Advertisement

Was Steven Hillier Guilty of murder?

By 16 September 2012 57

Recently the name Steven Hillier came up in conversation which prompted me look into the case in order to understand the reasoning as to why he was acquitted of the murder of Ana Louise Hardwick and whether it was justified. The only sources reasonably available to me were the following judgements and I therefore offer a summary and opinion based on the information provided in those judgements.

http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgment/view/214/title/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/13.html
.
http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgment/view/216/
.
http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgment/view/3070

Steven Wayne Hillier was charged with the murder of Ana Louise Hardwick who was found strangled in her Isabella Plains home on 2 October 2002. In 2004 Hillier was tried in the ACT Supreme Court by Gray J and a jury over 15 days and after deliberating for only a few hours returned a verdict of guilty. Hillier was subsequently sentenced to 18 years gaol with a non-parole period of 13 years.

Hillier appealed the verdict and in 2005 The ACT Court of Appeal held, by majority (Higgins CJ and Crispin P; Spender J dissenting) that the appeal should be allowed. The majority wrongly concluded that there was a real possibility that another person was responsible for Hardwick’s death. Reading Spender’s interpretation of what transpired left one in little doubt that the jury got it right and that Higgins and Crispin’s conclusions were speculative and erroneous.

Unsurprisingly the High Court in 2007 shared Spender’s views and indicated that Higgins and Crispin erred in their respective judgements. The end result was that the High Court allowed the appeal by the Crown and ordered that the matter be remitted to ACT Court of Appeal for rehearing rather than just simply order a retrial. So back it went to the ACT Court of Appeal who under Madgwick,Weinberg and Dowsett JJ agreed with Spender ‘s analysis, which was mandated by the High Court, and ordered that the case be remitted for retrial.

Hillier opted for a Judge only trial in 2010 knowing that that was his best chance of being acquitted particularly given there had not been a murder conviction in Judge only trials in the ACT for at least a decade. Judge Besanko,a Federal Court judge, heard the case and came to the following conclusions.

Motive

The Crown asserted that Hillier had a strong motive to murder Hardwick given that she obtained orders making her the main custodian of their children. Prior to these orders they had been engaged in a custody battle since 2000 during which time Hillier had been the main custodian. It was clear that Hillier was obsessed with having custody and was extremely angry with the new orders and decided to murder Hardwick in order to eliminate her as a competitor for the custody of their children. Besanko opined that motive was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Consciousness of guilt

The Crown submitted that Hillier caused damage to his hands a few days before he agreed to having his fingerprints taken given that it may establish his guilt and that he was conscious of his guilt. Some two weeks after police took his fingerprints Hillier saw his doctor re his damaged fingernails and denied they had been exposed to chemicals. Dermatologist Dr. Healsmith examined Hillier’s hands a few days later and indicated that the damage was more consistent with fingertips being immersed in an acid or alkali solution not Hillier’s assertions that he was cleaning a motor vehicle engine or a driveway or both without wearing gloves using a small brush with a caustic solution mixed with water. I find Hillier’s claims ludicrous especially given that he was an ex mechanic,who know better,and in my experience use degreaser and high pressure water to clean engines. However for reasons best known to himself Besanko ruled that the Crown did not establish consciousness of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

DNA Evidence

This was problematic for a number of reasons;
Firstly there was no mention in the judgements that the CSI took swabs from Hardwick’s neck which had bruising consistent with strangulation nor were there swabs taken from her hands. While it’s likely the murderer was wearing gloves I am baffled as to why swabs from those areas weren’t taken given they may have potentially contained DNA and gone some way to revealing the identity of the murderer.

Secondly Hardwick’s pyjamas were placed in a room at the Forensic Laboratory and laid out on a table to dry. During the time the pyjamas were drying apparently other exhibits including items taken from Hillier’s premises were also, unbelievably, kept in the room. While there was no direct evidence that those items came into contact with the pyjamas it plainly was a situation that should never have occurred given there was a potential risk of contamination.

