing and repetitive issues.

It is a pretty huge assumption to make that his immediate family is on benefits, and ever if they were I have no idea how it is even relevant.

This guy is 24 years old, he is an adult, what his parents / family say to him would likely have no impact on his decisions, they don’t control him.I don’t understand how punishing them would make a scrap of difference.

Exactly. His family should not be punished for his choices and actions. He is an adult and made his choices. Lock him up and throw away the key but leave his family out of it. He was raised the same as his siblings and they are all good.

Jim Jones said :

johnboy said :

There’s no atrocity you won’t try and find an excuse for is there LS?

How, precisely, is LS excusing an atrocity?

By discussing welfare dependency rationally?

By failing to take up a pitchfork and snarl for blood with the rest of the lynch mob?

I looked for a pitchfork in Bunnings but they don’t have any, so I had to settle for one of those plastic grass rakes. And the only torches they sold were bamboo beach ones or LED. I went with the LED because they last longer and its easier to see when you’re running around in the dark.

johnboy said :

There’s no atrocity you won’t try and find an excuse for is there LS?

How, precisely, is LS excusing an atrocity?

By discussing welfare dependency rationally?

By failing to take up a pitchfork and snarl for blood with the rest of the lynch mob?

bundah said :

Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase

It’s not.

Dilandach said :

bundah said :

The simple reality is that while ever there is little or no fear of consequence of one’s actions anti-social behaviour will continue to be commonplace.Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase governments need to get serious about tackling these issues before more law abiding citizens become victims.Unfortunately it is clear that maintaining the status quo at present is the preferred option!

If his immediate family are on benefits, they should be cut. No questions, no appeals. Just straight away cut.

After word gets around that if you’ve got a deadbeat relative who’s dead set on committing crimes and that they’re putting your benefits at risk, the problem will be sorted out ‘in house’. Breaking the generational welfare dependence is a large part of these increasing and repetitive issues.

To a certain extent I agree. If the under-age persons you are responsible for are showing signs of going down the wrong path and (recognising that sometimes otherwise good parents can have a particularly challenging child) you cannot demonstrate that you have made genuine attempts to deal with it and to seek outside help if necessary, then there should be consequences. Just what would be appropriate and effective I’m not sure.

Dilandach said :

bundah said :

The simple reality is that while ever there is little or no fear of consequence of one’s actions anti-social behaviour will continue to be commonplace.Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase governments need to get serious about tackling these issues before more law abiding citizens become victims.Unfortunately it is clear that maintaining the status quo at present is the preferred option!

If his immediate family are on benefits, they should be cut. No questions, no appeals. Just straight away cut.

After word gets around that if you’ve got a deadbeat relative who’s dead set on committing crimes and that they’re putting your benefits at risk, the problem will be sorted out ‘in house’. Breaking the generational welfare dependence is a large part of these increasing and repetitive issues.

None of his immediate family are on benefits but for the compensation they received from VOC. They are all mostly well educated middle class people. Breaking welfare dependance comes down many factors. Poverty being one of them. So if you took it away you can count on crime rates hitting record levels. That is all but just short of a mathematical certainty .

Dilandach said :

bundah said :

The simple reality is that while ever there is little or no fear of consequence of one’s actions anti-social behaviour will continue to be commonplace.Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase governments need to get serious about tackling these issues before more law abiding citizens become victims.Unfortunately it is clear that maintaining the status quo at present is the preferred option!

If his immediate family are on benefits, they should be cut. No questions, no appeals. Just straight away cut.

After word gets around that if you’ve got a deadbeat relative who’s dead set on committing crimes and that they’re putting your benefits at risk, the problem will be sorted out ‘in house’. Breaking the generational welfare dependence is a large part of these increasing and repetitive issues.

It is a pretty huge assumption to make that his immediate family is on benefits, and ever if they were I have no idea how it is even relevant.

This guy is 24 years old, he is an adult, what his parents / family say to him would likely have no impact on his decisions, they don’t control him.I don’t understand how punishing them would make a scrap of difference.

bundah said :

The simple reality is that while ever there is little or no fear of consequence of one’s actions anti-social behaviour will continue to be commonplace.Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase governments need to get serious about tackling these issues before more law abiding citizens become victims.Unfortunately it is clear that maintaining the status quo at present is the preferred option!

If his immediate family are on benefits, they should be cut. No questions, no appeals. Just straight away cut.

After word gets around that if you’ve got a deadbeat relative who’s dead set on committing crimes and that they’re putting your benefits at risk, the problem will be sorted out ‘in house’. Breaking the generational welfare dependence is a large part of these increasing and repetitive issues.

The simple reality is that while ever there is little or no fear of consequence of one’s actions anti-social behaviour will continue to be commonplace.Given that crime and socially unacceptable behaviour is on the increase governments need to get serious about tackling these issues before more law abiding citizens become victims.Unfortunately it is clear that maintaining the status quo at present is the preferred option!

Deref said :

Proboscus said :

As for alternatives for getting off for killing his mother – I’ll spell it out for you…..J. A. I. L.

What – he should be sent to an American prison?

Not such a bad idea.

It is only spelled that way in government documents but the media and most Australians have adopted the new spelling.

Proboscus said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Proboscus said :

Ben_Dover said :

Monfries has been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and at a bail application earlier this year told the court through his lawyer he was terrified of being returned to prison.

Better let him go then, oh, and get him a new social worker for goodness sake!

+1

There was a young bloke a few years ago who murdered his mum (stabbed her 57 times or something) who got off because he had Ashbergers (apolgies for spelling) Syndrome.

This arse hat will definitely get off…

So what would you suggest as the alternative if he “got off” killing his MOTHER. I know the family. His sister is actually a prosecutor too. He has the full support of the remaining family members. Count for anything? Perhaps you need all the facts to the case.

Sorry, this should’ve been in my earlier reply. Forgive me for my premature submission.

I’m confused by the “His sister is a prosecutor too” so that must make it OK argument – what does that mean?

As for alternatives for getting off for killing his mother – I’ll spell it out for you…..J. A. I. L.

Last I heard he was still in a secure facility until well enough to be released, for the safety of others and himself. The family are anything but “cool with it” but rather know the case and all the facts around it. And Henry I hope you are joking with that link to theage? That is probably the least informed a person could get to. But reading the post underneath just takes the cake. What would it take to inform people accurately without boring them senseless, as everyone is aware the real story is just not that interesting.

Deref said :

Proboscus said :

As for alternatives for getting off for killing his mother – I’ll spell it out for you…..J. A. I. L.

What – he should be sent to an American prison?

Not such a bad idea.

Isn’t it G.A.O.L?

Deref said :

Proboscus said :

As for alternatives for getting off for killing his mother – I’ll spell it out for you…..J. A. I. L.

What – he should be sent to an American prison?

Not such a bad idea.

My apologoes – G.A.O.L. With either spelling, the prick has scored a G.O.A.L…

Pandy said :

We need a Canberra version of the Daily Telegraph. This guy would be on the front page, named and shamed. Eventually the courts and the pollies would react with tougher sentences.

That’d be great. If only there were the tiniest bit of evidence that tougher sentencing reduces crime rates.

Proboscus said :

As for alternatives for getting off for killing his mother – I’ll spell it out for you…..J. A. I. L.

What – he should be sent to an American prison?

Not such a bad idea.

Lookout Smithers said :

Proboscus said :

Ben_Dover said :

Monfries has been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and at a bail application earlier this year told the court through his lawyer he was terrified of being returned to prison.

Better let him go then, oh, and get him a new social worker for goodness sake!

+1

There was a young bloke a few years ago who murdered his mum (stabbed her 57 times or something) who got off because he had Ashbergers (apolgies for spelling) Syndrome.

This arse hat will definitely get off…

So what would you suggest as the alternative if he “got off” killing his MOTHER. I know the family. His sister is actually a prosecutor too. He has the full support of the remaining family members. Count for anything? Perhaps you need all the facts to the case.

Sorry, this should’ve been in my earlier reply. Forgive me for my premature submission.

I’m confused by the “His sister is a prosecutor too” so that must make it OK argument – what does that mean?

As for alternatives for getting off for killing his mother – I’ll spell it out for you…..J. A. I. L.

Lookout Smithers said :

Proboscus said :

Ben_Dover said :

Monfries has been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and at a bail application earlier this year told the court through his lawyer he was terrified of being returned to prison.

Better let him go then, oh, and get him a new social worker for goodness sake!

+1

There was a young bloke a few years ago who murdered his mum (stabbed her 57 times or something) who got off because he had Ashbergers (apolgies for spelling) Syndrome.

This arse hat will definitely get off…

So what would you suggest as the alternative if he “got off” killing his MOTHER. I know the family. His sister is actually a prosecutor too. He has the full support of the remaining family members. Count for anything? Perhaps you need all the facts to the case.

So the family are totally cool with it – who cares? The person who wouldn’t be too cool with it – and I’ll take a stab in the dark here (pun intended) – would be mum..!!!

We need a Canberra version of the Daily Telegraph. This guy would be on the front page, named and shamed. Eventually the courts and the pollies would react with tougher sentences.

Lookout Smithers said :

Not at all. I think there should be more informed law and order discussion through channels other than on web blogs or news outlets.

More informed?

More informed than this, you mean:

Thus, the logic of Australian white society is not always a sure sign of the approach that should be adopted in the assessment of evidence from those of Aboriginal descent.

Or, more informed than this:

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/indigenous-prison-rates-jump-by-52pc-20110505-1eaf0.html

Indigenous imprisonment rates have jumped by more than 50 per cent over the past decade,…

Because what you’re currently doing with your namby-pamby nonsense aimed at shielding crims from the consequences of, and responsibility for their actions just isn’t working very well at all.

LSWCHP said :

Lookout Smithers said :

johnboy said :

Yes, because only whingers get upset by serial offenders making a mockery of bail conditions and killing valued members of the community.

