Ainslie mother breaches bail - bailed again by the CJ

Peterh, I do believe I am an idiot and can see what you were getting at and I for one will STFU…..lol

Gaol not Goal.

(nodding quietly and slowing getting back under rock I once came)

Peterh, I think you will find that “Jail” is now an accepted way to spell “Gaol” in Australia.

To be brutally honest I prefer to spell it Jail (and do). It makes more sense to me. However the Americans can keep thier imperial measurement system and driving on the “right” side of the road.

Wikipedia quote: Gaol is an early Modern English spelling for jail with the same pronunciation and meaning. Although jail is now more common, gaol is still the favoured spelling in parts of the Commonwealth of Nations, for example in Australia.[7] However, due to American influence in Australia[citation needed], the spelling “jail” is now more common in popular contexts such as the media, the spelling “gaol” being mainly retained in historical use and in the legal profession.

Mick 1965 wrote “Thumper/Maelinar, (Corrected his mis-spelling of you name Mael – maybe he was pissed?)
Sorry fellas but I have dealt with Higgins and I know him to be a wise and fair chap.”

What you have dealt with him once? Twice? I have dealt with him on hundreds of occassions and have a different opinion to you.

Wise and Fair are not terms I would use in the same sentence as the CJ. Enough said.

Since being Russell Crowe-d by his deranged son, Higgins has become a bleeding heart for anyone who he perceives might have mental issues.

DJ, i think you mean Gaol?

I agree, the problem stems from the inability to remove the offenders from society, incarcerate them and rehabilitate them. If they don’t respond to rehab, keep them in. we should have parole hearings and parole officers. We should also utilise the ankle tracking devices for all parolees and if they break the conditions of their parole, back they go.

we need more of a zero tolerance approach, not a slap on the wrist, to get it through the heads of some of these offenders that they will be punished. as for human rights (here it comes – I am waiting for the flaming) if you break the law, and your crime is particularly heinous, why should you receive the same rights as law abiding citizens? I agree to basic principles of human rights, but disagree to the ability to have access to the internet, phones etc, when some members of our community don’t have access to the same, be it by financial situation or location.

I am not too sure that the CJ is all there. Sure he has been around for a long time but I would be very interested in a comparison between him and an interstate Judge in a similar position. I would bet a significant amount of my hard earned that his record for goal time for serious offences would be significantly lower… and I don’t believe that the community would be satisfied with this. My taxes pay for this service and why should I be happy? I consider Higgins beyond his used by date by many years.

Bail was refused in the Magistrates Court for good reason. When granted the simple conditions were not able to be complied with. No second chance IMHO. Why was bail granted again?

Mick1965 – “Yes, ACT does seem to sentence softly – but are all ACT residents hiding in their houses living in fear? I don’t think so and this is really trivial.”

Of course not all Mick, but significantly for me (making this not so trivial), my mother is in fear of being broken into again and lives a life of checking locks and alarms. Why? Because there is so little deterrent for offenders going before the Courts that she sees it as being inevitable it will happen again. Interestingly she doesn’t see the fault of this lying at the feet of Police either.

Who do I blame? The parents? No actually. I believe that in the majority of cases the parents have little to do with the actions of their offspring after all who wants a son or daughter hooked on drugs? I blame the Courts and Correctional Institutions and I would be interested in hearing anybody defend either of them and say that they do a good job rehabilitating offenders.

We need to bring in an better system to recognise and address the needs and wants of the community when it comes to the Courts. The first step was to build a local goal…. done that now what?

Agreed Spidey.

I think some here are very quick to judge.

You have nothing to FEAR if have done nothing wrong. These days, you have nothing to FEAR even if you have done something wrong.

You seem to have taken my wording of FEAR to the extreme.

Mick1965 quote: “does not seem to have done harm”

I beg to differ…. Being that neglectful to your children has done a huge amount of harm, whether it be physical and/or mental harm. This was not “victimless” incident.

We are all commenting from the outside, so it is a little speculative. We will all find out in due course, if her bahaviour is due to mental health issues or just plain nasty (so to speak). If it is due to mental health issues, lets hope she gets the help that is obviously needed. If it’s found that she’s “just bad” then let hope the court deals with her appropriately.

Spideydog – you WANT to live in fear?

This all becomes very different when you have a sister, brother or a kid who you know is a good person and they do stupid things (like take drugs and hold up a store).

Then you wonder just how severe the punishment should be….

I did comment. I said you are over reacting – she isn’t a murderer and does not seem to have done harm. She seems to be negligent in care to herself (and her kids) and I am guessing this is because she has lost the plot.

Yes, ACT does seem to sentence softly – but are all ACT residents hiding in their houses living in fear? I don’t think so and this is really trivial.

That’s my comment.

Where people don’t repercussions for thier actions, there is no incentive to do the right thing. It makes it easier for someone to make bad choices.

“When I can do X and the repercussions are 0 or next to nothing…..Why should I change or stop doing X behaviour” …. No repercussions = no incentive, on fear.

I thought the woman’s family had come over to help her comply with bail conditions.

There are just some people who do not have respect for “the law” and do not care to comply with any court orders. I know a couple of women who continually thwart court orders and in reality there is very little that would assist them with complying.

