Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Anthony Paton off the roads until 2016

By johnboy 6 January 2014 36

The day Anthony Paton killed his son and ruined the life of the woman he hit on the wrong side of the road he was unlicensed, driving an unregistered car, and wildly drunk at 0.281.

His sentencing has gone online:

I now sentence you to imprisonment for four years and four months for culpable driving causing the death of Andrew Paton and for two years and six months for the culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm to Ciala Myers. The grievous bodily harm sentence will be served so as to add eight months to the total sentence, resulting in a head sentence of five years with a non-parole period of two years and nine months. But for your assistance in the administration of justice, I would have set the head sentence at six years with a non-parole of three and a half years.

The sentence will be backdated to 25 July this year, when you were remanded in custody, and so it will run until 24 July 2018. The effect the backdating and the non-parole period is that you will be eligible for parole, at the earliest, in about 29 months, being 24 April 2016.

You are also disqualified from driving indefinitely until such time as your disqualification is set aside by order of a court.

You may sit down, Mr Paton.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
36 Responses to
Anthony Paton off the roads until 2016
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Blen_Carmichael 5:35 pm 11 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

I don’t want to be too specific about the work I have done and/or do, but others on here clearly know who I am.

IP

Mm. Can’t say that really adds much to the discussion.

IrishPete 10:19 pm 10 Jan 14

vet111 said :

IP, at the risk of getting into a ‘mine is bigger than yours’ argument, I’m more than happy to provide my qualifications for your consideration. I have a degree in psychology, majoring in criminology and sociology. I have a law degree and a graduate diploma in legal practice, majoring in criminal law and administrative law. I have a masters in justice studies, and am partway through a second masters in a legal field unrelated to criminal justice. So yes, I think I’m probably pretty qualified to pass comment on these sort of stories.

I am not trolling, and I assure you I’m not posting on here under a different name. I recognise that my comment about your university was a bit snippy, and I apologise to you and the university for being elitist in my attitude. That was uncalled for.

What I do not apologise for, however, is my initial comment. You have made it quite clear, in both this and the marriage equality thread, that you are not interested in educating yourself about the law and are, in fact, quite ignorant of the way that important legislative provisions and the justice process itself works. Instead, you revert to a ‘well, that’s not the way it should work’ position and then start claiming some superiority because of your qualifications. That’s not productive, it does make you look a bit simple and it just frustrates the hell out of those of us that want to participate in an educated, considerate discussion about the issue at hand. I’m not sure if you’re being deliberately antagonistic (I don’t think so, because you seem to genuinely believe what you’re saying) but it’s not productive.

Now, if you’d like to properly debate the merits or otherwise of this judgement, I’ve already shared my thoughts on this sentence (see my first post). I’d welcome the opportunity to hear your thoughts, but it would be tremendously useful if you would do a little research first – like read the actual judgement.

No offence taken. It was a crappy university with a great head of school and mentor. Betsy Stanko if you want to look her up.

I never did take issue with the sentence, just the discount for cooperation, which seemed odd given that he had pleaded not guilty. As you kindly pointed out, the judgement explained that this was a new arrangement. My bad. Though I do question the appropriateness of those new arrangements. (And the existing discount for guilty pleas, which seems to be too easily given.)

I can’t agree at all with you second paragraph. I actually do know rather a lot about how the system actually works, having worked in it in a few different contexts – seen the defendants a few hours after arrest, sometimes been present when they are arrested, seen them a few hours after sentence, sometimes been present when they are sentenced and contributed to the process, read all the stuff on files that never makes it into the pubic domain. Not the summary sanitised stuff we get fed by (or through) the media and all the actors in it, but the real story. A deliberate choice of mine to get out of the ivory tower and into the thick of it. I don’t want to be too specific about the work I have done and/or do, but others on here clearly know who I am.

There are very few people posting on RiotACT who actually seem to have worked within the criminal justice system – a few refer to partners who work in it, but that’s hardly the same as first hand knowledge.