Thirdly there were issues raised re the method used which identified Hillier’s DNA on the swab taken from the inside right front of Hardwick’s pyjama top some 7 to 8cms below the collar. The defence expert submitted that the DNA sample tested by the forensic scientist was compromised given the DNA had been loaded right up to the maximum level that the machine would tolerate .However further testing using lower levels of DNA still revealed that Hillier could not be excluded with respect to the partial minor component, the major coming from Hardwick.

Finally,given the circumstances, Besanko ruled that the Crown had not established beyond reasonable doubt that Hillier’s DNA was found on Hardwick’s pyjamas, or if it was there, it wasn’t there by reason of contamination or indirect transfer.

In conclusion, regrettably for the Hardwick famiy, Besanko followed in the footsteps of Higgins and Crispin and found Hillier not guilty of the murder of Ana Hardwick. In my opinion,after giving appropriate weight to the evidence,i believe the jury got it right,Spender got it right,the High Court got it right and Hillier should be behind bars. But that was justice A.C.T. style in the 2000′s. Disgraceful!

Please login to post your comments
57 Responses to Was Steven Hillier Guilty of murder?
#1
Conan of Cooma10:26 am, 17 Sep 12

It was Hillier in the Plains house with the big hands.

#2
Affirmative Action M11:08 am, 17 Sep 12

A reading of the facts in this case seem to indicate that it’s very likely that he is guilty unfortunately there is not enough evidence for a clear conviction.

#3
DrKoresh11:15 am, 17 Sep 12

Affirmative Action Man said :

A reading of the facts in this case seem to indicate that it’s very likely that he is guilty unfortunately there is not enough evidence for a clear conviction.

Affirmative Action Man said :

A reading of the facts in this case seem to indicate that it’s very likely that he is guilty unfortunately there is not enough evidence for a clear conviction.

That’s shite, sounds more like our judges are falling prey to the CSI effect. There’s more than enough evidence to clear reasonable doubt, IMO and I’m curious as to whether we can take any legal action against the judiciary for doing such a piss-poor job protecting the community. At the very least we should be able to appeal the murdering scumbag’s appeal. Sorry, I realise he is not a murderer, technically, he’s a killer, I should say.

#4
johnboy11:16 am, 17 Sep 12

Steven I’m looking forward to resuming our correspondence.

#5
KB197112:18 pm, 17 Sep 12

I have one issue with your assumptions. Mechanics to clean engines with chemicals stronger than degreaser, not while in a motor vehicle but while they are being rebuilt. Was he rebuilding the engine? Was he doing carby work using carbasol?

I am not passing judgment either way on the Hiller case but trying to ensure that some of the facts are not muddiedl

#6
bundah2:29 pm, 17 Sep 12

KB1971 said :

I have one issue with your assumptions. Mechanics to clean engines with chemicals stronger than degreaser, not while in a motor vehicle but while they are being rebuilt. Was he rebuilding the engine? Was he doing carby work using carbasol?

I am not passing judgment either way on the Hiller case but trying to ensure that some of the facts are not muddiedl

As i understand it the car had an oil leak.Now i’ve been involved with performance vehicles for many a decade and know countless mechanics and none of them have ever,to my knowledge, used a watered down caustic solution to clean an engine with an oil leak.Just doesn’t happen!

#7
bundah2:37 pm, 17 Sep 12

Affirmative Action Man said :

A reading of the facts in this case seem to indicate that it’s very likely that he is guilty unfortunately there is not enough evidence for a clear conviction.

Never easy to convict someone based on circumstantial evidence however when one looks at all the evidence it’s not hard to see why the jury returned a guilty verdict within hours.There is one person who is effectively responsible for ensuring that justice has not been served in relation to murders in this territory and that is Tezza!

#8
4ensic8:53 am, 08 Nov 12

So the last learned judge got it wrong? I would suggest that you reread ALL of the evidence to reach an objective view.

Were you ever at the “crime scene”, did you ever carry out a direct examination of the evidence.

There was no forced entry. The bedhead was dislodged about 15 degrees from the wall at the time of the fire – despite the rest of the house being in a very tidy orderly state. There were mechanical scratch marks on the top rung of the painted steel bedhead and the deceased had abrasions/rub marks on both wrists. There were empty bottles of VB in the rubbish bin. There were “play” handcuffs in the built-in wardrobe together with porno videos. One of the DNA samples was found to contain only a “familial” match with the defendant, and another sample contained the DNA of an unidentified 3rd party aka Mr X….

