Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

A good behaviour order gets rubbed out by a breach?

By johnboy - 21 December 2012 10

The Supreme Court has the intriguing sentencing by Justice Penfold of one “MJ” who was caught mugging two kids at the Belco bowl and nicking their iphone, which is lied about when questioned.

Aside from the normal sad stories this line intrigued me:

The current offence was committed in breach of a good behaviour order imposed in April 2010, but MJ has already been dealt with for another breach of that good behaviour order, so I shall take no further action on it.

Canberra’s crims will be thrilled to know that good behaviour orders max out after one breach.

Then there’s this line:

In short, it means that for the next 15 months you need to stay out of trouble. If you commit another offence during that time, you may find yourself back before this court to be re-sentenced for this offence.

One would think that MJ could stay out of trouble for the rest of his life, like most people, but there’s a fallacy of reasoning there.

He won’t be in trouble if he commits an offence, he’ll be in trouble if he gets caught. It’s a distinction most of us got out heads around in our early teens.

It closes like a graduation ceremony:

MJ , you’ve had a difficult time for most of your life. It would be nice to think that you are now ready to put that behind you and make a new and better life for yourself. I wish you good luck in your efforts. You may sit down.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
10 Responses to
A good behaviour order gets rubbed out by a breach?
DrKoresh 11:53 am 23 Dec 12

MJ?! Michael Jackson back from the dead!? And still getting in trouble for doing naughty things to minors…

IrishPete 9:00 pm 22 Dec 12

bundah said :

It does however say that MJ’s connection with this matter came to light when police executed a search warrant at his home in relation to other offences and found a mobile phone that was identified as having been stolen from one of the victims of the robbery.So given there was no indication or mention of any other phone in the bag other than the black iPhone that was stolen it stands to reason that that is indeed the phone in question.

That’s a fair and reasonable assumption, though one has to wonder why the judge didn’t say so. Even so, whats a secondhand iPhone worth these days? It’s still not the crime of the century, the crime he was being sentenced for – whether he was involved in the robbery we now will never know.

IP.

bundah 1:30 pm 22 Dec 12

IrishPete said :

I think johnboy has this story wrong.

MJ was sentenced for receiving stolen property, a mobile phone.

Regardless of your views on whether he was involved in a “mugging”, that’s not what he was sentenced for. He was originally charged with robbery, but that charge was dropped and replaced with the new charge which he then pleaded guilty to. (What happened behind the scenes to result in this change after over a year, we’ll never know – and of course plea bargaining doesn’t happen in Australia.)

The decision on the GBO may seem odd, but seen in the light of the very minor offence he was sentenced for, it makes a bit more sense. The existing GBO has been extended by 5 months. He has in effect received a 5 month GBO for having in his possession a stolen mobile phone, one which might be worth $10 or might be worth $1000, we do not know. The report doesn’t say that the phone he had was the iPhone.

In fact, if MJ had been named, and johnboy had stated he “was caught mugging two kids at the Belco bowl and nicking their iphone” Riot Act could be accused of defaming him, as there are three possibly inaccurate statements in those few words.

Of course,we could bring back the stocks, or gallows, or transportation, for minor theft.

IP

It does however say that MJ’s connection with this matter came to light when police executed a search warrant at his home in relation to other offences and found a mobile phone that was identified as having been stolen from one of the victims of the robbery.So given there was no indication or mention of any other phone in the bag other than the black iPhone that was stolen it stands to reason that that is indeed the phone in question.

IrishPete 10:48 am 22 Dec 12

I think johnboy has this story wrong.

MJ was sentenced for receiving stolen property, a mobile phone.

Regardless of your views on whether he was involved in a “mugging”, that’s not what he was sentenced for. He was originally charged with robbery, but that charge was dropped and replaced with the new charge which he then pleaded guilty to. (What happened behind the scenes to result in this change after over a year, we’ll never know – and of course plea bargaining doesn’t happen in Australia.)

The decision on the GBO may seem odd, but seen in the light of the very minor offence he was sentenced for, it makes a bit more sense. The existing GBO has been extended by 5 months. He has in effect received a 5 month GBO for having in his possession a stolen mobile phone, one which might be worth $10 or might be worth $1000, we do not know. The report doesn’t say that the phone he had was the iPhone.

In fact, if MJ had been named, and johnboy had stated he “was caught mugging two kids at the Belco bowl and nicking their iphone” Riot Act could be accused of defaming him, as there are three possibly inaccurate statements in those few words.

Of course,we could bring back the stocks, or gallows, or transportation, for minor theft.

IP

54-11 4:29 pm 21 Dec 12

I must admit that I was completely wrong about Penfold J. Having worked for her for many years, and knowing how hard-nosed she was, I confidently predicted at the time she was appointed to the bench that she would be a hanging judge.

Instead, to my disappointment, she is a swinging judge – just swingin’ in the breeze, completely ineffectual.

markus_k 4:12 pm 21 Dec 12

Penfold: I’m sorry MJ, but the Supreme Court must be firm with you. Stop breaking the law, or else!
MJ: Or else what..
Penfold: Or else, we will be very angry with you… and we will bring you back in here again, to tell you how angry we are!

bigM 4:01 pm 21 Dec 12

it appears that Justice Penfold has finally lost the plot completely…its been brewing for a while now

Dacquiri 3:56 pm 21 Dec 12

I would like to see a compilation of Justice Penfold’s sentencing decisions, as my impression is that she is even softer than the rest. Agree that this particular one is an absurdity.

bundah 3:50 pm 21 Dec 12

Our esteemed judiciary devoid of reasoning?? What a terrible thing to say,never for a moment has that been the case in the last decade or so!

LSWCHP 3:37 pm 21 Dec 12

The current offence was committed in breach of a good behaviour order imposed in April 2010, but MJ has already been dealt with for another breach of that good behaviour order, so I shall take no further action on it.

Am I imagining things, or is this statement devoid of reasoning?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site