*yawn*. You should hear your self JB. I know you are not an idiot. But you keep wasting your journalistic talents on bullshit like law and order. You could be mistaken for a politician around election time. Be thankful this case gets to court at all. There are many that don’t and never will.

I think a quick symbolic analysis of the arguments presented in that post would reveal it to be semantically null. ie when unable to formulate a meaningful response, bloviate, shout “Look, what’s that over there!” and/or play the man. But whatever you do, don’t respond with anything of substance.

Duly noted. I’ll thank his honor for pointing that out.
Many thanks

Tool said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Proboscus said :

Ben_Dover said :

Monfries has been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and at a bail application earlier this year told the court through his lawyer he was terrified of being returned to prison.

Better let him go then, oh, and get him a new social worker for goodness sake!

+1

There was a young bloke a few years ago who murdered his mum (stabbed her 57 times or something) who got off because he had Ashbergers (apolgies for spelling) Syndrome.

This arse hat will definitely get off…

So what would you suggest as the alternative if he “got off” killing his MOTHER. I know the family. His sister is actually a prosecutor too. He has the full support of the remaining family members. Count for anything? Perhaps you need all the facts to the case.

Oh dear, Terrence you know you aren’t allowed on this site.

Ha ha. It is good humor here. I shall concede.

Lookout Smithers said :

johnboy said :

Yes, because only whingers get upset by serial offenders making a mockery of bail conditions and killing valued members of the community.

*yawn*. You should hear your self JB. I know you are not an idiot. But you keep wasting your journalistic talents on bullshit like law and order. You could be mistaken for a politician around election time. Be thankful this case gets to court at all. There are many that don’t and never will.

I think a quick symbolic analysis of the arguments presented in that post would reveal it to be semantically null. ie when unable to formulate a meaningful response, bloviate, shout “Look, what’s that over there!” and/or play the man. But whatever you do, don’t respond with anything of substance.

Lookout Smithers said :

Proboscus said :

Ben_Dover said :

Monfries has been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and at a bail application earlier this year told the court through his lawyer he was terrified of being returned to prison.

Better let him go then, oh, and get him a new social worker for goodness sake!

+1

There was a young bloke a few years ago who murdered his mum (stabbed her 57 times or something) who got off because he had Ashbergers (apolgies for spelling) Syndrome.

This arse hat will definitely get off…

So what would you suggest as the alternative if he “got off” killing his MOTHER. I know the family. His sister is actually a prosecutor too. He has the full support of the remaining family members. Count for anything? Perhaps you need all the facts to the case.

Oh dear, Terrence you know you aren’t allowed on this site.

can i point out that stealing cars, driving erratically ,running red lights, running people over and running from the cops are not symptoms of aspergers syndrome. what a horrid tragedy for the family s of all involved.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Lookout Smithers said :

johnboy said :

Yes, because only whingers get upset by serial offenders making a mockery of bail conditions and killing valued members of the community.

*yawn*. You should hear your self JB. I know you are not an idiot. But you keep wasting your journalistic talents on bullshit like law and order. You could be mistaken for a politician around election time. Be thankful this case gets to court at all. There are many that don’t and never will.

How is law and order bullshit? Do you think there should be no laws?

Not at all. I think there should be more informed law and order discussion through channels other than on web blogs or news outlets. It seeks to only appeal to people’s emotions rather than using logic and objective commonsense. Hence people’s yearning for return of capital punishment, a barbaric and backward relic of the highest proportion.

Lookout Smithers said :

johnboy said :

Yes, because only whingers get upset by serial offenders making a mockery of bail conditions and killing valued members of the community.

*yawn*. You should hear your self JB. I know you are not an idiot. But you keep wasting your journalistic talents on bullshit like law and order. You could be mistaken for a politician around election time. Be thankful this case gets to court at all. There are many that don’t and never will.

How is law and order bullshit? Do you think there should be no laws?

Diggety said :

Lookout Smithers said :

johnboy said :

Yes, because only whingers get upset by serial offenders making a mockery of bail conditions and killing valued members of the community.

*yawn*.

Sorry if these tragedies bore you.

Maybe you should get back to your video games.

I find the tragedy quite upsetting and shocking. I don’t know that I would be able to cope if this were my mother or sister. Video games isn’t something I am in to but I hear there is a good buck in making them. Gaming is a huge market now days. Maybe you need to stop apologizing to me for having played no part in it at all? Or offer something more for debate.

minniemay said :

Diggety said :

HenryBG said :

So in the meantime, let me remind you what our taxes are paying for:

Thus, the logic of Australian white society is not always a sure sign of the approach that should be adopted in the assessment of evidence from those of Aboriginal descent.

Racism and incompetence from a judge. That’s what our taxes are paying for.

How on earth is that racist? If you read the judgment, you’ll see that the Aboriginality of his girlfriend (which is what this passage was referring to) was only relevant in terms of how she interacts with authority figures. It’s recognising cultural realities that may alter how people give evidence in court (and quite frankly the courts failed dismally to do this for far too long).

Differential treatment of persons based on race is racism.

From a judge, even worse.

Lookout Smithers said :

johnboy said :

Yes, because only whingers get upset by serial offenders making a mockery of bail conditions and killing valued members of the community.

*yawn*.

Sorry if these tragedies bore you.

Maybe you should get back to your video games.

Mysteryman said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Glad the RA isn’t part of the judiciary!! Or making the way for law reform either. It isn’t celebrities or talk show hosts giving Canberra a bad name. It is the citizens living there and nothing ever being good enough. All this despite the high standard of living and quality of life in Canberra. Whingers, for shame.

Prefer your convicted criminals turned manslaughter perpetrators out in the open, enjoy freedom, do you? I’m sure you’d be singing a different song if it was a relative of yours that was killed by an idiot like Justin Monfries.

I actually prefer neither of those appealing options. Appealing as they might seem. I am in fact happy enough with the current system, given I do not have a better alternative to offer. Even despite having no outcome regarding who ever was responsible for the death of my family member. Whether or not those person or persons responsible were idiots or not, well I guess we will have to wait until they are identified first. Cheers

Diggety said :

HenryBG said :

So in the meantime, let me remind you what our taxes are paying for:

Thus, the logic of Australian white society is not always a sure sign of the approach that should be adopted in the assessment of evidence from those of Aboriginal descent.

Racism and incompetence from a judge. That’s what our taxes are paying for.

How on earth is that racist? If you read the judgment, you’ll see that the Aboriginality of his girlfriend (which is what this passage was referring to) was only relevant in terms of how she interacts with authority figures. It’s recognising cultural realities that may alter how people give evidence in court (and quite frankly the courts failed dismally to do this for far too long).

Proboscus said :

Ben_Dover said :

Monfries has been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and at a bail application earlier this year told the court through his lawyer he was terrified of being returned to prison.

Better let him go then, oh, and get him a new social worker for goodness sake!

+1

There was a young bloke a few years ago who murdered his mum (stabbed her 57 times or something) who got off because he had Ashbergers (apolgies for spelling) Syndrome.

This arse hat will definitely get off…

So what would you suggest as the alternative if he “got off” killing his MOTHER. I know the family. His sister is actually a prosecutor too. He has the full support of the remaining family members. Count for anything? Perhaps you need all the facts to the case.

Lookout Smithers said :

Glad the RA isn’t part of the judiciary!! Or making the way for law reform either. It isn’t celebrities or talk show hosts giving Canberra a bad name. It is the citizens living there and nothing ever being good enough. All this despite the high standard of living and quality of life in Canberra. Whingers, for shame.

Prefer your convicted criminals turned manslaughter perpetrators out in the open, enjoy freedom, do you? I’m sure you’d be singing a different song if it was a relative of yours that was killed by an idiot like Justin Monfries.

johnboy said :

Yes, because only whingers get upset by serial offenders making a mockery of bail conditions and killing valued members of the community.

*yawn*. You should hear your self JB. I know you are not an idiot. But you keep wasting your journalistic talents on bullshit like law and order. You could be mistaken for a politician around election time. Be thankful this case gets to court at all. There are many that don’t and never will.

Glad the RA isn’t part of the judiciary!! Or making the way for law reform either. It isn’t celebrities or talk show hosts giving Canberra a bad name. It is the citizens living there and nothing ever being good enough. All this despite the high standard of living and quality of life in Canberra. Whingers, for shame.

HenryBG said :

So in the meantime, let me remind you what our taxes are paying for:

Thus, the logic of Australian white society is not always a sure sign of the approach that should be adopted in the assessment of evidence from those of Aboriginal descent.

Racism and incompetence from a judge. That’s what our taxes are paying for.

HenryBG said :

I couldn’t be arsed turning up for jury duty but listen to my important opinion on the legal system!

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

Apparently, if you dare to criticise the current system, that makes you “part of the problem”.

Nope. What makes you part of the problem is looking for ways to get out of participating in the system, ….

I tell you what, why don’t you let me know when the next “Bail Application before Jury” is being held so I can sign myself up to it?

Alternatively, find me a trial where the judge and lawyers are all working for $96/day and sign me up for that one.

So in the meantime, let me remind you what our taxes are paying for:

Thus, the logic of Australian white society is not always a sure sign of the approach that should be adopted in the assessment of evidence from those of Aboriginal descent.

HenryBG said :

Apparently, if you dare to criticise the current system, that makes you “part of the problem”.

Nope. What makes you part of the problem is looking for ways to get out of participating in the system, and at the same time complaining about the supposed incompetence of the judiciary.

In the same way that people who don’t vote lose their entitlement to complain about the government.

maniac said :

Or do what the Americans do, create a workforce out of the prison population. If they refuse to work they get solitary confinement. Three strikes and you’re out and then free labour, sounds about right to me.

Apparently, if you dare to criticise the current system, that makes you “part of the problem”.

