Rebecca Massey gets 10 years without parole

AcidRose said :

#15
Roadrage771:29 pm, 28 Jul 11

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

She is a “Massey” by marriage only…and has been divorced for many years…!!!!
If you don’t know the Massey’s …then i suggest you shut up!
How dare any of you criticise…?! If one of your own family members committed a crime does that mean you should all be punished and judged?!! Grow up morons!

As for already serving 3 years..that’ is not correct either…she served 12 months only…and let’s not forget she has an innocent little boy who has had his whole life turned upside down…Show some compassion you judgemental scum!
I know the family very well….and will continue to support and love them…! you halfwits can think what you like….all righteous and pompous…Shame on you!
Sterilize them? Morons!!!!
Drug addiction is very real and the cause of this unfortunate situation….and I can hear all the do-gooders and know-it-alls condemning and criticizing this as well..,.It is an illness ….just like anything else!

Now we got us a show!

#15
Roadrage771:29 pm, 28 Jul 11

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

She is a “Massey” by marriage only…and has been divorced for many years…!!!!
If you don’t know the Massey’s …then i suggest you shut up!
How dare any of you criticise…?! If one of your own family members committed a crime does that mean you should all be punished and judged?!! Grow up morons!

As for already serving 3 years..that’ is not correct either…she served 12 months only…and let’s not forget she has an innocent little boy who has had his whole life turned upside down…Show some compassion you judgemental scum!
I know the family very well….and will continue to support and love them…! you halfwits can think what you like….all righteous and pompous…Shame on you!
Sterilize them? Morons!!!!
Drug addiction is very real and the cause of this unfortunate situation….and I can hear all the do-gooders and know-it-alls condemning and criticizing this as well..,.It is an illness ….just like anything else!

vg said :

“This is a crime that I assess towards the lower end of the crime of murder”

If you’re looking for 1 sentence that encapsulates how far out of touch with reality the ACT judiciary is you just got it.

I mean the upper end involves what? Recklessly or deliberately killing someone. Riddle me the difference oh eminent Justice

I would suggest a premeditated murder that is done for pleasure. (eg. someone like Ivan Milat who kidnapped strangers and tortured and killed them for his personal gratification)

The victim was stabbed many many times by Massey, the reason that this is not recorded is, the stab wound has to be a certain depth to be considered as a stab wound.

Massey may get out in ten years, but I’m not hopeful, look at McDougall, he got on heroin whilst in prison, now on methadone, what a joke, and this is the state of the art prison lol, bring out the sniffer dogs, forget about the needle exchange.

“This is a crime that I assess towards the lower end of the crime of murder”

If you’re looking for 1 sentence that encapsulates how far out of touch with reality the ACT judiciary is you just got it.

I mean the upper end involves what? Recklessly or deliberately killing someone. Riddle me the difference oh eminent Justice

A.C.T. Supreme Court

Other ACT Courts and Tribunal
Publications
Contact Us

Home
About the Court
ACT Court of Appeal
Public
Practitioners
Forms
Services
Media

Useful Links

Supreme
Sentences
R v Massey

R v Massey SCC 168 of 2010
Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +1000

Massey7.htm Size: 48kb
Date: July 29 2011

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

SUPREME COURT OF THE

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE GRAY

SCC No 168 of 2010

THE QUEEN

and

REBECCA ANNE MASSEY

CANBERRA

9.38 AM, THURSDAY, 28 JULY 2011

HIS HONOUR: On 3 May 2011, after a trial before a jury, Rebecca Anne Massey was found guilty of the murder of Elizabeth Booshand on 28 July 2008. On that finding, I recorded a conviction against Ms Massey for that offence.

Ms Booshand died as a result of stab wounds inflicted by Ms Massey during a physical altercation at the Charnwood Shopping Centre near the front of the Regal Chicken shop. The incident took place where Ms Booshand’s daughter, Ms Massey’s son, the son of a friend and respective partners of Ms Booshand and Ms Massey as well as the public were present.

Ms Massey and Ms Booshand had a previous history of animosity over a number of years and I accept that it had grown worse in the weeks prior to this offence. When Ms Booshand moved into the Charnwood area, Ms Massey saw her more frequently and mainly verbal altercations occurred. An incident a few weeks earlier had resulted in Ms Booshand attempting to physically assault Ms Massey.

Ms Massey had taken to carrying a small knife when she went to the Charnwood shops, on the basis that she said she was afraid Ms Booshand was going to stab her and she wanted to be in a position to defend herself. That is a concerning feature of this case. It’s clear that Ms Booshand was not physically a match for Ms Massey because of her health problems, but I do accept that she had demonstrated aggression towards Ms Massey, not only on previous occasions, but on the night in question.

