Amber Jane Westin – In profile

johnboy 18 November 2006 64

The Canberra Times has put together a comprehensive profile (With a picture! Welcome to to 1996!) of Amber Jane Westin the alleged culprit from last Tuesday’s tragedy in Woden.

It seems increasingly clear from the reportage that the incident does not fall under what most of us would consider to be a “pursuit”. Which is not to say that questioning the pursuit guidelines makes the questioner “anti-police”.

It also seems clear, in my opinion, that Amber Westin has a complete disregard for the law and, also in my opinion, the judges and magistrates who in the past refused to lock her up should consider their own part in this tragedy.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
64 Responses to Amber Jane Westin – In profile
smack smack 9:58 pm 27 Nov 06

Have a look at this press statement from the US. A Police Department that actually defends itself rather than letting the local paper make up whatever it wants!

vg vg 3:14 pm 22 Nov 06

“Magistrates can’t sentence people to look after themselves”

Hence the existence of prisons. If they can’t look after themselves a little gaol time may adjust the maintenance deficiency

ozmreeee ozmreeee 2:35 pm 22 Nov 06

Sorry, KandyA, I’ll save my sympathy for the innocent people in this tragedy and others who despite life dealing them a shitty hand still manage to keep within the law.

You are certainly entitlted to your opinion, I respect that, but the malice you see is based on the fact that ordinary law abiding citizens are sick and tired of these people blaming everybody and everything but themselves.

KandyA KandyA 2:12 pm 22 Nov 06

the poor dear girl, I wonder if she had any sort of support in her now (or was it already) completely and utterly fkt life, that she would have got to the state of driving scattered, down a road when she should not have been.
Magistrates can’t sentence people to look after themselves, or for their friends and family to reform them. The social programs that deal with people in need dont come cheap, and have to contend with obvious cost and undemonstrable preventative benefits, in the face of malicious carping about bleeding hearts etc, (you know, by most of you) and general penny-pinching for any such $$losing program. So, with apologies to Bert, whose loss and pain I hope I never experience, I think ive made the case that you, the riot-act carpers, are responsible for this tragedy. Your malice ills me.
At least spare a thought for her child, who will surely need some love and care to avoid some similar booner fate.

vg vg 12:35 pm 22 Nov 06

“Why weren’t the police authorised to take her arse back into custody once she breached?”

They are and they did. She also has to be presented before a Court once she’s been taken into custody

nyssa76 nyssa76 11:26 am 22 Nov 06

Not having a go at coppers (for a change). I just think the magistrate has scrambled eggs for brains.

nyssa76 nyssa76 11:25 am 22 Nov 06

She’ll get a “slap on the wrist” for breaching her bail conditions.

Why weren’t the police authorised to take her arse back into custody once she breached? I mean it’s not like it’s rocket science. She knew the conditions of her bail and didn’t give a damn.

Hell, the fact she skipped a hearing prior to the accident only reinforces the fact that she doesn’t give a shit.

Danman Danman 11:24 am 22 Nov 06

Put her in a sphere of water david Blaine style with oxygen and nutrients delivered remotely – would be kinda cool 🙂

ozmreeee ozmreeee 11:22 am 22 Nov 06

So, if she has breached the conditions of her bail, why hasn’t bail been revoked? O thought the idea was that a sum of money was posted and that in the event of a breach it (the bail money) was forfeited and the accused was remanded until a new bail hearing was conducted – at which time some p*ss-weak Magistrate would release the accused again.

Mr_Shab Mr_Shab 11:15 am 22 Nov 06

Now that’s just cruel and unusual, Mr. E.

Mr Evil Mr Evil 11:10 am 22 Nov 06

Or, the covering in honey and staking over a Bull Dykes nest?

Thumper Thumper 10:45 am 22 Nov 06

I prefer the traditional covering with honey and staking over a bull ants nest.

Mr Evil Mr Evil 10:41 am 22 Nov 06

If found guilty, tie her up in Civic for a day and let the general public decide what punishment she should recieve.