But I’m with *you* – but you missed out the bit about housing them in tents and making them wear hot pink prison uniforms.

gooterz said :

Its sad that the modernday courtroom is more a lawyers playground than something that deals in the truth and ‘justice’.

Why do we lock crims up? that means we have to pay for them, when its they whom should be repaying us!.

The problem with most crims is that they’ve always been crims they dont know how to actually put in a days work. If you never have to work to support yourself in society then how are you going to respect the people that do.

The british had an excelent idea. Make use of all the crims and put them to work. 10 Years hard labour would likely cause more infulence than 10 years of tv/ gym / whatever it is that those wankers do all day.

Put them out in the middle of nowhere get them working and dont spare the whip!

Or do what the Americans do, create a workforce out of the prison population. If they refuse to work they get solitary confinement. Three strikes and you’re out and then free labour, sounds about right to me.

HenryBG said :

devils_advocate said :

The significance of this is that it supports the submission of Mr M Lalor, who appeared for Mr Monfries, that Mr Monfries was present at his residence at the relevant time. Taking all these matters into account, I am not satisfied to the relevant degree, namely on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Monfries was not at his residence.

Perhaps you would care to review the exact wording of the bail condition
s to ensure you are not making the same mistake as the judge did:

“Not to absent yourself from your place of residence between 8 pm and 8 am daily and present yourself to any police officer during those hours.”

The crim did *not* present himself to police as per the bail conditions. Whether he was at home or not is an irrelevance which successfully distracted the judge, and you, it seems.

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

Why do we have dimwits occupying our benches, sucking up vast sums of ratepayers’ money, only to produce rubbish that my 12-year-old could do better with.

Well that is part of the justification for the jury system – .

Yes, because bail applications are often held before a panel of jurors being insulted with a $96/day compensation for their efforts. You have NFI, do you?

I was responding to what was clearly a generalised whinge about the judiciary, by someone who is committed to being part of the problem rather than the solution.

devils_advocate said :

The significance of this is that it supports the submission of Mr M Lalor, who appeared for Mr Monfries, that Mr Monfries was present at his residence at the relevant time. Taking all these matters into account, I am not satisfied to the relevant degree, namely on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Monfries was not at his residence.

Perhaps you would care to review the exact wording of the bail condition
s to ensure you are not making the same mistake as the judge did:

“Not to absent yourself from your place of residence between 8 pm and 8 am daily and present yourself to any police officer during those hours.”

The crim did *not* present himself to police as per the bail conditions. Whether he was at home or not is an irrelevance which successfully distracted the judge, and you, it seems.

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

Why do we have dimwits occupying our benches, sucking up vast sums of ratepayers’ money, only to produce rubbish that my 12-year-old could do better with.

Well that is part of the justification for the jury system – .

Yes, because bail applications are often held before a panel of jurors being insulted with a $96/day compensation for their efforts. You have NFI, do you?

Dilandach said :

johnboy said :

DHCS write a letter warning us off, or else.

Are you able to post the letter up?

http://the-riotact.com/does-the-children-and-young-people-act-2008-need-changing/

HenryBG said :

johnboy said :

We’re already on a warning for linking to court documents. Which is ludicrous but I don’t care enough about the issue to be a prisoner of conscience over it.

Where’s Derryn Hinch when you need him?

In jail for inciting a lynch mob?

milkman said :

Looks like CRK was back in court a couple of weeks ago for another bail related matter.

Children make mistakes, the point of the CaYP Act is to give them second (or higher) chances.
The fact that CRK’s daddy keeps throwing money around to make certain problems stay below the radar doesn’t seem to have clicked for CRK yet, who so desperately wants a criminal reputation and to throw those (many) chances back into the face of the community, stop linking him to his childhood crimes and let the adult crimes have the consequences they so richly deserve.

If CRK wants the profile and treatment that comes with an adult criminal reputation, let him have it.

for some reason I can’t quote, but to Henry BG, did you read the rest of the judgment which concludes:

I will also note that contact was made with the probation officer assigned to supervise Mr Monfries and he told Mr Monfries in colourful language to present himself forthwith.

This, no doubt, resulted from the report of the police officers that Mr Monfries had breached his bail. This was said to be about 20 minutes or so after the police officers had left.

The timing is not clear, but it may well be that this occurred shortly after 8.30 am, which I think I can take for judicial notice is the standard commencement time for ACT public servants. While the estimation of time for the relevant events is not such that an accurate prediction is possible, it is not beyond reasonable bounds.

The significance of this is that it supports the submission of Mr M Lalor, who appeared for Mr Monfries, that Mr Monfries was present at his residence at the relevant time. Taking all these matters into account, I am not satisfied to the relevant degree, namely on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Monfries was not at his residence.

In other words, not actually a finding that Monfries breached his bail conditions.

I presume everyone commenting realises that ‘bail’ means ‘charged but not yet put on trial’ and, hence, under our system of law, innocent. If you read that latest bail decision, he was charged in 2008 with various theft offences but had not been tried by 2011. No explanation given as to the delay, but are people saying he should have been in custody all that time?

I’m not defending him, I am trying to point out that people are jumping to conclusions based on things that arent actually correct. I appreciate this is the internet.

Maybe he can use this new option to reduce his likely ’12 month good behaviour bond’ conviction for his latest hit-and-run manslaughter to a 6-month one?? After all, i’m sure he was sooo close to ‘rehabilitation’ and this incident was just an unfortunate slip up….
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/sentence-discount-on-offer-for-smooth-criminal-trials-20120506-1y7cw.html

HenryBG said :

Why do we have dimwits occupying our benches, sucking up vast sums of ratepayers’ money, only to produce rubbish that my 12-year-old could do better with.

Well that is part of the justification for the jury system – to prevent judges from substitution their own judgement for those views that are representative of society as a whole.

Of course, that would require people to turn up to jury duty, and there are just so many selfish pricks in society who think jury duty is beneath them, so we are left with this.

johnboy said :

We’re already on a warning for linking to court documents. Which is ludicrous but I don’t care enough about the issue to be a prisoner of conscience over it.

WTF? Really? You got pinged for linking to documents that are publicly available?

johnboy said :

DHCS write a letter warning us off, or else.

Are you able to post the letter up?

Geez the law is an ass.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2011/203.html

Refshauge even spells it out:
When granted bail on 26 October 2011, the conditions of the bail included a curfew in the following terms: “Not to absent yourself from your place of residence between 8 pm and 8 am daily and present yourself to any police officer during those hours.”

There is no question that two police officers attended and there is no question that Monfries failed to present himself as required by his bail.

Absolutely clear-cut.

Or so you would think – but Refshauge decides to come up with 17 paragraphs of waffle considering the irrelevant question of whether Monfries was at home or not.
Including this pearler:

Thus, the logic of Australian white society is not always a sure sign of the approach that should be adopted in the assessment of evidence from those of Aboriginal descent.

Why do we have dimwits occupying our benches, sucking up vast sums of ratepayers’ money, only to produce rubbish that my 12-year-old could do better with.

johnboy said :

We’re already on a warning for linking to court documents. Which is ludicrous but I don’t care enough about the issue to be a prisoner of conscience over it.

Where’s Derryn Hinch when you need him?

johnboy said :

DHCS write a letter warning us off, or else.

this one I take it?
http://the-riotact.com/does-the-children-and-young-people-act-2008-need-changing/

I’m somewhat surprised that the letter is still up actually.

johnboy said :

We’re already on a warning for linking to court documents. Which is ludicrous but I don’t care enough about the issue to be a prisoner of conscience over it.

How does that work?

johnboy said :

We’re already on a warning for linking to court documents. Which is ludicrous but I don’t care enough about the issue to be a prisoner of conscience over it.

You’re right – linking to publicly available information should hardly be an issue, but I suspect the powers that be might have a problem with you running RiotACT from within the AMC.

Still, you could probably get some good interviews…

milkman said :

Looks like CRK was back in court a couple of weeks ago for another bail related matter.

[Link deleted because we could go to prison for letting you know the turd’s name.]

Sorry – didn’t realise it was an issue.

Looks like CRK was back in court a couple of weeks ago for another bail related matter.

[Link deleted because we could go to prison for letting you know the turd’s name.]

ScienceRules said :

/quote]

Hi Pandaman. Firstly, thanks for a thoughtful and reasoned contribution, quite the breath of fresh air!

Of course I don’t think that the judiciary should go unexamined or laws and processes unchanged, after all, that’s the mark of a growing civilisation. I just don’t think that these changes should pander (ha!) to the baying mob as we see so often in the US, for example. Perhaps automatic remand and denial of bail for some offences or other circumstances is a good idea, but I suspect that the law is more complex than us non-lawyers realise and that feel-good, “common sense” quick fixes will likely not achieve the desired result.

I agree with your assessment of the psychology behind these outbursts however and I don’t believe that anyone commenting here, even the most vocal, would really be comfortable living in a society where summary execution (or any kind for that matter) was part of local jurisprudence.

Like yourself, I am not ashamed of my opinions and am happy to stand by them publically. After I retire. In the meantime, my employment crosses over with many of the topics we chat about here on RA and I’ve no choice to cover my stubbly face behind the veil of pseudonymity.

Alright! We appear to be roughly on the same page. Thanks for the clarification and I’ll say no more on the issue then.

Deckard said :

pandaman said :

Another word regarding the anonimity issue, anyone with a moderate interest in internet forensics and access to the google could work out who I am, and I’ve no doubt that’s true for the majority of people commenting on this site. What’s more I really don’t care from a conscience perspective. I just don’t want to advertise, it’s hard enough separating work and personal life in the modern age, without the internet making things blurry.

