LOL – 10 years…..?? Really…………….??

You have to be kidding, Justice Gray. The ACT community just continues to be rogered by the inadequate sentencing that seems to ouze from the courts here.

Just what is it that we need to do to get the message across that we have had enough of this? What is it that we need to say that will impress you lot enough to make the sentences stronger, longer?

Let us know what it is that we need to do…………..please!

The Frots said :

LOL – 10 years…..??

Really…………….??

You have to be kidding, Justice Gray. The ACT community just continues to be rogered by the inadequate sentencing that seems to ouze from the courts here.

Just what is it that we need to do to get the message across that we have had enough of this? What is it that we need to say that will impress you lot enough to make the sentences stronger, longer?

Let us know what it is that we need to do…………..please!

It is actually 16 years – that is actually quite a long sentence.

Good prospects for rehabilitation? FFS she was on THREE Good Behaviour Orders when she got all stabby!!!

Proboscus said :

Good prospects for rehabilitation? FFS she was on THREE Good Behaviour Orders when she got all stabby!!!

This surprised me too, but to be fair I have not read the sentencing report, have you?

It’s 16 years. If there is no rehab then she stays at “her majesty’s pleasure” for the whole stint.

The Frots said :

Let us know what it is that we need to do…………..please!

Vote out the soft left government we have both local and federal would be a good start.

Gotta say, I expected “Yay – a conviction”, not “Boo – too lenient”.

Yay – a conviction.

shirty_bear said :

Gotta say, I expected “Yay – a conviction”, not “Boo – too lenient”.

Yay – a conviction.

I thought the same thing. Tough crowd.

I assume that now she has been convicted she’ll stop breaking her bail conditions?

Watch for chicken sales to go up in Charnwood.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

LOL – 10 years…..??

Really…………….??

You have to be kidding, Justice Gray. The ACT community just continues to be rogered by the inadequate sentencing that seems to ouze from the courts here.

Just what is it that we need to do to get the message across that we have had enough of this? What is it that we need to say that will impress you lot enough to make the sentences stronger, longer?

Let us know what it is that we need to do…………..please!

It is actually 16 years – that is actually quite a long sentence.

+1

Almost as long as the Norway shooter is facing for 86 deaths.

john87_no1 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

LOL – 10 years…..??

Really…………….??

You have to be kidding, Justice Gray. The ACT community just continues to be rogered by the inadequate sentencing that seems to ouze from the courts here.

Just what is it that we need to do to get the message across that we have had enough of this? What is it that we need to say that will impress you lot enough to make the sentences stronger, longer?

Let us know what it is that we need to do…………..please!

It is actually 16 years – that is actually quite a long sentence.

+1

Almost as long as the Norway shooter is facing for 86 deaths.

16 years is the ‘head sentence’ – not the actual time to be served.

The Frots said :

john87_no1 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

LOL – 10 years…..??

Really…………….??

You have to be kidding, Justice Gray. The ACT community just continues to be rogered by the inadequate sentencing that seems to ouze from the courts here.

Just what is it that we need to do to get the message across that we have had enough of this? What is it that we need to say that will impress you lot enough to make the sentences stronger, longer?

Let us know what it is that we need to do…………..please!

It is actually 16 years – that is actually quite a long sentence.

+1

Almost as long as the Norway shooter is facing for 86 deaths.

16 years is the ‘head sentence’ – not the actual time to be served.

What then, is the actual time to be served?

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

john87_no1 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

LOL – 10 years…..??

Really…………….??

You have to be kidding, Justice Gray. The ACT community just continues to be rogered by the inadequate sentencing that seems to ouze from the courts here.

Just what is it that we need to do to get the message across that we have had enough of this? What is it that we need to say that will impress you lot enough to make the sentences stronger, longer?

Let us know what it is that we need to do…………..please!

It is actually 16 years – that is actually quite a long sentence.

+1

Almost as long as the Norway shooter is facing for 86 deaths.

16 years is the ‘head sentence’ – not the actual time to be served.

What then, is the actual time to be served?

It is based on the non-parole period, so if she is a good little girl then 10 years will see her out. Also take off that remissions for good-behaviour.

I immediately dropped into a high-energy roflcopter when I saw the words ‘Massey’ and ‘rehabilitaiton’ in the same sentence.

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

john87_no1 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

LOL – 10 years…..??

Really…………….??

You have to be kidding, Justice Gray. The ACT community just continues to be rogered by the inadequate sentencing that seems to ouze from the courts here.

Just what is it that we need to do to get the message across that we have had enough of this? What is it that we need to say that will impress you lot enough to make the sentences stronger, longer?

Let us know what it is that we need to do…………..please!

It is actually 16 years – that is actually quite a long sentence.

+1

Almost as long as the Norway shooter is facing for 86 deaths.

16 years is the ‘head sentence’ – not the actual time to be served.

What then, is the actual time to be served?

It is based on the non-parole period, so if she is a good little girl then 10 years will see her out. Also take off that remissions for good-behaviour.

So, she has been sentenced to 16 years with a non parole period of 10. So how many years was the sentence? I will give you a clue the first digit is 1 and the second is 6.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

john87_no1 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

LOL – 10 years…..??

Really…………….??

You have to be kidding, Justice Gray. The ACT community just continues to be rogered by the inadequate sentencing that seems to ouze from the courts here.

Just what is it that we need to do to get the message across that we have had enough of this? What is it that we need to say that will impress you lot enough to make the sentences stronger, longer?