On that night when Ms Massey saw Ms Booshand in the chicken shop, she left the shop but instead of returning to her home, she remained outside and I am satisfied that she loudly and aggressively directed comments to Ms Booshand, who, for her part, took up the aggression and involved herself in the physical altercation that followed. That physical altercation was separated by Ms Massey’s partner, Michael Marshall, and Ms Massey was told by him to go.

She did not and Ms Booshand came back at her. Ms Massey described in her evidence Ms Booshand grabbing Ms Massey’s hair and she grabbing Ms Booshand’s in return. Ms Massey said that punches were thrown by both and it was after that that Ms Massey got the knife out and stabbed Ms Booshand once in the chest and twice on the left hand side of her body.

The jury’s finding with this factual background I take to mean that they were satisfied that at least Ms Massey was recklessly indifferent to the probability of causing Ms Booshand’s death. I understand from Mr Lundy’s submissions to me that the prosecution does not content otherwise. It may also be accepted that her killing was not premeditated, although a serious feature of the crime is Ms Massey having the knife in her possession, on the basis of what she says was to put herself in a position to defend herself against Ms Booshand.

I accept that the crime was not premeditated, that Ms Massey did not necessarily expect that she would encounter Ms Booshand that evening, and that Ms Massey did not arm herself with the knife for the express purpose of harming Ms Booshand. However, the jury’s verdict showed that they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that whatever Ms Massey said was her perception of Ms Booshand’s intentions towards her, she was not justified in using the knife to stab Ms Booshand and that in doing so she was recklessly indifferent to the probability of causing death. I proceed to determine the matter on that basis.

At the time of the crime, it appears that Ms Massey may well have been suffering from an undiagnosed bipolar disorder. Just prior to the offending, she had sought to address her heroin addiction. She had been prescribed Valium. In Dr Allnutt’s psychiatric opinion that was tendered on the sentencing hearing, he thought that the absence of proper treatment for the bipolar disorder could have resulted in Ms Massey being more vulnerable to experiencing hypermanic symptoms.

One of the consequences would have made Ms Massey more prone to impulsive behaviour. That does not affect the awareness that she had with respect to her actions, but it does provide some explanation of why she engaged Ms Booshand in the manner that she did and is a factor in my assessment of her culpability for this crime.

It is true that after the event Ms Massey lied to the police and took steps to involve others in disposing of the knife and the clothing that she was wearing. I take those actions to be more out of panic in the knowledge of her involvement in the stabbing and do not take them to be from a consciousness of guilt that would otherwise exacerbate the crime.

Ms Massey has an extensive criminal record as an adult. She is now 38 years of age. Her offending is coupled with and apparently coextensive with a very long-standing history of drug use and abuse, which appears to have commenced well before she first came before the courts. Those circumstances limit the leniency that I might extend to her as a consequence of the commission of this offence.

On the other hand, I must be careful not to impose a punishment that is not disproportionate to the objective seriousness of the crime. It is important to note that despite persisting offending disclosed by her criminal history in respect of relatively minor offences, it was not until 1998 that Ms Massey served a sentence of three months imprisonment for various offences.

After the commission of the current offence, Ms Massey was called upon to serve her only further sentence of actual imprisonment, and that was 14 days imprisonment for minor theft and breach of a good behaviour order. These are the only sentences of imprisonment on her record that she has been required to actually serve.

Although Ms Massey’s previous offending demonstrates a persistent disobedience to the law, its causes, rooted as it is in drug taking, which is capable of being redressed, does not necessarily call for the factors of retribution, deterrence and protection of society to predominate in this case.

I’ve considered the victim impact statements made in this matter. Those statements show the continuing loss experienced by Ms Booshand’s family, her husband and daughters as a result of her death. I do not attempt to describe that loss. The statements speak for themselves and demonstrate the impact of the crime on others.

There is also the factor that Ms Massey has not expressed remorse for her actions that night. That is a factor of some moment. Although I can understand the circumstances that she sees as in her eyes justifying her actions, nonetheless to take the life of another human being is deserving of condemnation, and any punishment imposed must reflect this circumstance. The lack of remorse must be reflected in that assessment.

A further circumstance is the fact that Ms Massey was the subject of good behaviour orders at the relevant time. Those orders were in one case in respect of driving offences and, in the other, minor theft. Their distance from the subject offence is apparent. In neither case do I consider they attract the condemnation that might otherwise apply to conditional release upon offences more closely related to the charge under consideration.