Ahh, I worked it out. How’s the knitting going for you then?

http://knit-n-panda.blogspot.com.au/

Bahahahaha, oh dude, nicely done. You found me and uncovered my shameful secret, the love of knitted socks. Wow, there’s some strange people out there. :-s

Last night I had a dream that Justin Monfries and Amber Westin had a baby together.

oh wait, the CRK one is still there. Hasn’t been removed yet.

Haha what? so I just looked at the facebook page:
“Justin likes Alexander Machonocie Centre. · Like Page · Find More Pages”
For real? could this page be a joke or a vindictive prank? hacked maybe? or could he really be that thick?

I know someone had made a page about CRK that would have made eyes bleed at the ACT department of justice & community safety, but that page seems to have been removed.
-it came up shortly after the Riotact post on “the Queen vs you-know-who” was removed.

mareva said :

The guy pictured is not Justin Monfries.

Hmm… Wait a sec… Yes, yes it is Justin.

mareva said :

The guy pictured is not Justin Monfries.

Another good reason why lynch mobs are bad.

The guy pictured is not Justin Monfries.

IrishPete said :

…. The world would be a far better place if the people who fantasise about killing other people were taken out the back and shot. (That’s irony folks.)

IP

I assume, with your comment, the irony is that you would then be one of the ones taken out back and shot? 🙂

pandaman said :

Another word regarding the anonimity issue, anyone with a moderate interest in internet forensics and access to the google could work out who I am, and I’ve no doubt that’s true for the majority of people commenting on this site. What’s more I really don’t care from a conscience perspective. I just don’t want to advertise, it’s hard enough separating work and personal life in the modern age, without the internet making things blurry.

Ahh, I worked it out. How’s the knitting going for you then?

http://knit-n-panda.blogspot.com.au/

Here’s an excellent article by the wonderful Theodore Darymple that analyses both arguments when it comes to should we/shouldn’t we sentence recidivist criminals more harshly (which seems to be the sticking point here).

http://www.newenglishreview.org/Theodore_Dalrymple/Crime_and_Punishment/

Dagnabbit, I tried to shorten my reply to Pandaman by deleting a bunch of the oft repeated comments but now I’ve blurred comment and reply. Sorry bout that!

/quote]

Well, we’re getting quite off topic here, but as you’ve noted, this is the internetz, where such things do tend to happen. So, Mr\mrs\ms anonymous and apparently leftish leaning person, do you believe that the judiciary should be trusted to do whatever the hell they like, even if this means that they bail out a knob jockey who has repeatedly breached bail conditions for multiple offences? (some of them violent) Or does it perhaps seem more reasonable that anyone found to be in breach of bail conditions or any recidivist offender being indicted on yet another criminal offence automatically be denied bail and retained in custody until their guilt can be properly ascertained?

As for the baying for blood, I’d put it down to equal parts internet tough guy syndrome, a widespread frustration with an ailing justice system and perhaps the occasional sociopath who really would gladly put a bullet in a fellow human in order to advance (in their opinion) the cause of the human race. Nothing to be terribly concerned about. I’m more worried at the idea of people who are happy to accept the status quo, which could obviously use some improvement.

Another word regarding the anonimity issue, anyone with a moderate interest in internet forensics and access to the google could work out who I am, and I’ve no doubt that’s true for the majority of people commenting on this site. What’s more I really don’t care from a conscience perspective. I just don’t want to advertise, it’s hard enough separating work and personal life in the modern age, without the internet making things blurry.

Hi Pandaman. Firstly, thanks for a thoughtful and reasoned contribution, quite the breath of fresh air!

Of course I don’t think that the judiciary should go unexamined or laws and processes unchanged, after all, that’s the mark of a growing civilisation. I just don’t think that these changes should pander (ha!) to the baying mob as we see so often in the US, for example. Perhaps automatic remand and denial of bail for some offences or other circumstances is a good idea, but I suspect that the law is more complex than us non-lawyers realise and that feel-good, “common sense” quick fixes will likely not achieve the desired result.

I agree with your assessment of the psychology behind these outbursts however and I don’t believe that anyone commenting here, even the most vocal, would really be comfortable living in a society where summary execution (or any kind for that matter) was part of local jurisprudence.

Like yourself, I am not ashamed of my opinions and am happy to stand by them publically. After I retire. In the meantime, my employment crosses over with many of the topics we chat about here on RA and I’ve no choice to cover my stubbly face behind the veil of pseudonymity.

ScienceRules said :

CatlikeTread said :

I know this is a public blog … it is still a bit hard to stomach the casual requests to kill anyone. Locked up for public safety perhaps. Who would you have kill someone on your behalf dear posters?

+1

The crazy is running heavy in this thread, catlike. I’ve given up on it, seriously you can’t tell the difference between some of the casual attitudes to human life expressed here and the scum they are complaining about.

Agreed. The world would be a far better place if the people who fantasise about killing other people were taken out the back and shot. (That’s irony folks.)

IP

ScienceRules said :

LSWCHP said :

ScienceRules said :

CatlikeTread said :

I know this is a public blog … it is still a bit hard to stomach the casual requests to kill anyone. Locked up for public safety perhaps. Who would you have kill someone on your behalf dear posters?

+1

The crazy is running heavy in this thread, catlike. I’ve given up on it, seriously you can’t tell the difference between some of the casual attitudes to human life expressed here and the scum they are complaining about.

I don’t think there’s anything at all crazy about wanting to get rid of a person like this one way or another. I’d call it a wise and natural desire for the protection and preservation of self, family and community.

It’s the “one way or another” that’s a little ambiguous, don’t you think? In any event, these threads tend to bring out the posturing of the Internet Tough Guys(TM) and behaviour/opinions that are highly unlikely to be displayed if identities were actually public. Still, it’s more than a little disconcerting that the instant reaction of some regulars seems to be to revert to pre-civilisation states in the face of difficult problems.

Well, we’re getting quite off topic here, but as you’ve noted, this is the internetz, where such things do tend to happen. So, Mr\mrs\ms anonymous and apparently leftish leaning person, do you believe that the judiciary should be trusted to do whatever the hell they like, even if this means that they bail out a knob jockey who has repeatedly breached bail conditions for multiple offences? (some of them violent) Or does it perhaps seem more reasonable that anyone found to be in breach of bail conditions or any recidivist offender being indicted on yet another criminal offence automatically be denied bail and retained in custody until their guilt can be properly ascertained?

As for the baying for blood, I’d put it down to equal parts internet tough guy syndrome, a widespread frustration with an ailing justice system and perhaps the occasional sociopath who really would gladly put a bullet in a fellow human in order to advance (in their opinion) the cause of the human race. Nothing to be terribly concerned about. I’m more worried at the idea of people who are happy to accept the status quo, which could obviously use some improvement.

Another word regarding the anonimity issue, anyone with a moderate interest in internet forensics and access to the google could work out who I am, and I’ve no doubt that’s true for the majority of people commenting on this site. What’s more I really don’t care from a conscience perspective. I just don’t want to advertise, it’s hard enough separating work and personal life in the modern age, without the internet making things blurry.

ScienceRules said :

It’s the “one way or another” that’s a little ambiguous, don’t you think? In any event, these threads tend to bring out the posturing of the Internet Tough Guys(TM) and behaviour/opinions that are highly unlikely to be displayed if identities were actually public. Still, it’s more than a little disconcerting that the instant reaction of some regulars seems to be to revert to pre-civilisation states in the face of difficult problems.

“One way or another” is certainly an ambiguous statement. There are many ambiguous circumstances in this world, but this isn’t one of them.

As I stated in a previous post, I think regular citizens (me and my family, you and your family) need to be protected from people such as Mr Monfries. If that means locking him away forever, then so be it. If it meant shooting him tomorrow, well, I honestly wouldn’t shed a tear if that happened. Whatever the case, I don’t care, as long as my kids can cross the road without the risk of being slaughtered by Mr Monfries. Or CRK. Or Amber Westin.

Ben_Dover said :

ScienceRules said :

The crazy is running heavy in this thread, catlike. I’ve given up on it, seriously you can’t tell the difference between some of the casual attitudes to human life expressed here and the scum they are complaining about.

Oh that’s easy!

The way to tell the difference is this, is the person;

A) A drug fueled anti-social parasite on society, with a life long criminal history, who has killed an innocent person?

b) A member of society who is sick to the back teeth of drug fueled anti-social parasites on society, with life long criminal histories, being given chance after chance after chance to go free to kill an innocent person, and wants something done about it?

+1

I wondered earlier if the mental issues were doctor diagnosed or lawyer diagnosed and reading the link on the first page explained the lengthy history of problems and diagnoses of various conditions. So instead of debating which court or what judge or the terms of the bail or whether people who are understandably upset are terrible people for making emotional (yes, sometimes over the top) comments, how about some thoughts on how people at risk of turning into damaging burdens on society can be identified and helped much earlier, because by the time they’re dabbling in various drugs and making appearances in court it’s a big ask to turn things around and obviously the legal system is struggling with what to do.

HenryBG said :

ScienceRules said :

CatlikeTread said :

I know this is a public blog … it is still a bit hard to stomach the casual requests to kill anyone. Locked up for public safety perhaps. Who would you have kill someone on your behalf dear posters?

+1

The crazy is running heavy in this thread, catlike. I’ve given up on it, seriously you can’t tell the difference between some of the casual attitudes to human life expressed here and the scum they are complaining about.

Thank you for demonstrating the confusion which exists in some people’s minds between criminal scum and those of us who would like the laws upheld and society protected from the scum.
This is the confusion which leads to scum being let loose again and again despite constant law-breaking.

For some of us, it’s very clear: people who commit crimes against other people or against their property need to be dissuaded from ever doing it again, not molly-coddled. Those who cannot be dissuaded should be permanently removed from society after their 3rd offence rather than being allowed to tally up 42 offences.

Personally, I don’t see any value in punishing them, and incarceration is an intolerable expense on the community.

Perhaps service clearing mines in Afghanistan would be a sensible form of “rehabilitation” for them.