Let us know what it is that we need to do…………..please!

It is actually 16 years – that is actually quite a long sentence.

+1

Almost as long as the Norway shooter is facing for 86 deaths.

16 years is the ‘head sentence’ – not the actual time to be served.

What then, is the actual time to be served?

It is based on the non-parole period, so if she is a good little girl then 10 years will see her out. Also take off that remissions for good-behaviour.

So, she has been sentenced to 16 years with a non parole period of 10. So how many years was the sentence? I will give you a clue the first digit is 1 and the second is 6.

And here I was thinking ‘condecending’ was actually a Greek parachutist!

Back to you then – so you are saying the actual sentence to be served is 16 years? (yep, that’s a 1 and a 6 together).

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

john87_no1 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

LOL – 10 years…..??

Really…………….??

You have to be kidding, Justice Gray. The ACT community just continues to be rogered by the inadequate sentencing that seems to ouze from the courts here.

Just what is it that we need to do to get the message across that we have had enough of this? What is it that we need to say that will impress you lot enough to make the sentences stronger, longer?

Let us know what it is that we need to do…………..please!

It is actually 16 years – that is actually quite a long sentence.

+1

Almost as long as the Norway shooter is facing for 86 deaths.

16 years is the ‘head sentence’ – not the actual time to be served.

What then, is the actual time to be served?

It is based on the non-parole period, so if she is a good little girl then 10 years will see her out. Also take off that remissions for good-behaviour.

So, she has been sentenced to 16 years with a non parole period of 10. So how many years was the sentence? I will give you a clue the first digit is 1 and the second is 6.

And here I was thinking ‘condecending’ was actually a Greek parachutist!

Back to you then – so you are saying the actual sentence to be served is 16 years? (yep, that’s a 1 and a 6 together).

*urgh* What I am saying is that she has been sentenced to 16 years.

And What I go with is the non-parole period as it is much closer to the reality that will be served.

johnboy said :

And What I go with is the non-parole period as it is much closer to the reality that will be served.

Sure, you can go with whatever you like, but she was sentenced to 16 years, which is all I have stated.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

johnboy said :

And What I go with is the non-parole period as it is much closer to the reality that will be served.

Sure, you can go with whatever you like, but she was sentenced to 16 years, which is all I have stated.

Sure, whatever fantasies float your boat.

Shall we start believing in pixie money of mobile phone plans too?

johnboy said :

And What I go with is the non-parole period as it is much closer to the reality that will be served.

+1 – and that’s what most people go with. The ‘head sentence’ is really the fantasy sentence – it is rarely served in full.

The reality is that she will serve either 10 years or even less than that. I’ll bet that’s the way she is looking at it too.

johnboy said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

johnboy said :

And What I go with is the non-parole period as it is much closer to the reality that will be served.

Sure, you can go with whatever you like, but she was sentenced to 16 years, which is all I have stated.

Sure, whatever fantasies float your boat.

Shall we start believing in pixie money of mobile phone plans too?

How on earth is it a fantasy?
She was sentenced to 16 years – that is an absolute fact, yes she may get parole after 10 years, nowhere have I argued that she won’t.

With time served, she’ll be eligible for release in about 7 years.

Tooks said :

With time served, she’ll be eligible for release in about 7 years.

Thank God – some of us were apparently getting concerned Tooks that she’d have to serve the full 16 years! (that’s 1 plus 6 together!).

The Frots said :

Tooks said :

With time served, she’ll be eligible for release in about 7 years.

Thank God – some of us were apparently getting concerned Tooks that she’d have to serve the full 16 years! (that’s 1 plus 6 together!).

Who was concerned that she would spend 16 years in jail?

I don’t usually jump in the middle of internet arguments, but I’d like to point out that CSRI was only (in my opinion) referring to the “sentence” she’s received, not the time that will / should / might be served.

I can see where The Frots and JB are coming from regarding the non-parole period, but CSRI is indisputably correct in saying that the sentence handed down is 16 years, regardless of how much she will actually serve.

Jungle Jim said :

I don’t usually jump in the middle of internet arguments, but I’d like to point out that CSRI was only (in my opinion) referring to the “sentence” she’s received, not the time that will / should / might be served.

I can see where The Frots and JB are coming from regarding the non-parole period, but CSRI is indisputably correct in saying that the sentence handed down is 16 years, regardless of how much she will actually serve.

That is the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me on this forum, or life in general for that matter.

Jungle Jim said :

I don’t usually jump in the middle of internet arguments, but I’d like to point out that CSRI was only (in my opinion) referring to the “sentence” she’s received, not the time that will / should / might be served.

I can see where The Frots and JB are coming from regarding the non-parole period, but CSRI is indisputably correct in saying that the sentence handed down is 16 years, regardless of how much she will actually serve.

I agree JJ – it is hard to dispute what the head sentence is. But the same Judge also sets the minimum term – in this case 10 years or as Tooks said, 7 with good behaviour and time served. This is considerably different to 16 years at the top.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Jungle Jim said :

I don’t usually jump in the middle of internet arguments, but I’d like to point out that CSRI was only (in my opinion) referring to the “sentence” she’s received, not the time that will / should / might be served.

I can see where The Frots and JB are coming from regarding the non-parole period, but CSRI is indisputably correct in saying that the sentence handed down is 16 years, regardless of how much she will actually serve.

That is the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me on this forum, or life in general for that matter.

Oh dear……………I’m starting to understand your posts a bit better now CSRI. I’m really sorry and sad now!