Advertisement

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

By 4 May 2012 196

The Canberra Times reports that the man being very grudgingly treated at Canberra hospital after yesterday’s fatal collision on Yamba Drive is one Justin Monfries:

The 24-year-old, who has an extensive criminal history, was on bail for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and possessing an offensive weapon, specifically a machete.

He had entered pleas of not guilty to the allegations.

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.

On Facebook there is a Justin Monfries revelling in the userid of “evilkid666″.

UPDATE 04/05/12 14:38: Google gives a hefty list of court appearances.

Also the Chief Police Officer has tweeted the charges:

UPDATE 04/05/12 15:12: The police media release is now up:

ACT Policing has charged a 24-year-old Kambah man following a fatal collision yesterday (Thursday, May 3) afternoon.

Around 4.45pm a 38-year-old woman was killed and another suffered serious injuries after being hit by a vehicle while crossing the road outside The Canberra Hospital.

Police will allege the vehicle was stolen when it ran a red light and hit the pedestrians who were crossing the intersection at Bateson Road.

The man was discharged from The Canberra Hospital early this afternoon (Friday, May 4), and transported to the ACT Watch House, where he was charged with manslaughter, culpable driving causing death, culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm and other traffic related offences.

He will face the ACT Magistrates Court this afternoon.

UPDATE 04/05/12 18:53: The ABC has named the victims as the “killed Linda Cox, 38, who worked in the hospital’s cardiology department and seriously injured Ashlee Bumpus, 25″

Please login to post your comments
196 Responses to On bail Justin Monfries named as driver in Canberra hospital horror smash
#91
dpm11:06 am, 06 May 12

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? :-)

#92
mareva1:08 pm, 06 May 12

The guy pictured is not Justin Monfries.

#93
Diggety1:33 pm, 06 May 12

mareva said :

The guy pictured is not Justin Monfries.

Another good reason why lynch mobs are bad.

#94
buzz8191:39 pm, 06 May 12

mareva said :

The guy pictured is not Justin Monfries.

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

#95
Tetranitrate3:05 pm, 06 May 12

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.

#96
Tetranitrate3:06 pm, 06 May 12

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

#97
Diggety3:20 pm, 06 May 12

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

#98
pandaman5:08 pm, 06 May 12

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

#99
milkman7:14 pm, 06 May 12

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.]

#100
milkman7:41 pm, 06 May 12

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.

#101
johnboy7:43 pm, 06 May 12

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.

#102
milkman8:02 pm, 06 May 12

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…

#103
c_c9:39 pm, 06 May 12

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?

#104
johnboy10:01 pm, 06 May 12

DHCS write a letter warning us off, or else.

#105
Thumper10:03 pm, 06 May 12

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.

That is, well, quite incredibly amazing.

Not to mention completely ridiculous.

#106
Thumper10:04 pm, 06 May 12

johnboy said :

DHCS write a letter warning us off, or else.

Maybe you should seek cooment from Corbell.

He’s the AG at the moment isn’t he?

#107
johnboy10:07 pm, 06 May 12

the laws surrounding children are not sane in any conventional sense. But do give bureaucrats and lawyers great powers.

#108
Tetranitrate11:48 pm, 06 May 12

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.

#109
HenryBG12:06 am, 07 May 12

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?

#110
HenryBG1:01 am, 07 May 12

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.

#111
Dilandach7:10 am, 07 May 12

johnboy said :

DHCS write a letter warning us off, or else.

Are you able to post the letter up?

#112
Deref7:25 am, 07 May 12

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?

#113
devils_advocate8:53 am, 07 May 12

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.

#114
dpm9:22 am, 07 May 12

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

#115
dtc9:40 am, 07 May 12

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.

#116
Skidbladnir9:46 am, 07 May 12

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.

#117
Jim Jones9:54 am, 07 May 12

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?

#118
Tetranitrate10:09 am, 07 May 12

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/

#119
HenryBG10:31 am, 07 May 12

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?

#120
devils_advocate11:27 am, 07 May 12

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.

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