Robbery with a syringe, off for a mental health order

Just generating discussion. No threat intended at all. I played up in Canberra whilst i was there as a misguided teen. There were foolish decisions made. I also saw first hand how things are done there when it comes to justice. Wait…. There wasn’t any. And it wouldn’t change the traumatic experience of it anyway. Just how I came to feel about it. Not even those seeking to find out the truth cared, simply a trophy grab I feel.

Serenace1 said :

To what extent do people care about seeing their perceived ideas of justice actualize?

Protest? Yes, very possibly.
Lobby formation? Certainly.
Riot? Certainly not.
How about an exploration of ways to minimize crime? Review of evidence-base and world’s best practices, in consultation with all major stakeholders, yes, already suggested.
People care that much? Yes, we do.
Huh? Huh?
Go and raise finance for research on new methods to combat crime? I doubt it. Obviously rhetorical, however, isn’t the Australian Institute of Criminology already funded to do this? Do they really need me to go and stand out in Civic with a teacup and beg?
Its ok to not really care about the trauma of others i feel. Disagree. Herein lies our humanity.
I mean is it even possible to ever know what someone experiences in a trauma? Yes, if one has experienced something similar. Most people have enough of a life experience base to at least be able to empathise with a victim of a crime e.g. we love our pets and can’t imagine life without them therefore we can relate to the trauma of having a loved pet poisoned. Hardly rocket science.
I think its amounts to moral tears. If we truly all care so much about crime and its effects on the community then we would be trying to take crime away. What do you think the system is there for? Because the community don’t want protection? Because it’s not valuable to the community to have police and courts and prisons?
Crime is a problem, no doubt, its just not that big of a problem. Not yet. It is if it happens to you.

Serenace 1. Your post makes absolutely no sense at all. Is it supposed to be some kind of threat?

Well its good to see that everyone can engage in a healthy discussion about these things. After all the law was made by the people for the people and its great to see people being passionate about it all. Its just sincerity of it all that I find suspicious. And maybe the logic too. To what extent do people care about seeing their perceived ideas of justice actualize? Will their be a protest? Lobby formation? Riot perhaps? How about an exploration of ways to minimize crime? People care that much? Huh? Go and raise finance for research on new methods to combat crime? I doubt it. Its ok to not really care about the trauma of others i feel. I mean is it even possible to ever know what someone experiences in a trauma? I think its good to be involved and discuss it , i just don’t believe most of it. I think its amounts to moral tears. If we truly all care so much about crime and its effects on the community then we would be trying to take crime away. Crime is a problem, no doubt, its just not that big of a problem. Not yet.

Pommy bastard said :

And that constitues “baying for blood”?

Laughable. Your hyperbole gets the better of you.

Often.

if its a choice of your fammily’s safety or the ‘rights’ of some druggie scumbag, the family wins every time. noone forced the druggie to start abusing substances. this is about protecting the innocent.

Do some believe that safety and crime rates can be determined by the justice system? Foolishness.
— Serenace1

By your argument, if the justice system cannot control the crime rate, we can abolish it. If their presence doesn’t make a difference, neither will their absence.

I think that’s nonsense; I think that people in prison aren’t able to mug people in Civic at the same time. I think if young Alice is incarcerated – even if she doesn’t change her ways – at least she’ll be less likely to hurt anyone during that time.

Also, I’m still not convinced Mens Rea was proven. Like Pommy B’Stard said, she didn’t “hold them up at banana point and ask them to cover her in sherbet”. She had a plan, and executed the plan; including picking a human target, producing a weapon, asking for money, taking the money, and walking away. That’s still a whole lot of well-coordinated mental, physical and verbal activity for someone to do without understanding what they’re doing.

Just to clarify, if I were to have mental illness and get shitfaced, I can do anything I want and I won’t go to jail?

And that constitues “baying for blood”?

Laughable. Your hyperbole gets the better of you.

Another pearler by everyone’s favourite Magi.

I can accept that Alice may have been mentally affected at the time of the crime: no big suprise there to anyone.