And perhaps your persistant trolling is more suited to the comments of a YouTube video…

LSWCHP said :

ScienceRules said :

CatlikeTread said :

I know this is a public blog … it is still a bit hard to stomach the casual requests to kill anyone. Locked up for public safety perhaps. Who would you have kill someone on your behalf dear posters?

+1

The crazy is running heavy in this thread, catlike. I’ve given up on it, seriously you can’t tell the difference between some of the casual attitudes to human life expressed here and the scum they are complaining about.

I don’t think there’s anything at all crazy about wanting to get rid of a person like this one way or another. I’d call it a wise and natural desire for the protection and preservation of self, family and community.

It’s the “one way or another” that’s a little ambiguous, don’t you think? In any event, these threads tend to bring out the posturing of the Internet Tough Guys(TM) and behaviour/opinions that are highly unlikely to be displayed if identities were actually public. Still, it’s more than a little disconcerting that the instant reaction of some regulars seems to be to revert to pre-civilisation states in the face of difficult problems.

Thank you for demonstrating the confusion which exists in some people’s minds between criminal scum and those of us who would like the laws upheld and society protected from the scum…

…but who can’t be f***ed doing jury duty, and who would p*ss their little sissy pants if we, say, implemented the death penalty for a three-strikes speeding offender rather than handing out points and tiny fines.

ScienceRules said :

The crazy is running heavy in this thread, catlike. I’ve given up on it, seriously you can’t tell the difference between some of the casual attitudes to human life expressed here and the scum they are complaining about.

Oh that’s easy!

The way to tell the difference is this, is the person;

A) A drug fueled anti-social parasite on society, with a life long criminal history, who has killed an innocent person?

b) A member of society who is sick to the back teeth of drug fueled anti-social parasites on society, with life long criminal histories, being given chance after chance after chance to go free to kill an innocent person, and wants something done about it?

ScienceRules said :

CatlikeTread said :

I know this is a public blog … it is still a bit hard to stomach the casual requests to kill anyone. Locked up for public safety perhaps. Who would you have kill someone on your behalf dear posters?

+1

The crazy is running heavy in this thread, catlike. I’ve given up on it, seriously you can’t tell the difference between some of the casual attitudes to human life expressed here and the scum they are complaining about.

Thank you for demonstrating the confusion which exists in some people’s minds between criminal scum and those of us who would like the laws upheld and society protected from the scum.
This is the confusion which leads to scum being let loose again and again despite constant law-breaking.

For some of us, it’s very clear: people who commit crimes against other people or against their property need to be dissuaded from ever doing it again, not molly-coddled. Those who cannot be dissuaded should be permanently removed from society after their 3rd offence rather than being allowed to tally up 42 offences.

Personally, I don’t see any value in punishing them, and incarceration is an intolerable expense on the community.

Perhaps service clearing mines in Afghanistan would be a sensible form of “rehabilitation” for them.

ScienceRules said :

CatlikeTread said :

I know this is a public blog … it is still a bit hard to stomach the casual requests to kill anyone. Locked up for public safety perhaps. Who would you have kill someone on your behalf dear posters?

+1

The crazy is running heavy in this thread, catlike. I’ve given up on it, seriously you can’t tell the difference between some of the casual attitudes to human life expressed here and the scum they are complaining about.

I don’t think there’s anything at all crazy about wanting to get rid of a person like this one way or another. I’d call it a wise and natural desire for the protection and preservation of self, family and community.

does the girl in the photo get no privacy? I find that a bit rude. She doesn’t need to be included in his trouble just because you lifted a photo from facebook.

m00nee said :

Clarity said :

Couple of things. Monfries had been bailed in the Magistrates Court just weeks before this incident, not the Supreme Court. So Justice Refshauge wasn’t responsible for the most recent bail decision. Also, Monfries’ bail was over domestic violence allegations, not driving matters. Any discussion about the risk of reoffending would have been largely limited to the offences before the court, not the chance he might run down an innocent woman.

Clairty, you are not correct. Monfries was on bail for a domestic violence charge. This is correct. But he committed this offence whilst on bail awaiting sentencing for three separate lots of charges. If you look at the information that Johnboy added regarding Monfries court appearances it should be noted that there are three appearances for breach of bail conditions.All of these were before Refshauge and all resulted in Monfries remaining free.

It scares me the number of career criminals that appear before Refshauge only to walk free time after time, getting their 42th “one last chance”.

Jesus Christ – if bail conditions themselves are breached and he remains free that’s bad enough, but to actually have the crim committing further offenses while on bail and still be let back out is outright crazy.

CatlikeTread said :

I know this is a public blog … it is still a bit hard to stomach the casual requests to kill anyone. Locked up for public safety perhaps. Who would you have kill someone on your behalf dear posters?

Well if there were adequate sentences available and given out which actually protected society from the likes of this excrement, and Mully et al, there may be fuel to propel the pendulum of public to such extremes.

Can we donate him to a North Korean gulag perhaps?

Clarity said :

Couple of things. Monfries had been bailed in the Magistrates Court just weeks before this incident, not the Supreme Court. So Justice Refshauge wasn’t responsible for the most recent bail decision. Also, Monfries’ bail was over domestic violence allegations, not driving matters. Any discussion about the risk of reoffending would have been largely limited to the offences before the court, not the chance he might run down an innocent woman.

Clairty, you are not correct. Monfries was on bail for a domestic violence charge. This is correct. But he committed this offence whilst on bail awaiting sentencing for three separate lots of charges. If you look at the information that Johnboy added regarding Monfries court appearances it should be noted that there are three appearances for breach of bail conditions.All of these were before Refshauge and all resulted in Monfries remaining free.

It scares me the number of career criminals that appear before Refshauge only to walk free time after time, getting their 42th “one last chance”.

CatlikeTread said :

I know this is a public blog … it is still a bit hard to stomach the casual requests to kill anyone. Locked up for public safety perhaps. Who would you have kill someone on your behalf dear posters?

Think you’d have quite a few who would be happy to do it on their own behalf.

Get used to it. I suspect the notional sanctity of life will take a backseat to more pragmatic solutions as this century wears on.

Clarity said :

Couple of things. Monfries had been bailed in the Magistrates Court just weeks before this incident, not the Supreme Court. So Justice Refshauge wasn’t responsible for the most recent bail decision. Also, Monfries’ bail was over domestic violence allegations, not driving matters. Any discussion about the risk of reoffending would have been largely limited to the offences before the court, not the chance he might run down an innocent woman.

Well, it was the CT article that originally mentioned Refshauge, but that has now been removed from their article (you can still see in google cache though). Thanks for clarifying!
And would that ‘domestic violence’ case be the one with the machete? Yeah…. sounds like a safe guy to have out and about, considering his lengthy past and the fact that Refshauge had (apparently) told him *before* that incident (and subsequent bail) that *that* time was his last chance….?
Though, considering I don’t think we have access to Magistrate court transcripts (without good reason), it’s hard to piece together his last trainwreck of a year fully. Which explains why we rely on places like the CT to give us correct info.
Lastly, so you are thinking that maybe Monfries thought he was out on bail under the proviso that he not get involved in any more domestic violence, but stealing cars and running over people would be considered not a breach of his bail? Or that the Magistrate had only considered domestic violence risk – considering his past and Refshauge’s ‘last chance’ threat?
At the end of the day, hindsight is an easy (and cruel) thing to use to ‘tutt tutt’ people’s decisions, but surely there’s no denying there’s been a bit of a clusterf$5k here by a part of the justice system? We can probably leave a bit of the semantics aside and look at it from the big picture now…

CatlikeTread said :

I know this is a public blog … it is still a bit hard to stomach the casual requests to kill anyone. Locked up for public safety perhaps. Who would you have kill someone on your behalf dear posters?

+1

The crazy is running heavy in this thread, catlike. I’ve given up on it, seriously you can’t tell the difference between some of the casual attitudes to human life expressed here and the scum they are complaining about.

CatlikeTread said :

I know this is a public blog … it is still a bit hard to stomach the casual requests to kill anyone. Locked up for public safety perhaps. Who would you have kill someone on your behalf dear posters?

I certainly wouldn’t call for his death. Not from a compasionate standpoint but rather from having the guy available for long term if not permanant punishment for him to think about what he has done and how it led him there.

There would be no sweet release with a lead injection or being strung up by an angry mob. Where is the punishment in that? I’d prefer a long and lonely existence with little to no human contact. A living death.

If it were up to me, he’d be thrown in a windowless cell devoid of anything that could be used to self terminate early along with constant monitoring to prevent it as well. No entertainment of any kind, no education, no exercise, no family visits, no legal visits. Just a slot in the door for the paper tray holding a puree with the bare minimum of nutritional value.

Just him sitting in a cell for a few decades with no human contact. No easy way out and no way to avoid thinking about what he’d done.

I know this is a public blog … it is still a bit hard to stomach the casual requests to kill anyone. Locked up for public safety perhaps. Who would you have kill someone on your behalf dear posters?

Fruit said :

All I can say is that when this guy was diagnosed with having Antisocial Personality Disorder, more people should be worried and done something:

Antisocial personality disorder definition:

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:

failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;
irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

Some people just refuse to accept that some people are just complete and utter assholes who would knock down those who constantly make excuses (and in some cases syndromes) for their behaviour.

Antisocial personality disorder… oppositional defiance syndrome… are just excuses people use to be complete dickheads. Go to enough psychologists or psychiatrists and you’ll have syndromes for anything you want. Its nothing more than an avenue for people to get out of accepting responsibility for their actions as well as those that support ridiculous assessments.

Couple of things. Monfries had been bailed in the Magistrates Court just weeks before this incident, not the Supreme Court. So Justice Refshauge wasn’t responsible for the most recent bail decision. Also, Monfries’ bail was over domestic violence allegations, not driving matters. Any discussion about the risk of reoffending would have been largely limited to the offences before the court, not the chance he might run down an innocent woman.