A real issue is whether Ms Massey has taken steps to address her long?standing multi-drug-abuse issues. In that regard, I am heavily influenced by the assessment made in the Probation and Parole report. It usefully summarises the position, which I accept.

That report said:

“Ms Massey’s life from her mid-teens was moulded by a number of factors. She entered a relationship that resulted in her becoming a mother at an early age, as well as introducing her to dependence and abuse of prescription medication and heroin. Criminal prosecutions went hand in hand with her life of substance dependence. Ms Massey’s subsequent marriage to a person well known in ACT legal and criminal circles provided a profile linking her intrinsically with an offending cohort.

This, along with ongoing substance dependence, almost guaranteed ongoing offending behaviour. Ms Massey reflected on the 13 or 14 years that she was married, that she now felt ripped off. She stated:

‘What I did do with my life, I could have done something with my life instead of just waiting around for him.’”

It is reasonable to portray Ms Massey’s actions on the night of the offence against this background of substance abuse, criminal behaviour and antisocial attitudes and associations that have been her life since the age of 16. Such a history would generally result in significant pessimism as to Ms Massey’s likelihood of successfully extricating herself from this cycle of dependence and criminality.

Three years have passed since the offence and those circumstances have presented Ms Massey with a prolonged period in the community to demonstrate her capacity for change. Ms Massey claimed the recent 21 months on bail was the first time since she was a teenager that she had not use illicit substances and benzodiazepines. Her claim is largely supported by monitoring conducted by this service. Ms Massey stated that during this time she had almost completely turned her life around.”

The report goes on to say:

“Ms Massey’s risk of further offending must be considered against the criminogenic risk factors already outlined. Upon her release to the community, following the punishment deemed appropriate by the court, Ms Massey does at least have the experience of a successful period of rehabilitation to fall back on. Her capacity to avoid further offending will be directly linked to her success in picking her rehabilitation up where she left off.”

Certainly at the present time I accept that Ms Massey has support from her apparently stable relationship with her present partner and support from her mother, stepfather and adult daughter. These are matters which I weigh in considering Ms Massey’s subjective circumstances, if those relationships can be maintained. Her mental health issues, according to Dr Allnut, are being adequately managed. She is responding to drug and alcohol counselling and opiate treatment service. These are matters also pertinent to assessing Ms Massey’s potential risk of re?offending.

This is a crime that I assess towards the lower end of the crime of murder. That is not to derogate from the seriousness that the crime should be viewed. Considerations of deterrence and retribution call for a significant sentence of imprisonment as the only appropriate punishment. I must mark the community’s abhorrence for conduct, which is here involved in taking the life of a fellow human being. However, as I have said, I assess the crime as one towards the lower end of the spectrum of circumstances under which this most serious crime might be committed. I give weight to what I regard as Ms Massey’s relatively favourable prospects of rehabilitation in fixing a non-parole period in this case.

Ms Massey, would you please stand? On the charge that on 28 July 2008 you murdered Elizabeth Booshand, I sentence you to imprisonment for a period of 16 years, to date from 18 May 2010, to take into account the time that you have spent in custody in respect of this offence. That period of imprisonment is to expire on 17 May 2026. I set a non-parole period of 10 years, to commence on 18 May 2010 and to end on 17 May 2020, which is the earliest date on which you will be eligible to be released on parole. You may be seated.

MR LUNDY: Your Honour, there’s just one minor thing. You referred to the date of the offence as 28 July. It’s 25 July.

HIS HONOUR: I am sorry. I do amend that.

MR LUNDY: Thank you, your Honour.

ADJOURNED [9.53 am]
Revision: 1 Print as PDF

trickyxr said :

Tooks said :

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

Correct me if I am wrong but didnt she only get locked up when she was found guilty earlier this year

Yes, 3 years already served, 7 further years before any chance of parole, 16 year sentence.

Tooks said :

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

Correct me if I am wrong but didnt she only get locked up when she was found guilty earlier this year

I’m actually satisfied with that sentence. I’m sure that will be of great relief to the family of Ms Booshand…

As has been stated on RA more than once; “the greatest predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour… I don’t see Massey being out in ten; she cannot possibly “behave” that long…

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought there was no provision in ACT law for remissions for good behaviour?

Give Justice Gray some credit, I mean he did give McDougall the maximum, to reflect the extreme level of brutality of the 2 murders he was convicted of.

I can’t say I am entirely disappointed to be honest.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!).

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 :

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Watch for chicken sales to go up in Charnwood.

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

shirty_bear said :

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

Yay – a conviction.

I thought the same thing. Tough crowd.

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

Yay – a conviction.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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!