Circumstantial is only circumstantial. Direct evidence, or lack of it, is what’s important and necessary to make an informed conclusion.

#9
bundah10:22 am, 08 Nov 12

So what do we have here,a Steven Hillier sympathiser? Before you start lecturing me regarding the evidence read what the HIGH COURT said in response to Higgins and Crispin’s flawed reasoning.

‘The majority in the Court of Appeal added several further features of the evidence, to the matters advanced by counsel for Mr Hillier in final address, to reach the conclusion that “there is a real possibility that another person was responsible” for Ms Hardwick’s death[46]. Although no witness gave evidence to this effect, the majority concluded that the bruises found on Ms Hardwick’s wrists, and some marks similar to fingermarks found on her thigh, “are all suggestive of a sexual relationship or incident with someone” other than Mr Hillier or Mr Koppie[47], though when this might have happened was not stated. In addition, their Honours referred[48] to evidence of fingerprints from an unidentified person which had been found on door handles in Ms Hardwick’s house and also on an ashtray, cigarette packet and lighter found near her bed. And as noted earlier, their Honours also referred[49] to evidence of footprints observed in the soot that had been deposited in the bedroom as a result of the fire that had taken place after Ms Hardwick’s death and that were footprints “not those of firemen or of [Mr Hillier]“. Their Honours recognised[50], however, that the footprints may have been left by Ms Hardwick’s father when he discovered her body and that the evidence which had been led at trial had not excluded that possibility. Finally, their Honours referred[51] to evidence that hair had been found on Ms Hardwick’s pyjamas and in the bed which had not been identified as being hair of Ms Hardwick or Mr Hillier.

Their Honours said[52] that “[a]t face value” these considerations provided “strong grounds for an inference that someone else may have entered the house and been responsible for [the] death” of Ms Hardwick. The majority went on to say[53] that “there may be explanations for these matters that are compatible with the Crown case” but said[54] that “potentially exculpatory inferences cannot be ignored merely because there may be other possible explanations for the relevant facts”.

This reasoning was erroneous’.

There you go ERRONEOUS.Do you get it now?

#10
NoImRight11:46 am, 08 Nov 12

For someone who only just found this you seem to have quite an emotional buy in.

#11
4ensic3:42 pm, 08 Nov 12

What I “get” is a selective, speculative, and biased view based on a “reading” of documents which are a summary of judicial opinion, and a Star Chamber-esque attitude. So you don’t like the final “referee’s” decision in the Supreme Court, and you know better based on your in depth and exhaustive reading of court documents and your keen sense of all things forensic and training in the law.

This is not “Law & Order” or “CSI Miami”. This is serious stuff on which a person’s freedom and future is dependent.

What it does show is the fallibility of the police and associated forensic investigation, the legal system, and the premise of trial by a jury.

Objectivity is what is called for in forensic science, and hopefully in judicial enquiries. Direct and sustainable evidence is what’s necessary to prove a point or proposition, hence the entrenched requirement of “beyond reasonable doubt” by the law, and not some Today Tonight expose.

#12
bundah5:23 pm, 08 Nov 12

I’m not particularly interested in what ‘you get’ given,that you just ‘don’t get it’.

There are those who ‘got it right’ ie. the jury,Spender,the High Court,Madgwick,Weinberg and Dowsett and then those that ‘got it wrong’ ie. Higgins,Crispin and Besanko.Unfortunately for the family of Ana Hardwick,Besanko who ‘got it wrong’,had the final say.

#13
Lookout Smithers7:11 pm, 08 Nov 12

Thank you 4ensic for a refreshing even handed and astute opinion on this matter which has been dealt with. The motivation behind the incessant posting on related themes is vindictive and little else. You just have to accept that it is as it was judged and unless you can support action with all the rhetoric, do the exonerated the courtesy that you would expect to be shown yourself.

#14
HenryBG7:29 pm, 08 Nov 12

bundah said :

I’m not particularly interested in what ‘you get’ given,that you just ‘don’t get it’.