Oh my. I was discharged from that unit earlier that day…it must be killing the lovely people up there to have to nurse that oxygen bandit. My heart goes out to all of wonderful angels at the Cardio unit, the families of Linda and Ashlee. Absolutely devastated.

ScienceRules said :

How wonderfully thoughtful of you. I said “citizens” not “criminals”. Most of these prisoners are non-violent drug users, not people whose hobby it is killing the rest of us.

“Non-violent drug users” are still criminals. And I have no problems with criminals being locked away.

I agree that there should be ways for judges to be held accountable. As far as I am concerned it is as much the judges fault as this bogan pos.

I also am for hard labour camps for repeat offenders or serious crimes. Gaol/rehabilitation should be reserved for those that actually have a chance of becoming part of society.

Hope they forget to take away your belt and shoe laces. I don’t want to spent any more of my tax dollars on wankers like you.

This is an immensely tragic and sad thing, and a system let down in several ways. But can we not talk about Asbergers syndrome like it were a form of evil zombie rabies. That’s not right,there’s lots and lots of good people with that condition.

Also, social workers do lots of good things, not just get people off the hook, that’s not a proper and whole view at all. Maybe we don’t hear as much about the success stories.

I can’t judge Justin Monfries. (Apparently, nor can an actual judge, go figure….). Too sad to even try right now even if I had the means. But what I do know, and agree with most, is that Canberra’s had enough of this crap. That much is for sure.

Let’s support the hospital at this time.

pandaman said :

ScienceRules said :

It’s interesting how the supposedly leftist Canberra denizens are so quick to resort to bloodlust and the “justice” of the mob as shown in many of the comments here.

This is the reason we don’t make laws and rules in the heat of the moment. The calls for a “US-style” justice system are appalling and reflect a general ignorance of the horrors of our once admirable ally. America currently imprisons more of its population than any other country in the world. This is definately not a good thing. The system is biased, bigoted and corrupt and to even consider any of it worthwhile transplanting downunder shows a general ignorance of their problems. For a primer on these issues I recommend either Ed Brayton’s “Dispatches from the Culture Wars” blog or “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” by Michelle Alexander.

We need to be protected from creatures like Monfries but the solution to the problem of his ilk won’t be found in the completely natural but incoherant, illogical and emotional responses seen in this thread.

I’m so sad for the family, friends and co workers of the victims, not to mention the ladies themselves but I won’t abuse their memory by frothing and waving a pitchfork.

Yes, admittedly there is a bit of frothing going on, but is it a bad thing? A person is dead, apparently due entirely to the reprehensible actions of one moronic reprobate. A member of the judiciary had a chance to remove this numbnuts from society at large, but chose not to, on the grounds that he believed that said numbnuts was “making some progress” in dealing with his compulsion to get into other peoples cars and drive them when he shouldn’t be driving. (and isn’t that just a fantastically genteel way of describing car theft while high on drugs? Wow!) Justice Refshauge was clearly mistaken in this belief. An innocent person has died, it could have been prevented had the scumbag been incarcerated and\or if a serious effort had been made towards his rehabilitation and now the public are angry at both the offender and the justice system which has failed to deal with him effectively in numerous past interactions. What’s so iIlogical about that? Refshauge appears to have stuffed up, now he’s getting feedback. Hopefully he finds it helpful.

+1 I was trying to find the words to respond and this sums it up well.

I can’t bring myself to support the idea of the three strikes rule. I wouldn’t want there to be situations where someone made a couple of mistakes in their youth and sorts out their life and years later ends up in jail for something really minor and the system allows no flexibility. But the system needs something to stop these cycles of token “efforts” at rehabilitation and second chances. I think there also needs to be earlier intervention with some people. As someone said earlier, Aspergers and criminality are not linked. (I have to admit I wondered if it’s doctor-diagnosed Aspergers or lawyer-diagnosed Aspergers). People with Aspergers or other conditions should be able to grow up to have happy and worthwhile lives, if there are factors hindering that (did I see drug use mentioned?) they should be identified and dealt with sooner.

All I can say is that when this guy was diagnosed with having Antisocial Personality Disorder, more people should be worried and done something:

Antisocial personality disorder definition:

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:

failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;
irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

TheObserver said :

Yep – must suck being a copper or prosecutor in this town.

Also sucks to be an everyday citizen going home at the end of a day of helping others.

My sincerest condolences to the families and friends of the victims.

Its sad that the modernday courtroom is more a lawyers playground than something that deals in the truth and ‘justice’.

Why do we lock crims up? that means we have to pay for them, when its they whom should be repaying us!.

The problem with most crims is that they’ve always been crims they dont know how to actually put in a days work. If you never have to work to support yourself in society then how are you going to respect the people that do.

The british had an excelent idea. Make use of all the crims and put them to work. 10 Years hard labour would likely cause more infulence than 10 years of tv/ gym / whatever it is that those wankers do all day.

Put them out in the middle of nowhere get them working and dont spare the whip!

I am prepared to waive my usual fee and put a 240 grain high speed piece of copper/lead into this douche bags brain box for free!

Justin Monfries….waste of oxygen that is truely deserving of death by breaking wheel.

I don’t believe there’s any doubt about what happened here. A good person will be going into the ground in a few days time, with the lives of her family smashed. My mum used to work at TCH, and that could’ve been her.

This bloke has been, and remains as, a threat to all of Canberra’s citizens.

He should be incarcerated permanently or shot.

HenryBG said :

ScienceRules said :

America currently imprisons more of its population than any other country in the world.

Sounds good to me.

Criminals belong in gaol, not out on the streets killing us.

How wonderfully thoughtful of you. I said “citizens” not “criminals”. Most of these prisoners are non-violent drug users, not people whose hobby it is killing the rest of us. Would it be too much to expect you to analyse your position and provide a reasoned response, or are you satisfied with the ole knee-jerk?

ScienceRules said :

It’s interesting how the supposedly leftist Canberra denizens are so quick to resort to bloodlust and the “justice” of the mob as shown in many of the comments here.

This is the reason we don’t make laws and rules in the heat of the moment. The calls for a “US-style” justice system are appalling and reflect a general ignorance of the horrors of our once admirable ally. America currently imprisons more of its population than any other country in the world. This is definately not a good thing. The system is biased, bigoted and corrupt and to even consider any of it worthwhile transplanting downunder shows a general ignorance of their problems. For a primer on these issues I recommend either Ed Brayton’s “Dispatches from the Culture Wars” blog or “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” by Michelle Alexander.

We need to be protected from creatures like Monfries but the solution to the problem of his ilk won’t be found in the completely natural but incoherant, illogical and emotional responses seen in this thread.

I’m so sad for the family, friends and co workers of the victims, not to mention the ladies themselves but I won’t abuse their memory by frothing and waving a pitchfork.

Yes, admittedly there is a bit of frothing going on, but is it a bad thing? A person is dead, apparently due entirely to the reprehensible actions of one moronic reprobate. A member of the judiciary had a chance to remove this numbnuts from society at large, but chose not to, on the grounds that he believed that said numbnuts was “making some progress” in dealing with his compulsion to get into other peoples cars and drive them when he shouldn’t be driving. (and isn’t that just a fantastically genteel way of describing car theft while high on drugs? Wow!) Justice Refshauge was clearly mistaken in this belief. An innocent person has died, it could have been prevented had the scumbag been incarcerated and\or if a serious effort had been made towards his rehabilitation and now the public are angry at both the offender and the justice system which has failed to deal with him effectively in numerous past interactions. What’s so iIlogical about that? Refshauge appears to have stuffed up, now he’s getting feedback. Hopefully he finds it helpful.

minniemay said :

But hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

You do not need hindsight to know that a scumbag making his 11th appearance before the courts will, if set free, carry out whatever actions are required to guarantee himself his 12th appearance.

minniemay said :

To suggest a judge is culpable is fairly ridiculous though.

A decision that results in a predictable result to the detriment of the law-abiding community is pure incompetence, if not downright negligence. It’s time judges were made to answer for the results of those bad decisions.

minniemay said :

If a lawyer actually does lie to the court (and note here this is *not* the same as entering a plea of not guilty to test the prosecution’s case)

If he *is* guilty, and the lawyer proceeds with a “not guilty”, then the lawyer is clearly lying. Rationalise it all you like, but don’t bother pretending to be surprised that the general public holds real estate agents and used car salesmen in higher esteem than they do lawyers, who base their entire profession around deception and overcharging.

ScienceRules said :

America currently imprisons more of its population than any other country in the world.

Sounds good to me.

Criminals belong in gaol, not out on the streets killing us.

What ever happened to the good ol’ ‘society is to blame’ card being played?

Chalk another death up to the revolving door legal system.

It’s interesting how the supposedly leftist Canberra denizens are so quick to resort to bloodlust and the “justice” of the mob as shown in many of the comments here.

This is the reason we don’t make laws and rules in the heat of the moment. The calls for a “US-style” justice system are appalling and reflect a general ignorance of the horrors of our once admirable ally. America currently imprisons more of its population than any other country in the world. This is definately not a good thing. The system is biased, bigoted and corrupt and to even consider any of it worthwhile transplanting downunder shows a general ignorance of their problems. For a primer on these issues I recommend either Ed Brayton’s “Dispatches from the Culture Wars” blog or “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” by Michelle Alexander.

We need to be protected from creatures like Monfries but the solution to the problem of his ilk won’t be found in the completely natural but incoherant, illogical and emotional responses seen in this thread.

I’m so sad for the family, friends and co workers of the victims, not to mention the ladies themselves but I won’t abuse their memory by frothing and waving a pitchfork.