However, the biggest disappointment of this outcome is two pronged: Firstly, she is free in the community, now without any bail conditions. Secondly, she is now in the hands of ACT Mental Health.

Neither of these options are likely to resolve her demonstrated mental problems, or protect the community from her inevitable recidivism.

That’s not baying for blood, monomania. Good grief!

Pommy bastard said :

Can someone highlight for me where scottie has been “baying for blood” as monomania puts it, I seem to have missed that bit in this thread.

scottie_517 said :

I am Scott Murray. This is just wrong. That’s all i have to say.

I can’t believe this.

Not only during the course of the case was she let off on bail a day or two after committing the offence, we (Deb and I) were accidentally summonsed to her bail hearing! (Take a fresh look at us before you get out Alice.)

Thanks legal system – my faith in justice is restored.

Serenace1 said :

The question I ask to all those apparently abhorred by this judgment is what would be the acceptable outcome? Is it because of a safety concern or do some simply like to see people jailed? And also why? Do some believe that safety and crime rates can be determined by the justice system? Foolishness.

What would be an acceptable outcome?

Person who threatens people with a syringe and robs them of cash removed to a place where they are incarcerated/treated until no longer a menace.

Is it because of a safety concern or do some simply like to see people jailed?

For me, it is due to me having a wife and child who I love dearly, and who I would hate to think of being put through this, only to see the miscreant let off and free to rome. If she had threatened me with a syringe we would have found out what the outcome of #50, would be. I’d have had no hesitation in beating the shit out of her. Surely it’s better for her that she is incarcerated and treated rather than put herself in a position where she may be beaten to a pulp?

Do some believe that safety and crime rates can be determined by the justice system?

Some of us believe that the scales of justice, in this town especially, have swung to far towards the “rights” of the guilty, and far too little consideration is given to the protection of Joe and Josephine Public.

@RandomGit, PBO, j from the block:

A syringe counts as a weapon, clean or unclean for the purposes of aggravated robbery (which she was charged with), and is still an implied threat sufficient to satisfy both Sections 309 and 310 of the Criminal Code 2002.

Section 309: (b) when committing the theft, or immediately before or immediately after committing the theft, the person—
(i) uses force on someone else; or
(ii) threatens to use force then and there on someone else;

Section 310:Aggravated robbery
A person commits an offence ( aggravated robbery ) if the person—
(a) commits robbery in company with 1 or more people; or
(b) commits robbery and, at the time of the robbery, has an offensive weapon with him or her.

Besides, if it did actually puncture someone, there’s are sections of the Crimes Act 1900 which deal with that, too.
Although it does depend on what is in the needle as to if its an endangerment of life or just health (and again, if that pesky thing called “intent” can be proven).

People simply want justice.

1. Don’t call the innocent guilty, and don’t call the guilty innocent.
2. The rights of the innocent should take precedence over the rights of the guilty.
3. There must be appropriate consequences for inappropriate behaviour.
4. Human rights are for all.

Do I want them jailed, no, do I want them to be given the impression that this is ok in our society, no. What I would like is for the adequate agencies to be able to help those who want to be helped, or who have the potential to be helped, get out of the situation they are in.
I have worked finding jobs for people like Alice, and am a firm believer that given the opportunity, people would rather work, be respected and earn a wage, than say hold up people with syringes.

Serenace1 said :

Do some believe that safety and crime rates can be determined by the justice system? Foolishness.

Welcome to RiotAct.

The question I ask to all those apparently abhorred by this judgment is what would be the acceptable outcome? Is it because of a safety concern or do some simply like to see people jailed? And also why? Do some believe that safety and crime rates can be determined by the justice system? Foolishness.

I think it would be nice if the system allowed the verdict to mirror the truth. Yes, the person did commit the crime. Yes, the person was incapacitated mentally. No, it is not appropriate to gaol her. Yes, it is appropriate that she receives therapy and that the community is protected.