There are those who ‘got it right’ ie. the jury,Spender,the High Court,Madgwick,Weinberg and Dowsett and then those that ‘got it wrong’ ie. Higgins,Crispin and Besanko.Unfortunately for the family of Ana Hardwick,Besanko who ‘got it wrong’,had the final say.

I think this is the price we pay for having a system that acts to minimise the number of innocents convitced of crimes they did not convict.

As per Blackstone, better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer .

Scum like Hillier get the benefit they don’t personally deserve, but which society definitely does.

#15
4ensic8:55 pm, 08 Nov 12

Pass an informed judgement when you are privy to all of the sustainable facts, or when you have direct knowledge arising from an actual examination of the crime scene. Then just perhaps you may arrive at a balanced and informed view and objectively assess the exculpatory and circumstantial evidence.

Forensic science is about establishing the “truth” from the evidence, not some SWAG about “getting it”.

#16
bundah10:38 pm, 08 Nov 12

#13&15

FFS talk about dumb and dumber.Both of you,collectively,make MrG appear intelligent.

Are you both incapable of comprehending why Hillier got away with murder? Obviously not from the pathetic rubbish that you’ve both posted.It’s really very simple,Hillier was found guilty by judge and jury in the first instance.On appeal Higgins and Crispin totally buggered it up,not because i said so, but due to the fact that the highest court in the land ie.the HIGH COURT said so.Once again,for dumb and dumbers benefit the HIGH COURTclearly stated that the reasoning by Higgins and Crispin was erroneous and i should add that Spender(dissenting Judge) was blatantly critical of their flawed reasoning as well.It is no secret that the HIGH COURT have been critical of our learned judges, notably Higgins, for quite some time which is hardly surprising given some of the insane judgements and modus operandi over the last decade.

So unless you two are more qualified and learned than the full bench of the HIGH COURT i suggest you both shut the fark up!

#17
mareva11:29 pm, 08 Nov 12

Why do we even have courts in this jurisdiction when there is jurisprudential brilliance such as this right here on Riotact? The mind boggles…

#18
Lookout Smithers12:16 am, 09 Nov 12

bundah said :

#13&15

FFS talk about dumb and dumber.Both of you,collectively,make MrG appear intelligent.

Are you both incapable of comprehending why Hillier got away with murder? Obviously not from the pathetic rubbish that you’ve both posted.It’s really very simple,Hillier was found guilty by judge and jury in the first instance.On appeal Higgins and Crispin totally buggered it up,not because i said so, but due to the fact that the highest court in the land ie.the HIGH COURT said so.Once again,for dumb and dumbers benefit the HIGH COURTclearly stated that the reasoning by Higgins and Crispin was erroneous and i should add that Spender(dissenting Judge) was blatantly critical of their flawed reasoning as well.It is no secret that the HIGH COURT have been critical of our learned judges, notably Higgins, for quite some time which is hardly surprising given some of the insane judgements and modus operandi over the last decade.

So unless you two are more qualified and learned than the full bench of the HIGH COURT i suggest you both shut the fark up!

So ? You think that , the courts think something different to you. Most of the legal minds feel that he never should have been charged. I ll let you in on a little fact about Australian legal process. It is a pluralist system. The greatest good for the greatest number. Innocent people have and will be convicted. And some prick will get the benefit of the doubt at the other end. This is just how it is. Maybe you’re correct, shite, I wasn’t there. With that in mind, probably few others too. No lets get some sleep eh . xx

#19
4ensic9:28 am, 09 Nov 12

#16

I shall keep it simple, so you have a modicum of a chance to understand.

His Honour Besanko in his written findings uses the expression “not proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. You clearly have difficulty with the definition of the word “reasonable”, let alone understanding the legal concept of “reasonable doubt”. And this is one of the prime reason why trials by jury are seriously flawed, apart from the possible presence of a juror who uses the expression “shut the fark up”.

In the end, the final referee on the matter held that an acquittal must be entered.

I repeat for your benefit. When you have examined the crime scene and been presented with all the salient investigation results, then and only then are you entitled to state your opinion is an informed one.