It is the comments in this thread which highlight why we should not have elected judges. Mobs tend to get bloodthirsty and don’t pay attention to facts that don’t agree with their preconcieved mindset. Do judges always get it right? No, of course not. But it works much better than mob justice.

TheObserver said :

Might be worth pointing out that the ABC666 coverage of this in the morning was crap-your-pants tabloid ugly, IMHO – and the way that the interviewer on the B’fast show was seemingly pretty desperate to get the police to fess that it was a police pursuit was low budget. No other description for it. Next thing there will be the usual suspects blaming the coppers. Then this oxygen thief will get a good slapping with a limp celery stick until he says “Uncle”.

Yep – must suck being a copper or prosecutor in this town.

There must be two 666 radio stations, cos the one I was listening to this morning didn’t sound anything like your description. Given the history of deaths during police pursuits (such as Mully), and the early admission that police had spotted the car, it was a reasonable question. It was answered quickly and honestly (I presume), and we can move on.

IP

Don’t blame the good Justice Refshaugee, this incident is a result of all the bleeding heart socialists in the ACT who supported all the crazy decisions of labor over the past decade. A spineless Stanhope Government and an agenda driven Chief Justice who thinks he is leaving a legacy can be thanked for this. As I said earlier enough is enough how many people have to die or be injured before the majority are looked after? The AFP and the Canberra media need to rally and let people power speak. This will not happen though as we also have a man at the Canberra Times who uses his influence only to serve his own agendas not those important to Canberrans .

Not to make light of the situation, but it seems oddly appropriate:
http://youtu.be/QAs6s80RyeY?t=2m15s

Yet another needless death caused by a serial offender who should have been institutionalized long ago.
When oh when will the ACT judiciary start protecting the community? at some point these people need to be removed from society simply to protect the rest of society from them.

HenryBG said :

If there were any professional consequence for poor decisions in the court room (not to mention lawyers lying in court – nobody seems to bat an eyelid at that, which is bizarre), then judges would make far better decisions.

One thing the US has going for it is democratically elected law enforcement officials. Instead of letting crims loose because Jon Stanhopeless has rung the judge up top tell him the gaol is full and it will look bad for it to become overcrowded, the judge will think of the next election and what the law-abiding, voting public will make of crims being continually let loose on them.

As much as I understand the frustration, there are a couple of issues here.

First, in terms of barrister’s immunity – it’s a controversial point, but there are some merits behind it. Of course, barrsiters immunity is from suit from clients – it does not protect against contempt of court. If a lawyer actually does lie to the court (and note here this is *not* the same as entering a plea of not guilty to test the prosecution’s case) then they can certainly be found in contempt.

Secondly, I think electing judges is a Very Bad Idea. More than that though, your argument doesn’t stand up – Stanhope was elected (and re-elected). If, as you say, he was the one directing the sentences, it seems the public didn’t mind – at least enough to vote him out. Judges are bound by the sentencing guidelines in the various criminal codes/acts – again, set by the people who *are* elected.

(There’s also the whole issue of bridges not having independent will which makes the analogy problematic.)

I think it’s a fairly safe bet the Judge in this case is feeling pretty dreadful right now. In retrospect, was this guy a threat to society? Of course. But hindsight is 20/20 and all that. To suggest a judge is culpable is fairly ridiculous though.

Slice said :

Poor victims……….killed by an assburger.

You are an idiot bigot.

On Anzac day I was MB riding down that road and there was a chick lying on the road wailing her head off in pain. There was a crowd of people standing around her on mobile phones and to me it appeared that she had been struck by a car whilst walking across. They need to do something about that intersection.

Also I really wonder if the lawyers get a bogus diagnosis of Aspergers on these convicted criminals to get them leniency. See this blokes photo up the top – he is looking into the camera. A lot of people with Aspergers do not give direct eye contact when speaking or look into cameras (this is not always the case though). All the Aspergers people I have met have been lovely caring people, I was diagnosed as having it but it was recently admitted to me that the psych dxed me with it as a child to get me some help due to my ADD style behavioral problems back then. I have been to an Aspergers support group before and everyone was lovely. The only possible criminal trait I could see was one of the guys talks *just* like Hannibal Lector! But otherwise he is a top bloke from what I could tell! Aspergers and criminality are not linked at all.

Squidward said :

As far as I’m concerned there is as much blood on Refshauge’s hands as these scumbags.

+1 to three strikes and your out. Its time to protect the law abiding citizens from these creatures.

If I’m an engineer, and my job is to design a bridge, and somebody says, “I want the new bridge to support 10-ton trucks”, and I go ahead and design a bridge, it gets built and the first 10-ton truck to drive over it causes it to collapse, I get sued and never get a job designing bridges again.

So, when Mully fronts up in court for his 12th episode of stealing a car, gives his usual sob-story, and the judge lets him out, resulting in the deaths of 4 people, why are those judges still in business?

If you make a professional decision to accept some scumbag’s sob-story and set him loose on the community, then you should be professionally responsible if that scumbag victimises anybody as a result of your decision.

If there were any professional consequence for poor decisions in the court room (not to mention lawyers lying in court – nobody seems to bat an eyelid at that, which is bizarre), then judges would make far better decisions.

One thing the US has going for it is democratically elected law enforcement officials. Instead of letting crims loose because Jon Stanhopeless has rung the judge up top tell him the gaol is full and it will look bad for it to become overcrowded, the judge will think of the next election and what the law-abiding, voting public will make of crims being continually let loose on them.

*** Needless to say, people with tattoos should be excluded from such elections due to the obvious conflict of interest.

cooko said :

Do we really need to have a link to his facebook page?

Lets at least leave his family and friends out of it despite the number of familiar friends he has.

Agreed. His family shouldn’t be punished for the actions he chose.

The Aboriginal excuse shouldn’t be too far away now

Words of praise warranted here for the professionalism of Canberra Hospital staff who had to treat Monfries in hospital overnight while mourning for their colleague he killed.

I was bought up that no excuse is good enough, basically these days – be diagnosed with mental disorder or drug or alcohol problem and your out. Its getting pretty pathetic really….
Special needs means special treatment. I think if youve got enough up top to be a criminal, your good enough to cop it sweet like everyone else. Design special prisions for those who are special needs…solved! He should be locked up like others are. Isnt it if there a concern to the publics saftey, thats why there prisioned…..

dpm said :

Clever work Justice Richard Refshauge. Hope you’re having a good day. I can think of a few people that aren’t having as nice a day as you right now…

FFS, can. we. please. get. someone. in. charge. that. knows. WTF. they. are. doing!

What does it take??

Remember, this is the same ‘Justice’ that let Amber Westin out recently too.
http://the-riotact.com/justice-refshauge-sets-amber-westin-free/66289
Be careful on the roads, people…. 🙁

As far as I’m concerned there is as much blood on Refshauge’s hands as these scumbags.

+1 to three strikes and your out. Its time to protect the law abiding citizens from these creatures.

The reason people like Monfries reoffend is simple. There is no disincentive. He’s been told 100 times that stealing cars is a very naughty thing to do. But every time he gets caught, Legal Aid tells him it’s not his fault, the judge tells him not to do it again, criticizes the police and then lets him go. Why wouldn’t he steal cars? It’s great fun and nothing happens when you get caught. Monfries’ behaviour is completely logical and predictable. It’s the decisions made by our judges that defy belief. They share responsibility for this tragedy.

minniemay said :

Ugh, and this is in the comments from the judge R v Monfires (No 3):

I am not going to say this is your last chance, but chances do not come very often. You really have to be sensible about these things and you will not be taken into custody if you do the right thing. There is no reason for you to fear the police if you do the right thing and even if the police overstep the mark for some reason and sometimes they do inadvertently, then you will come back to court and the court will deal with you fairly.

That fairness can mean that you go back to jail in certain circumstances, but as you now know, you have put the community at risk when you commit offences and that means having allegations of committing further offences, getting into cars which are not yours and driving when you should not be driving and so on.

I think you are making some progress. There is a long way to go. If you can work with this agency, Weigelli, then that might give you some possibility of going further, but my patience is not inexhaustible and what Mr Williamson says is right, I have got to protect the community and if you are going to abuse the trust that you have got, then I will have to protect the community and I will do so. At the moment I do not see that the community is at special risk, but that is dependent entirely upon your ability to do the right thing and I hope you can do so.

**

Must be frustrating for the police and DPP.

As far as I’m concerned that judge now has blood on his hands.

dpm said :

Clever work Justice Richard Refshauge. Hope you’re having a good day. I can think of a few people that aren’t having as nice a day as you right now…

FFS, can. we. please. get. someone. in. charge. that. knows. WTF. they. are. doing!

What does it take??

Remember, this is the same ‘Justice’ that let Amber Westin out recently too.
http://the-riotact.com/justice-refshauge-sets-amber-westin-free/66289
Be careful on the roads, people…. 🙁

+1 again

I remember in the ’90’s former Magistrate Somes kept bailing a bloke who kept bashing his wife and kids. The “strict” bail conditions included not to approach within 100m, not to threaten, intimidate, blah, blah, blah.

So the bloke leaves the court and goes back to the house. He then bashes the wife and kids again, throws them in the car, takes them to the Brindys and kills them all – then himself.

Magistrates and Judges have to be held much more accountable than they are now in regards to the Bail Act. They solely have the power to keep our community safe from these pricks!!!

Ben_Dover said :

Monfries has been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and at a bail application earlier this year told the court through his lawyer he was terrified of being returned to prison.

Better let him go then, oh, and get him a new social worker for goodness sake!

+1

There was a young bloke a few years ago who murdered his mum (stabbed her 57 times or something) who got off because he had Ashbergers (apolgies for spelling) Syndrome.

This arse hat will definitely get off…

Set up and overpass and you get deros lobbing rocks at cars.

Lose/lose.