Now this could be a strange question, but, I’d just be interested how a “clean” needle was defined. If it had just been removed from protective coating and carefully filled with a non biological liquid that would be injected in a sterile environment by someone experienced in safe use of needles, no worries.
Clean or not, it’s not really the point. Also turns into a bit of they said, I said. Last time it happened to me it started off apparently “f-ing filled with aids” and I was going to “f-ing die slow”, cross examination then had it become “just a f-ing joke”.
If some one dodgy came up to me in the street with a syringe, I would assume they were not a medical professional, and it was not a “clean” needle.

RandomGit said :

Isn’t it a separate offence to use a fake handgun when committing a crime? What are the penalties?

How does this compare to using a clean syringe in an armed robbery and saying it is dirty? Is that somehow ok?

I think the idea behind the former should apply to the latter.

I tried to buy a replica Flintlock, to be safe i called the Firearms sect of the Federal Police who informed me that i was not allowed to have one and if i did it would have to be registered and kept in a safe. I asked what the penalty for having a unregistered replica was and he said 15 years. I asked why it was so high seeing as the penalty for a real gun is 5 years and he said that he did not make the laws. I cannot understand why it would be a harsher offence.

By that logic, does it mean that if it were a clean syringe there should be less of a sentence. I hope not.

Isn’t it a separate offence to use a fake handgun when committing a crime? What are the penalties?

How does this compare to using a clean syringe in an armed robbery and saying it is dirty? Is that somehow ok?

I think the idea behind the former should apply to the latter.

Can someone highlight for me where scottie has been “baying for blood” as monomania puts it, I seem to have missed that bit in this thread.

monomania said :

So all of you decrying her treatment just how much time would you like Alice Coath to serve three years after the event? From what little evidence is stated in Higgins’ Ex Tempore Judgement even Scott Murray believed that she was mentally disturbed at the time.
“Watch out for this woman, I think she’s a bit crazy.” he is claimed to have said to Ms Bajwa.
It would appear that Justice Higgins believes that Alice Coath may still have mental health problems. Probably most of us have been in terrifying situations and can appreciate how Scott Murray felt. I fail to see what satisfaction he could get by having a mentally ill person not be properly cared for. Scott Murray already was mistaken about blood in the syringe and he is wrong now to be baying for blood.

Something more than a finding of not-guilty through mental impairment would have been nice. It’s the ultimate in turning a blind eye to someone who really does need treatment. Also monomania, I’m sure you’ll do a proper analysis of the contents of the syringe next used to rob you. I’m positive you’ll sit there calmly explaining that you need to know exactly what the substance is your being threatened with.

RandomGit said :

A dirty needle is a chemical weapon.

Skidbladnir said :

No, its biological.

RandomGit said :

…. same difference.

You are both right.

…. same difference.

So all of you decrying her treatment just how much time would you like Alice Coath to serve three years after the event? From what little evidence is stated in Higgins’ Ex Tempore Judgement even Scott Murray believed that she was mentally disturbed at the time.
“Watch out for this woman, I think she’s a bit crazy.” he is claimed to have said to Ms Bajwa.
It would appear that Justice Higgins believes that Alice Coath may still have mental health problems. Probably most of us have been in terrifying situations and can appreciate how Scott Murray felt. I fail to see what satisfaction he could get by having a mentally ill person not be properly cared for. Scott Murray already was mistaken about blood in the syringe and he is wrong now to be baying for blood.

No, its biological.

A dirty needle is a chemical weapon.

Scottie, agreed on the gun analogy.
Would much rather a gun, or knife, than a needle. Yes the options are not great, but I would rather take a risk with a gun or a knife than with a dirty needle. The result with the former is quick, and outcome quickly known, not months of wondering with the possibility of years of suffering. Needles are not consider with appropriate gravity in the courts.
It would be great if she got some help, but if not, she will be back on the interchange looking for a quick fix again soon.

It would definitely be interesting to see what happens when joe average with his wife and kids are walking through civic and approached by one of these druggies, then kicks the crap out of said druggy in response to perceived threat to wife and kids.

I didn’t suggest that it is. However, if this girl cannot make informed decisions based on her mental incapacity/ illness then she needs to be removed from society and treated until she is cured, or at the very least able to function normally in society.