#20
bundah9:48 am, 09 Nov 12

4ensic said :

#16

I shall keep it simple, so you have a modicum of a chance to understand.

His Honour Besanko in his written findings uses the expression “not proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. You clearly have difficulty with the definition of the word “reasonable”, let alone understanding the legal concept of “reasonable doubt”. And this is one of the prime reason why trials by jury are seriously flawed, apart from the possible presence of a juror who uses the expression “shut the fark up”.

In the end, the final referee on the matter held that an acquittal must be entered.

I repeat for your benefit. When you have examined the crime scene and been presented with all the salient investigation results, then and only then are you entitled to state your opinion is an informed one.

We’ve reached a stalemate and we simply agree to disagree.I am fully aware of Besanko’s reasoning and consider it to be flawed,particularly in relation to his opinion on Hellier’s consciousness of guilt.However what you fail to accept is that Besanko’s superiors had already stated that the reasoning adopted by Higgins and Crispin which is very similar to Besanko’s judgement was erroneous ie. WRONG not unlike yourself :)

#21
NoImRight9:50 am, 09 Nov 12

bundah said :

#13&15

FFS talk about dumb and dumber.Both of you,collectively,make MrG appear intelligent.

Are you both incapable of comprehending why Hillier got away with murder? Obviously not from the pathetic rubbish that you’ve both posted.It’s really very simple,Hillier was found guilty by judge and jury in the first instance.On appeal Higgins and Crispin totally buggered it up,not because i said so, but due to the fact that the highest court in the land ie.the HIGH COURT said so.Once again,for dumb and dumbers benefit the HIGH COURTclearly stated that the reasoning by Higgins and Crispin was erroneous and i should add that Spender(dissenting Judge) was blatantly critical of their flawed reasoning as well.It is no secret that the HIGH COURT have been critical of our learned judges, notably Higgins, for quite some time which is hardly surprising given some of the insane judgements and modus operandi over the last decade.

So unless you two are more qualified and learned than the full bench of the HIGH COURT i suggest you both shut the fark up!

So the judges you agree with are smart and the ones you dont agree with are dumb. We get it. It seems though the ones with the final say dont agree with you.Pity they cant hit a pause button when its a decion you want isnt it? Thats why we have a system. So some nutter on an internet forum doesnt get to decide guilt and innocence based on his random readings and desperate attempts to form an angry mob.

#22
HenryBG9:54 am, 09 Nov 12

bundah said :

4ensic said :

#16

I shall keep it simple, so you have a modicum of a chance to understand.

His Honour Besanko in his written findings uses the expression “not proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. You clearly have difficulty with the definition of the word “reasonable”, let alone understanding the legal concept of “reasonable doubt”. And this is one of the prime reason why trials by jury are seriously flawed, apart from the possible presence of a juror who uses the expression “shut the fark up”.

In the end, the final referee on the matter held that an acquittal must be entered.

I repeat for your benefit. When you have examined the crime scene and been presented with all the salient investigation results, then and only then are you entitled to state your opinion is an informed one.

We’ve reached a stalemate and we simply agree to disagree.I am fully aware of Besanko’s reasoning and consider it to be flawed,particularly in relation to his opinion on Hellier’s consciousness of guilt.However what you fail to accept is that Besanko’s superiors had already stated that the reasoning adopted by Higgins and Crispin which is very similar to Besanko’s judgement was erroneous ie. WRONG not unlike yourself :)

Yes, there are any number of perfectly innocent reasons why Hillier might have burned his fingerprints off.

#23
bundah10:01 am, 09 Nov 12

HenryBG said :

bundah said :

4ensic said :

#16

I shall keep it simple, so you have a modicum of a chance to understand.

His Honour Besanko in his written findings uses the expression “not proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. You clearly have difficulty with the definition of the word “reasonable”, let alone understanding the legal concept of “reasonable doubt”. And this is one of the prime reason why trials by jury are seriously flawed, apart from the possible presence of a juror who uses the expression “shut the fark up”.

In the end, the final referee on the matter held that an acquittal must be entered.