Perhaps road spikes which raise up whenever the traffic has a red light? 🙂

Keeping these recidivist morons well away from society is the obvious answer. I’m not sure how the judicial thought patterns work, but given the records of CLK, Amber Jane and Mully, to name but three, surely the penny must drop that the sob story in court has to be treated with contempt.

We are being killed by these wretched people!

Gerry-Built said :

“ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher says pedestrian safety on the road was investigated when the new hospital carpark was built.

But she says further studies may be needed.”
-ABC News
Further studies MAY be needed, Ms Gallagher? I think it is pretty clear what is needed is an overpass or better parking facilities on the premises; not a frickin’ study that will tell you exactly the same thing. I’d suggest there is a very good case against the ACT Government for failing in their duty of care for their employees – for making them cross one of Canberra’s busiest roads nearing and into Peak Hour. Perhaps a class action from employees of TCH, even…

In this case, of a super-busy road with staff parking on the other side, it is probably worthwhile.
But overall, in her defence, do we then really need an overpass at every set of (RED) traffic lights (with walking signals) to protect us from flognuts who run red lights? Surely, instead of having to spend money on overpasses (and studies on overpasses) to protect us from them (while letting them roam free), it would be more morally correct to simply keep these recidivists off the streets? I’d personally be happier with that.

TheObserver said :

Might be worth pointing out that the ABC666 coverage of this in the morning was crap-your-pants tabloid ugly, IMHO – and the way that the interviewer on the B’fast show was seemingly pretty desperate to get the police to fess that it was a police pursuit was low budget. No other description for it. Next thing there will be the usual suspects blaming the coppers. Then this oxygen thief will get a good slapping with a limp celery stick until he says “Uncle”.

Yep – must suck being a copper or prosecutor in this town.

Bollocks.

I heard it. He raised the question of police pursuit, the question was answered and the interview moved on.

Some d1ckh3ad texted in saying it was like ‘talkback radio’ complaining about the same thing and the police officer he was interviewing defended him.

You’ve obviously got some sort of agenda against that station if you think that way.

Do we really need to have a link to his facebook page?

Lets at least leave his family and friends out of it despite the number of familiar friends he has.

Tool said :

Time for legislative reform, this is the usual crap over and over, a sob story about someone the system let down who goes out with no regard for laws or any other person and now look what happens.  You commit an indictable offence and kill someone it should be murder, I have no doubt he will get cuplable drive causing death – woopty doo 14 years for this piece of trash is hardly enough.  First we had CRK and then Amber Westin, now Justin Monfries, how many more people need to be killed by idiots before we will get serious.  It is an election year, Corbell grow some nuts and look after the 99% of your community who are law abiding and pay taxes and actually offer something to Canberra, and stop protecting leaches like Monfries.  Human Rights boo hoo, one mans actions have in an instant ruined many, many lives, speak to them about Human Rights

It is very clear that the majority of citizens want legislative reform to make laws tighter and sentences stricter. What will it take for the legislators to make these changes? Do we not live in a democratic country?

TheObserver said :

Might be worth pointing out that the ABC666 coverage of this in the morning was crap-your-pants tabloid ugly, IMHO – and the way that the interviewer on the B’fast show was seemingly pretty desperate to get the police to fess that it was a police pursuit was low budget. No other description for it. Next thing there will be the usual suspects blaming the coppers. Then this oxygen thief will get a good slapping with a limp celery stick until he says “Uncle”.

Yep – must suck being a copper or prosecutor in this town.

This wasn’t bloody Solly again was it? He is an absolute embarrassment.

Might be worth pointing out that the ABC666 coverage of this in the morning was crap-your-pants tabloid ugly, IMHO – and the way that the interviewer on the B’fast show was seemingly pretty desperate to get the police to fess that it was a police pursuit was low budget. No other description for it. Next thing there will be the usual suspects blaming the coppers. Then this oxygen thief will get a good slapping with a limp celery stick until he says “Uncle”.

Yep – must suck being a copper or prosecutor in this town.

dpm said :

Clever work Justice Richard Refshauge.

Yes.

It’s not every day one of our judges has his piss-weak judgment overturned as emphatically as has happened this time, but it was only a matter of time. They keep letting them walk, and they keep ending up in court pleading for “another chance”.

We need a three strikes rule. It’s the law-abiding who need to be served by the justice system, not the lawless.

And convert that 5-star holiday resort into a proper prison with the capacity to accept all of Canberra’s criminal scum at a reasonable price. Ditch the gourmet catering and the army of counsellors.

“ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher says pedestrian safety on the road was investigated when the new hospital carpark was built.

But she says further studies may be needed.”
-ABC News
Further studies MAY be needed, Ms Gallagher? I think it is pretty clear what is needed is an overpass or better parking facilities on the premises; not a frickin’ study that will tell you exactly the same thing. I’d suggest there is a very good case against the ACT Government for failing in their duty of care for their employees – for making them cross one of Canberra’s busiest roads nearing and into Peak Hour. Perhaps a class action from employees of TCH, even…

Clear medical intervention required- this scum is in need of some High velocity intra-cerebral lead therapy.
Stat!

Just such a completely inequitable circumstance where this oxygen-thief’s ‘chances’ end up costing society someone of benefit and worth.

“terrified of being returned to prison” hey? There is a really easy way to avoid that; and at least 99% of the population seem to have cottoned on to it…

Oh; and most people with Asperger’s seem to be able to avoid prison, too… so f-off that excuse…

I thought I recognised that name…….I always knew that I went to school with some absolute winners at Gold Creek.

Poor victims……….killed by an assburger.

p1 said :

Well, I guess if he is mentally unfit to be judged for his actions, he is probably mentally unfit to be loose in society?

that’s it. the purpose of these laws is to PROTECT SOCIETY, not to ensure that the violent lawless people have ample opportunity to cause harm. Judges seem to think that people who are violent and anti-social have redeeming features, maybe because they see so many of them, they re-set their standards for normalcy. We need to keep insisting that the rights of society to be protected from these people outweigh any “rights” these people have to keep harming others.

No doubt every bleeding heart lefty is going to start reciting a list of reasons why it was society and circumstance that killed the health care worker and injured her colleague, not the waste of space behind the wheel who in olden days would have died in the gutter a pauper well before this could happen.

It just seems wrong to me that whether this guy goes to jail or the mental health unit, we’ll be spending over $80,000 a year to keep him alive, feed him and basically look after his every need. Someone who has repeatedly rejected society, its laws and its conventions and who has, and will in all likelihood continue to go on harming society.

Meanwhile that $80,000 could fund a staggering amount of aid and health care in third world countries where people dream of getting just one of the chances, fools like this take for granted and throw away.

Treat this cretin like the rabid dog he is.

Time for legislative reform, this is the usual crap over and over, a sob story about someone the system let down who goes out with no regard for laws or any other person and now look what happens.  You commit an indictable offence and kill someone it should be murder, I have no doubt he will get cuplable drive causing death – woopty doo 14 years for this piece of trash is hardly enough.  First we had CRK and then Amber Westin, now Justin Monfries, how many more people need to be killed by idiots before we will get serious.  It is an election year, Corbell grow some nuts and look after the 99% of your community who are law abiding and pay taxes and actually offer something to Canberra, and stop protecting leaches like Monfries.  Human Rights boo hoo, one mans actions have in an instant ruined many, many lives, speak to them about Human Rights

Lock him up and throw away the f***ing key!

Poor Justin, what a sad life.. aspergers, drug and drink problems yet so many chances. But with all those problems, he can still work out how to steal and now how to kill.. What a piece of s***. Get rid of him.

This makes me wish we had the 3 strike system in Australia – then he would be in jail for life already and not on the road killing people.

Clever work Justice Richard Refshauge. Hope you’re having a good day. I can think of a few people that aren’t having as nice a day as you right now…

FFS, can. we. please. get. someone. in. charge. that. knows. WTF. they. are. doing!

What does it take??

Remember, this is the same ‘Justice’ that let Amber Westin out recently too.
http://the-riotact.com/justice-refshauge-sets-amber-westin-free/66289
Be careful on the roads, people…. 🙁

JB,
I hoped you enjoyed your Mully, I think we have a worthy successor.

Monfries has been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and at a bail application earlier this year told the court through his lawyer he was terrified of being returned to prison.

How about he give up crime? Then he won’t need to fear being returned to prison. Easy!

Ugh, and this is in the comments from the judge R v Monfires (No 3):

I am not going to say this is your last chance, but chances do not come very often. You really have to be sensible about these things and you will not be taken into custody if you do the right thing. There is no reason for you to fear the police if you do the right thing and even if the police overstep the mark for some reason and sometimes they do inadvertently, then you will come back to court and the court will deal with you fairly.

That fairness can mean that you go back to jail in certain circumstances, but as you now know, you have put the community at risk when you commit offences and that means having allegations of committing further offences, getting into cars which are not yours and driving when you should not be driving and so on.

I think you are making some progress. There is a long way to go. If you can work with this agency, Weigelli, then that might give you some possibility of going further, but my patience is not inexhaustible and what Mr Williamson says is right, I have got to protect the community and if you are going to abuse the trust that you have got, then I will have to protect the community and I will do so. At the moment I do not see that the community is at special risk, but that is dependent entirely upon your ability to do the right thing and I hope you can do so.

**

Must be frustrating for the police and DPP.

Well, I guess if he is mentally unfit to be judged for his actions, he is probably mentally unfit to be loose in society?

hopefully now he’ll have a nice long time to get used to it….

There’s three supreme court cases on his earlier charges and fitness to plead.

From R v Monfries (No 2) it seems he has a host of problems, including pretty extensive learning problems and drug and alcohol abuse. (He was still ruled fit to plead though): http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgment/view/4416/title/r-v-monfries-no-2

Monfries has been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and at a bail application earlier this year told the court through his lawyer he was terrified of being returned to prison.

Better let him go then, oh, and get him a new social worker for goodness sake!