I agree with you Thumper – I’m not an advocate of “gung ho” judges in any way. I’d really like to see an outcome that works for Alice too – even if it was one of the most terrifying experiences of my life.

An interesting point to note – I’d rather have a gun pointed at me – at least that way there’s some psychological barrier for the offender against using it – the realities of pulling the trigger would be in the forefront of their mind. With a needle, I’m sure it could be easy to “overlook” the danger you are placing someone in. Much the same way in which people who smoke cigarettes can easily ignore the danger they are placing themselves in, due to the delayed negative effects. Was the judge suffering from the same lack of foresight about the gravity of having a potential death sentence (a dirty needle) pointed at me?

I’d be interested to see what kind of health order she really has been subjected to, and the consequences of not complying with such an order.

Oh, and ECT is a treatment for severe depression – not hallucinations, paranoid delusions etc. So, hopefully for Alice, they don’t turn to anything that dramatic. She needs help – and if she can’t be helped, then I don’t think giving up and releasing her is an acceptable option. (Not because I want revenge – but because I wouldn’t want this to happen to anyone else).

In my experience, they would have been charged, many around town were waiting for my “Falling Down” moment when I finally snapped. Alice; drugged out scum, those threatened, not. Definite chance they would be charged, but if this does happen, I would suggest any halfway decent lawyer would get you off.
Mine was on speed dial, just in case. After working in the interchange dealing with them for long enough, definite argument for a PTSD defence.

Makes me wonder who would have been charged if Scott or Ms Bajwa had refused, fought back (not a recommendation mind you) and done damage to Alice ??

Scott, first off, I feel for you, I have had dealings with most of the muppets like this in civic, and feel your frustration at the system, as do many others(including many in the system), and for me the syringe attack is the worst. I was bitten by an unhappy punter, see muppet, and had to go through the wait of testing for 18 or so months to make sure I was not infected. The syringe threat I find more intimidating than anything else, and this so sends the wrong message to the Civic folk, that you can get off for this kind of thing.

Skidbladnir said :

Being put into the ACT Mental Health system isn’t like entering a land of silver and glass, you know.

That’s certainly true, Skid, but you also have to protect other members of the community from acts of violence by the insane as well as the criminal.

I think the same applies as for prisoners.

1. Society must be protected.
2. Offenders should be detained for as long as is necessary in a humane and dignified manner, whilst focusing on achieving actual results in rehabilitating the individual.

At some point common sense should come into the issue.

Being put into the ACT Mental Health system isn’t like entering a land of silver and glass, you know.

The short story is that the AAT decides on your treatment and ‘management’ – possibly akin to being committed in this case (even though the ACT technically has nowhere to ‘commit’ to).

It can also mean a very sad life. Mental health orders can be scary if you lose the right to make informed choices about dubious ‘treatments’like ECT. On the other hand, they can be used to force reasonable treatments onto otherwise very sick people. I’ve seen both sides of that argument, and no one wins.

Which might order that she undergo a specific treatment and comply and engage with certain proffessionals.

Involuntary mental health assessment and treatment.

Can anyone in the know explain what this part would entail:

I direct that the accused submit to the jurisdiction of the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, to enable that body to make a mental health order.

Very hard Granny. The requirement of proving actus reus and mens rea to find someone guilty of an offence is kind of the cornerstone of the judicary system.
I guess it could still be reviewed..but I doubt it will every change.

(The system, I mean, not this particular decision – which sucks because of the system).

It seems like everything else is reviewed. Why can’t they review this? How hard can it be?

If she was unaware that holding up someone at syringe point and taking money off them against their will was bad, why did she not hold them up at banana point and ask them to cover her in sherbet?

Doesn’t make it right, just having a established defence, I wonder what happens next time she decides get money, and sticks someone with the needle, and it is actually carrying some nasties, and that persons life is ruined, but she gets away with it time and again as she can “show a mental problem in court, come on.

Here Stanhope, read this thread, and start to to something out of it constructive, not just play with your library books.