I repeat for your benefit. When you have examined the crime scene and been presented with all the salient investigation results, then and only then are you entitled to state your opinion is an informed one.

We’ve reached a stalemate and we simply agree to disagree.I am fully aware of Besanko’s reasoning and consider it to be flawed,particularly in relation to his opinion on Hellier’s consciousness of guilt.However what you fail to accept is that Besanko’s superiors had already stated that the reasoning adopted by Higgins and Crispin which is very similar to Besanko’s judgement was erroneous ie. WRONG not unlike yourself :)

Yes, there are any number of perfectly innocent reasons why Hillier might have burned his fingerprints off.

Yeah he woke up one morning and thought god my fingerprints are so ugly i think i might dip them in caustic soda and then tell everyone i cleaned an engine block and some pavers.Who knows there might even be some learned retards who will believe me!

#24
HenryBG10:05 am, 09 Nov 12

bundah said :

HenryBG said :

bundah said :

4ensic said :

#16

I shall keep it simple, so you have a modicum of a chance to understand.

His Honour Besanko in his written findings uses the expression “not proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. You clearly have difficulty with the definition of the word “reasonable”, let alone understanding the legal concept of “reasonable doubt”. And this is one of the prime reason why trials by jury are seriously flawed, apart from the possible presence of a juror who uses the expression “shut the fark up”.

In the end, the final referee on the matter held that an acquittal must be entered.

I repeat for your benefit. When you have examined the crime scene and been presented with all the salient investigation results, then and only then are you entitled to state your opinion is an informed one.

We’ve reached a stalemate and we simply agree to disagree.I am fully aware of Besanko’s reasoning and consider it to be flawed,particularly in relation to his opinion on Hellier’s consciousness of guilt.However what you fail to accept is that Besanko’s superiors had already stated that the reasoning adopted by Higgins and Crispin which is very similar to Besanko’s judgement was erroneous ie. WRONG not unlike yourself :)

Yes, there are any number of perfectly innocent reasons why Hillier might have burned his fingerprints off.

Yeah he woke up one morning and thought god my fingerprints are so ugly i think i might dip them in caustic soda and then tell everyone i cleaned an engine block and some pavers.Who knows there might even be some learned retards who will believe me!

Well, those not-so-learned retards have to continue to presume he is innocent, even when it’s obvious he was guilty as sin.

It’s hard work doing all that presuming that flies in the face of reality.

#25
bundah10:21 am, 09 Nov 12

NoImRight said :

bundah said :

#13&15

FFS talk about dumb and dumber.Both of you,collectively,make MrG appear intelligent.

Are you both incapable of comprehending why Hillier got away with murder? Obviously not from the pathetic rubbish that you’ve both posted.It’s really very simple,Hillier was found guilty by judge and jury in the first instance.On appeal Higgins and Crispin totally buggered it up,not because i said so, but due to the fact that the highest court in the land ie.the HIGH COURT said so.Once again,for dumb and dumbers benefit the HIGH COURTclearly stated that the reasoning by Higgins and Crispin was erroneous and i should add that Spender(dissenting Judge) was blatantly critical of their flawed reasoning as well.It is no secret that the HIGH COURT have been critical of our learned judges, notably Higgins, for quite some time which is hardly surprising given some of the insane judgements and modus operandi over the last decade.

So unless you two are more qualified and learned than the full bench of the HIGH COURT i suggest you both shut the fark up!

So the judges you agree with are smart and the ones you dont agree with are dumb. We get it. It seems though the ones with the final say dont agree with you.Pity they cant hit a pause button when its a decion you want isnt it? Thats why we have a system. So some nutter on an internet forum doesnt get to decide guilt and innocence based on his random readings and desperate attempts to form an angry mob.

So i happen to agree with the highest court in the land,how awfully wrong of me!

#26
NoImRight11:13 am, 09 Nov 12

bundah said :

NoImRight said :

bundah said :

#13&15

FFS talk about dumb and dumber.Both of you,collectively,make MrG appear intelligent.

