Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

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

By johnboy - 4 May 2012 199

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”

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
199 Responses to
On bail Justin Monfries named as driver in Canberra hospital horror smash
76
grunge_hippy 4:36 pm
05 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

77
LSWCHP 4:54 pm
05 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

78
HenryBG 5:08 pm
05 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

79
Ben_Dover 5:48 pm
05 May 12
#

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?

Report this comment

80
Woody Mann-Caruso 6:46 pm
05 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

81
ScienceRules 6:47 pm
05 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

82
ScienceRules 6:49 pm
05 May 12
#

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…

Report this comment

83
GardeningGirl 7:16 pm
05 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

84
LSWCHP 10:09 pm
05 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

85
pandaman 2:07 am
06 May 12
#

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.

Report this comment

86
IrishPete 4:53 am
06 May 12
#

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

Report this comment

87
ScienceRules 8:47 am
06 May 12
#

/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.

Report this comment

88
ScienceRules 8:49 am
06 May 12
#

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!

Report this comment

89
TarquinRex 8:54 am
06 May 12
#

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/

Report this comment

90
Deckard 9:55 am
06 May 12
#

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/

Report this comment

1 4 5 6 7 8 14

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

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

Search across the site