I agree that this outcome sucks and doesn’t really do anything for the victims, but she had an extablished defence that the Court accepted as valid and that both prosecution and defence agreed warranted an acquittal.

That the legal system doesn’t work that well doesn’t surprise me. Unless someone is bad and mad enough to be committed its not easy to just lock them up in some mental health unit, the new gaol was supposed to create some more options, but there is always the “if they don’t believe they need help” they are difficult to help and locking them up with people who admit they need help makes it worse for those.

I think part of the problem is that gaol as rehab doesn’t really work and gaol as punishment seems to make people harder and more committed to a life in the wastelands of crime.

That sucks mate, hope you’re getting over it. Don’t forget there are a LOT of people on your side.

All the best.

scottie_517 said :

I am Scott Murray. This is just wrong. That’s all i have to say. Oh, by the way, thanks for calling me, director of public prosecutions, to let me know the outcome of the trial as promised.

After being dragged over hot coals by Alice’s defence attorney (I was accused of taking drugs and trying to lie to the police to manipulate them!!!!), as well as having over a three year wait for any result – I can’t believe this.

Not only during the course of the case was she let off on bail a day or two after committing the offence, we (Deb and I) were accidentally summonsed to her bail hearing! (Take a fresh look at us before you get out Alice.

It’s funny the false dialogue that someone wrote about a conversation between Alice and Higgins. It kind of went like that while I was waiting to give testimony. She’s obviously in there (the courts) a fair bit, because all of the custodial officers were giving her hugs in front of Deb and I and asking her how she was going (on a first name basis).

Thanks legal system – my faith in justice is restored.

Scott Murray

All that is wrong ion our legal system today, summed up in one neat post.

My condolences Scottie, you have been abuse twice, once by this druggie, and once by our “legal” system.

Thanks for the kind words everyone. Doing ok now – just was really shocked to find out the result. Surely a mental health order can be incorporated into the judicial system to ensure that treatment is enforced, rather than having an obviously regularly violent offender being placed back out on the same streets as I walk.

More people would recognise Alice if they thought about it. She is a regular fixture around the City bus interchange and Garema Pl. She’s the one with the skateboard.

Thanks for your view on what was happening Scott. I think everyone is as gobsmacked as you. At the end of the day it seems the that rights of the victim are not a consideration when it comes to magistrates in the ACT. My personal view is that the persons responsible for said judgements would only appreciate the trauma experienced by the victims if they became one themselves, and then have similar judgements made when their case went to court.

This is just wrong. But who will change it?

How infuriating and frustrating for you Scott.

You’re not alone when you say “this is just wrong”.

I’m hearing you, Scott. Hubby and I have been in a similar situation where the legal world latches onto the accused as if they need to be protected from society, not the other way around.

The whole system absolutely stinks.

I really hope you and Deb are okay.

Also, there was no jury in the trial guys – they were disbanded about 5 minutes before the hearing in which I gave testimony. Apparently it’s better to have a judge preside over cases in which the mental health of the defendant is questionable.

I am Scott Murray. This is just wrong. That’s all i have to say. Oh, by the way, thanks for calling me, director of public prosecutions, to let me know the outcome of the trial as promised.

After being dragged over hot coals by Alice’s defence attorney (I was accused of taking drugs and trying to lie to the police to manipulate them!!!!), as well as having over a three year wait for any result – I can’t believe this.

Not only during the course of the case was she let off on bail a day or two after committing the offence, we (Deb and I) were accidentally summonsed to her bail hearing! (Take a fresh look at us before you get out Alice.

It’s funny the false dialogue that someone wrote about a conversation between Alice and Higgins. It kind of went like that while I was waiting to give testimony. She’s obviously in there (the courts) a fair bit, because all of the custodial officers were giving her hugs in front of Deb and I and asking her how she was going (on a first name basis).

Thanks legal system – my faith in justice is restored.

Scott Murray

Clown Killer \ Tempestas, you have both missed my key word,

“The legal system is [b]suppose[/b] to reflect the views taken by the wider public.”