Are you both incapable of comprehending why Hillier got away with murder? Obviously not from the pathetic rubbish that you’ve both posted.It’s really very simple,Hillier was found guilty by judge and jury in the first instance.On appeal Higgins and Crispin totally buggered it up,not because i said so, but due to the fact that the highest court in the land ie.the HIGH COURT said so.Once again,for dumb and dumbers benefit the HIGH COURTclearly stated that the reasoning by Higgins and Crispin was erroneous and i should add that Spender(dissenting Judge) was blatantly critical of their flawed reasoning as well.It is no secret that the HIGH COURT have been critical of our learned judges, notably Higgins, for quite some time which is hardly surprising given some of the insane judgements and modus operandi over the last decade.

So unless you two are more qualified and learned than the full bench of the HIGH COURT i suggest you both shut the fark up!

So the judges you agree with are smart and the ones you dont agree with are dumb. We get it. It seems though the ones with the final say dont agree with you.Pity they cant hit a pause button when its a decion you want isnt it? Thats why we have a system. So some nutter on an internet forum doesnt get to decide guilt and innocence based on his random readings and desperate attempts to form an angry mob.

So i happen to agree with the highest court in the land,how awfully wrong of me!

No you happen to agree with people who agreed with the decision you made entirely independantly of knowing a great deal.

Still curious about why you “just ” found out about this and yet are so wrapped up in it you feel the need to be a complet dick to anyone who doesnt agree with you.

I

#27
Alderney1:01 pm, 09 Nov 12

Could I be so bold as to point out that it’s actually all about points of law, and not about innocence and guilt?

#28
bundah2:25 pm, 09 Nov 12

NoImRight said :

bundah said :

NoImRight said :

bundah said :

#13&15

FFS talk about dumb and dumber.Both of you,collectively,make MrG appear intelligent.

Are you both incapable of comprehending why Hillier got away with murder? Obviously not from the pathetic rubbish that you’ve both posted.It’s really very simple,Hillier was found guilty by judge and jury in the first instance.On appeal Higgins and Crispin totally buggered it up,not because i said so, but due to the fact that the highest court in the land ie.the HIGH COURT said so.Once again,for dumb and dumbers benefit the HIGH COURTclearly stated that the reasoning by Higgins and Crispin was erroneous and i should add that Spender(dissenting Judge) was blatantly critical of their flawed reasoning as well.It is no secret that the HIGH COURT have been critical of our learned judges, notably Higgins, for quite some time which is hardly surprising given some of the insane judgements and modus operandi over the last decade.

So unless you two are more qualified and learned than the full bench of the HIGH COURT i suggest you both shut the fark up!

So the judges you agree with are smart and the ones you dont agree with are dumb. We get it. It seems though the ones with the final say dont agree with you.Pity they cant hit a pause button when its a decion you want isnt it? Thats why we have a system. So some nutter on an internet forum doesnt get to decide guilt and innocence based on his random readings and desperate attempts to form an angry mob.

So i happen to agree with the highest court in the land,how awfully wrong of me!

No you happen to agree with people who agreed with the decision you made entirely independantly of knowing a great deal.

Still curious about why you “just ” found out about this and yet are so wrapped up in it you feel the need to be a complet dick to anyone who doesnt agree with you.

I

No dickhead i happen to understand and identify with those i believe possessed clarity in coming to the same conclusions i did ie. the jury Spender and the High Court. Clearly you cannot read between the lines and like the others just don’t get it!

#29
Anna Key9:15 pm, 09 Nov 12

Bundah, any chance you can declare your legal credentials and ability to read and understand caselaw? You seem incredibly sensitive to something you only just found out about, but I wonder what response you expected from posting a (possibly) selective rant accusing 3 different judges of incompetence. If you really want to get your blood boiling, look up the Anu Singh case

#30
HenryBG9:31 pm, 09 Nov 12

Anna Key said :

Bundah, any chance you can declare your legal credentials and ability to read and understand caselaw? You seem incredibly sensitive to something you only just found out about, but I wonder what response you expected from posting a (possibly) selective rant accusing 3 different judges of incompetence. If you really want to get your blood boiling, look up the Anu Singh case

At least Joe didn’t have to endure a frenzy of violence, and at least Anu Singh actually got done and did time for killing him.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

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