In general, I feel that consequences on mothers are very “soft”. When in fact, parenting is a very serious responsibility and I feel screwing that up should reap serious penalties.

@ Thumper,

I fully agree with your points. If Magistrates could interpret how the public feel certain issues should be dealt with, then crooks might think twice before firstly, breaking the law, and secondly, breaching bail conditions.
Unfortunately it’s not an offence to breach bail. Not that it would make a difference considering the light sentences that are handed out in the ACT.
No I don’t need anyone to tell me that some people on bail are innocent till proven guilty. They are all innocent here!!!!
Finally, fear needs to be restored in the crooks minds before they go out and do whatever they feel, the only way to do that is to sentence appropriately. A sawn off shot gun in a shop keepers face gets a suspended sentence. What druggie would care about that????

I think Higgins is smarter than you and in a better position to decide.

I was recently disgruntled by a decision made regarding a different case. The case was very personal to me and I thought/think it was a soft verdict. But this is a guy who repeatedly raped children for possibly 50 yoears or more.

Sounds like this Ainslie mum is just a bit of a looney! Also seems she has done very little harm to others and you seem to have a very black and white approach.

Do you still speed?

You’ve never broken the law?

Thumper/Maelnar,

Sorry fellas but I have dealt with Higgins and I know him to be a wise and fair chap.

What I have read of your posts (and I could be wrong here, but) leads me to conclude that any uncaring, selfish, self serving, nasty, anti social bitches would more likely be yourselves! 🙂

She did not comply with the rules society had instructed her to follow, due to circumstances that she initiated. That a good enough reason ?

FFS is it an ever decreasing minority group – those who take the legal process seriously ?

IMHO, Higgins simply has a better understanding of people with mental illness than most magistrates/judges. Nobody here has really made a case for why this woman should be put away.

If she is mentally ill then she would have all sorts of problems keeping appointments.’

I hope she gets the help she needs.

Ok, so after they are appointed there is nothing we can do but to pay extortion money to get rid of them? Where is the accountability to the community? To anybody in fact? I see the judicial system in the ACT as being softer than a marshmallow and every time a Judge comes from interstate it gets roasted by them.

If the government enacts legislation with mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences (rape, murder etc) surely the doddering and absent minded on the bench have no choice?

Do you support mandatory minimum sentencing?

Sorry DJ, but the bench is not a political issue. How they are selected and appointed may be, but once they’re in, they are untouchable. (separation of powers under Westminster etc) NSW has a long standing policy of appointing former solicitors known to have a penchant for not gaoling people. Means the government cant shout loud about law and order and stiffer penalties knowing that it’s not actually going to cost them anything. Not that that would ever happen here of course.

Closest solution I can come up with is to dangle a couple of fat golden handshakes to encourage early retirement, but it wont be cheap.

You can drink that stuff too?

DJ, you been drinkin’ moonshine again?

My mistake – I did actually mean to refer to Higgins… rage making my hands shake while I type.

In fairness to Magistrates, it was actually a decision handed down by a Judge (Higgins) of the Supreme Court.

If I recall correctly, she was initially refused bail by a Magistrate three times prior to applying to the Supreme Court, and getting it first time. You’ve got to wonder why a Judge (or maybe it’s just Higgins) felt so differently to the Magistrate about granting bail.

DJ said :

Another case of Magistrates and lawyers not being accountable to the community.

Election season is around the corner – all parties should be all over issues like this.

they should, but they aren’t – there are too many other opportunities to score points – datacentres, land sales, the NCA & Light rail… all much more interesting than a obviously mentally ill individual.

Another case of Magistrates and lawyers not being accountable to the community.

Election season is around the corner – all parties should be all over issues like this.

peterh said :

Mr Evil said :

V8-Prius, shut yer mouth – or I’ll ask the cuzzies to send Helen Clark over!

with fresh stocks of velcro gloves for you?

Mmmmmmmmmm, I love the smell of lanoline in the morning!

Please comply V8

Helen Clark – shudder

Mr Evil said :

V8-Prius, shut yer mouth – or I’ll ask the cuzzies to send Helen Clark over!

with fresh stocks of velcro gloves for you?

V8-Prius, shut yer mouth – or I’ll ask the cuzzies to send Helen Clark over!

Once again we are indebted to out friendly trans-Tasman neighbours for sending over more human filth. First it was Russell Crowe, now this bitch.

I agree with Jean Claude! Completely

Ter, restoring bail

Who’da thunk it?

How about the subject of the whole matter (and consumer of taxpayer-funded services) faces disciplinary action?!

This is typical of courts. It’s no wonder that magistrates dont get any respect. These people breach the magistrates orders, and it seems the magistrates are more than happy for this to happen.

My suggestion:

Bail is a luxury, you breach it, you stay in lock up till your hearing. End of story.

So the screeching harridan breached her bail? Anyone surprised?

She grossly neglected her children, made threats against the person looking after her other children, behaved like a banshee in court and was bailed.Surely she she have been held in custody or sent off for psychological evaluation.

Can I suggest the lawyer face disciplinary action since, if you accept his argument, he did not properly explain the bail conditions to her?