A size ten steelcapped Redback up the ‘birth canal’ should make her think long and hard about being an arsehole!

snahon snahon 10:36 am 22 Nov 06

As time drags on so does the degree to which Miss Westin appears to have total disregard to societies laws, punishments and ones own obligations.

If found guilty, I hope she receives the maximum penalties available. If not found guilty then I hope she learns some valuable lessons – though I doubt it.

smack smack 10:25 am 22 Nov 06

I see in todays CT that Miss Westin breached her bail conditions by not reporting to Police on time. Bail was opposed yet the Magistrate still gave her another chance.

It also states that she lied to Police and Police suspect she left her child at home, alone.

Poor thing it must be really hard to attend a Police station once a day!

el el 9:48 am 22 Nov 06

As far as I remember there was a campaign a coupla years ago to report anyone throwing butts out the window to the City Ranger. They sent out a little leaflet with the number to call. I’d expect without proof, you’d only receive a warning of some sort…But if you were to be reported several times, then a fine could be issued.

VYBerlinaV8 VYBerlinaV8 9:37 am 22 Nov 06

Perhaps what’s called for is not necessarily harsher sentencing but earlier sentencing. I live next door to a copper who continually brings the same shitbags in, and continually has magistrates let them off with warnings, cautions, good behaviour bonds, etc. My thought is that if you did something serious enough to warrant being arrested, charged and taken to court that perhaps there should be some sort of penalty. Where I went to highschool it was basically common knowledge that if the coppers caught you the idea was to cry and blame peer pressure.

In our efforts to gain more freedom, we are becoming more like the US – having a more regimented society is not necessarily a problem, it just means people have a narrower sphere of acceptable behaviour within which to live.

S4anta S4anta 8:56 am 21 Nov 06

the article is nothing but emotive pap.

ozmreeee ozmreeee 8:51 am 21 Nov 06

I guess one of the basic tenets of our legal system – the presumption of innocence, works both for and against us.

In the instance of the cigarette butt throwers, smack has outlined above a completely plausible explanation for the incident.

The fact that I saw a hand protruding from the car at the very point of seeing the flying butt is sufficient proof for me. However just for a moment spare a thought for the magistrate. Two people in court – both presumably respectable, law abiding citizens except one is accused of unlawfully discarding “dangerous litter in a high fire risk period”. His word against mine – and no tie breaker for Solomon to determine the truth.

In such circumstances, I would reluctantly accept the judgement based on failure to provide unimpeachable proof.

It’s not the weighing up of evidence and a (perhaps subjective) assessment of the relative credibility of witnesses with which I have issue. My concern is that the system fails us after the legal process has determined guilt.

Ms Westin is entitled to a fair hearing in a legallly convened court. While the reports we read are damning they are not evidence per se.

Firstly, I hope that Ms Westin is not able to avoid a verdict based on the facts because of some pathetic legal loophole (yes, I know the law must be applied without prejudice and is there to protect us all).

Secondly, IF Ms Westin is found guilty, that the punishment will be commensurate with the crime she has committed and not diluted because of some misguided perception of diminished responsibility.

OK, I promise to go back to my corner and stay away from the sermon pulpit for the rest of the day 🙂

smack smack 8:46 pm 20 Nov 06

“A slap on the wrist for stealing it and a $2000 fine?”

A $2000 here in the ACT. Not likely. I know of a person who went to court over unregistered and uninsured vehicle. The traffic tickets for each offence is about $400 each. The Magistrate gave him $200 for each. Go to court and get your fine cut in half!

“I’d always wondered what the police would do if I reported somebody throwing a lit butt out the window.”

The problem you would face here is the standard of proof. Unless there was more than one of you that saw it happen and you both provided statements, it would be your word against the butt tosser. Even if the two of you provided statements and went to court, this dead shit would come up with an excuse like, “Someone flicked the butt on my windscreen and it blew off whilst I was driving. Its not my fault, I didnt know it was there.” The ACT magistrate would probably believe that and let them off.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter


Search across the site