Whilst I realise that we are living in a far from ideal world.

Also Tempestas, if what you said was strictly accurate, we’d have no jury duty. The reason why we get 12 uninformed people (of sometimes questionable intelligence) to determine if a person is guilty or innocent (yes I realise in this case there was no jury) is because we have a belief that society needs to find the person guilty, and that finding is what the general community wants.

Also FWIW, I don’t watch much TV, and I have never watched an episode of CSI in my life.

Anna Key said :

So if I get off your face and get behind the wheel,

Bingo!

So if I get off your face and get behind the wheel, being drunk is no excuse even if it is clear I have no rational capacity. But if I knife someone, the learned Terry will let me off

Pathetic! She knew she was demanding the money because that’s what she openly requested of the men (mens rea), she did the act to get the money (actus reus). Might have been a different outcome if Higgins had been standing at the ATM on the pointy end of the syringe.

The legal system is suppose to reflect the views taken by the wider public. The laws and judgements are meant to reflect what we as a community believe our standard should be. Despite this there are certain judges who seem to put their own values above and beyond what the community feels is appropriate punishment

You’re living in la-la-land baby. Here’s a tip: try watching less CSI and Law & Order.

I always wonder in cases like this who’s doing the mugging – I mean, if she didn’t intentionally wander over to the ATM, pull out a syringe, demand money, take the money, and walk away – who did? That’s a whole lot of well-coordinated activity for someone to do without understanding what they’re doing. I mean, it’s not like she threatened the ATM with the syringe, is it? Was this her third mugging of the day, with the preceding victims (two lamp posts and a pigeon) declining to press charges?

And FFS, Higgins states in his judgement that she knew she mugged someone, she was just unclear which of the two people she mugged handed her the money. I’m a little unclear on which of the two women running the cash registers at the cafe this morning sold me my coffee – does that mean I’m not responsible for buying it? Can I have my money back?

harvyk1 said :

The legal system is suppose to reflect the views taken by the wider public. The laws and judgements are meant to reflect what we as a community believe our standard should be. Despite this there are certain judges who seem to put their own values above and beyond what the community feels is appropriate punishment. …

Where did you get that idea, the legal system is a historical amalgam of tradition, precedent, test cases, and attempts by governments to steer the system via its various legislative agendas.

It’s a hybrid with roots stretching back to Papal canon law and other mythologies, relies on logical constructs out of date since the 17th Century and other concepts of language both ancient and modern.

That a particular case appears to give a different outcome that what you like-minded people think appropriate is no surprise. I’d imagine actually being a judge is heaps harder than disagreeing with any particular judgement of a judge.

That we have much human detritus on our streets causing grief is a problem that no amount of “hang em high” judges is going to solve. I don’t know what a solution is, but I suspect I’d prefer apparently lenient judges over gung ho vigilantes. That others might see it differently is one of the joys of democracy.

Good point jakez, thanks.

Though I still do not know of a mental health condition which deprives one of “mens rea” that robbing at syringe point is a bad thing to do.

And I still hold that if this person is able to enough to rob at syringe point, knowingly or not/mentally ill or not/mens rea or not, then putting her back into the community is failing to protect the public.

I know far too much about this story, to ever have any faith in our justice system again after a verdict such as this.. pending the outcome of further mental health orders anyway.

IMHO Using drugs as a reason for committing the crime should not be a valid defence.

Whilst she may be addicted, and thus the drugs now control her actions, she at some point in the past made a choice to either directly take drugs, or head down a path which would lead to drug taking (eg drinking first and making the decision to use whilst drunk).

If she had never been in the position to make that choice (through prior mental illness) then it’s just as much reason to protect the community from her, as her illness is effectively a time bomb which needed to be managed.

It really irritates me that people can do things like this and get nothing more than a stern few words, when they both need to be punished properly, and be kept away from the community until they are fit to re-enter it, be it through jail or a mental hospital.

time for the glue factory

Clown Killer said :

Higgins is a workhorse of the legal system if you ask me – tirelessly providing material to annoy and agitate those who genuinely believe that they’re in a position to know better. Don’t just sit there in slack-jawed indignation people – get angry!

Yep, workhorse, you are right, so lets put him down, been working too hard.

It doesn’t need to make someone rob another at syringe point, it just needs to disqualify them from the mens rea component of the crime. You are confusing active causation with an incapacity to mentally connect with ones actions.

By all means question sacred cows, I’m a big believer in it. Just understand the cow before you attempt to bring it down.

And which “mental health problem” is it which makes people rob others at syringe point?

I must have missed that one when I studdied the DSM IV…

But of course it makes sense for her to have community treatment, as, if she does it again, we’ll know if her condition isn’t being treated proprely. (Sod the poor bugger at the other end of her syringe attack.)

Clown Killer said :

Higgins is a workhorse of the legal system if you ask me – tirelessly providing material to annoy and agitate those who genuinely believe that they’re in a position to know better. Don’t just sit there in slack-jawed indignation people – get angry!

The legal system is suppose to reflect the views taken by the wider public. The laws and judgements are meant to reflect what we as a community believe our standard should be. Despite this there are certain judges who seem to put their own values above and beyond what the community feels is appropriate punishment.

Higgins is a classic example. I even believe he has gone on public record stating he does not like sending people to jail, and thus that belief is held when he is sentencing. The problem is that he holds and enforces this view despite people appearing before him repeatedly.

Whilst yes, we don’t know all the sides of the story, chances are if your fronting up for court on a monthly basis your doing something wrong.

Hopefully that last bit about the mental health order means she might get the help she needs.

If not, it seems that just releasing into the community means it could happen again.

get thee to a nunnery

It appears the trick is to get wasted before attempting to commit robberies.

Even if she is in various states of drug-induced stupor at the time, I’m guessing its more of a trick in having an established documented history of mental health recommendations, and having paranoia and delierium listed as recurrent symptoms by psychiatric professionals.

PBO, he can only determine guilt\innocence on what the defendant is charged with.
In this case, 3. The offence which is charged is that of aggravated robbery. Robbery is the stealing of property, in this case it is alleged to be $20, by means of force or the threat of force. That threat of force will be constituted by the threat, whether express or implied, to inflict harm on the person who holds the property, in order to persuade them to give it up. In this case the aggravation is the presence of a weapon, which is alleged to be a syringe containing a needle at the end of it.

The pertinent part of the whole transcript was left out of Jb’s account, being:
26. …the report of Dr Thompson was tendered. I do not need to refer to that anymore than to say both counsel are agreed that it would, in the event of an adverse finding on the question of what actually happened, warrant an acquittal on the grounds of mental impairment.

PS: Last time there was a reference to an Alice Coath and mental impairment, was ten months ago, when her set trial for her ‘conduct which is alleged to have occurred as long ago as 14 April 2006’ (crime unknown) was vacated on grounds of mental health examination(ie: rescheduled pending outcome of exam), as a possible defence relating to mental impairment was raised by her defence counsel at the time.
Source: http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgments/coath.htm

Not called for pptvb.

Is not ‘mens rea’ required (UNDER LAW) for a conviction to be made?
It is clear that mens rea was not established.
Don’t blame Justice Higgins for he did not right the law.

PBO – she is not being sentenced – as she was found NOT GUITLY.

Higgins is a workhorse of the legal system if you ask me – tirelessly providing material to annoy and agitate those who genuinely believe that they’re in a position to know better. Don’t just sit there in slack-jawed indignation people – get angry!

Maybe Gareth hit him harder than we thought!

Would the Supreme court please replace this guy with someone who at can at least sentence properly. I can easily see a 2 charges of assault with a deadly weapon, 2 charges of robbery, Intimidation and possible deprivation of liberty.

Alice Coath: Sorry your honour, I got a bit munted and obviously had a riot of a night.

Justice Higgins: Thats allright dear, just dont do it again.

Alice Coath: Thanks Terry, whoops, I mean your honour.

Justice Higgins: Thats allright Luv, see you next time.