I think the sentence he received was not bad for Canberra, but I don’t claim to know all his circumstances.

IP

vet111 8:59 am 10 Jan 14

IP, at the risk of getting into a ‘mine is bigger than yours’ argument, I’m more than happy to provide my qualifications for your consideration. I have a degree in psychology, majoring in criminology and sociology. I have a law degree and a graduate diploma in legal practice, majoring in criminal law and administrative law. I have a masters in justice studies, and am partway through a second masters in a legal field unrelated to criminal justice. So yes, I think I’m probably pretty qualified to pass comment on these sort of stories.

I am not trolling, and I assure you I’m not posting on here under a different name. I recognise that my comment about your university was a bit snippy, and I apologise to you and the university for being elitist in my attitude. That was uncalled for.

What I do not apologise for, however, is my initial comment. You have made it quite clear, in both this and the marriage equality thread, that you are not interested in educating yourself about the law and are, in fact, quite ignorant of the way that important legislative provisions and the justice process itself works. Instead, you revert to a ‘well, that’s not the way it should work’ position and then start claiming some superiority because of your qualifications. That’s not productive, it does make you look a bit simple and it just frustrates the hell out of those of us that want to participate in an educated, considerate discussion about the issue at hand. I’m not sure if you’re being deliberately antagonistic (I don’t think so, because you seem to genuinely believe what you’re saying) but it’s not productive.

Now, if you’d like to properly debate the merits or otherwise of this judgement, I’ve already shared my thoughts on this sentence (see my first post). I’d welcome the opportunity to hear your thoughts, but it would be tremendously useful if you would do a little research first – like read the actual judgement.

Thumper 8:43 am 10 Jan 14

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

IrishPete said :

howeph said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

Jeepers. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

IP asks a tongue in cheek question and you guys/gals jump on him; again. Showing your insecurity much?

They are trolls, howeph, it’s what they do. They can’t help it. Pity them, do not put them down, further threatening their self-esteem.

None of them has the slightest clue what they are talking about most of the time, particularly not in the criminal justice field. (feel free to post your qualifications and experience peeps.) That’s the only possible explanation for not recognising actual knowledge and experience (15+ years of it, across several different jurisdictions; 20+ if I count a role on the fringes of the CJS).

In fact, they are probably all the same person, sadly posting under different identities.

Everyone always wants the last word on these threads, me included, but I think I shall leave this one to the trolls to cannibalise each other. It won’t be a pretty sight or a pleasant sound.

IP

I enjoy your usually thoughtful posts, IP, and am often on your side. As I was when I posted about the hatin’.

But you do have a habit of labelling other posters as trolls when you disagree with them, or they disagree with you, or they ask you for sources, which could be why today’s conversation has taken this unseemly turn.

IP is right. Just ask him, he’ll tell you. And anyone that disagrees is a troll, or ignorant, or stupid, or in the pay of big oil/big law/ big coal/ big police/ big nuke/ big pig/ big whatever… *

* Citation needed

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 12:39 am 10 Jan 14

Pork Hunt said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

IrishPete said :

howeph said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

Jeepers. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

IP asks a tongue in cheek question and you guys/gals jump on him; again. Showing your insecurity much?

They are trolls, howeph, it’s what they do. They can’t help it. Pity them, do not put them down, further threatening their self-esteem.

None of them has the slightest clue what they are talking about most of the time, particularly not in the criminal justice field. (feel free to post your qualifications and experience peeps.) That’s the only possible explanation for not recognising actual knowledge and experience (15+ years of it, across several different jurisdictions; 20+ if I count a role on the fringes of the CJS).

In fact, they are probably all the same person, sadly posting under different identities.

Everyone always wants the last word on these threads, me included, but I think I shall leave this one to the trolls to cannibalise each other. It won’t be a pretty sight or a pleasant sound.

IP

That acusation is ridiculous. In your expert opinion, should I lawyer up and get a defamation case going against you?

No, he should sue you for not having a source…

But I always gave a source!!!

Pork Hunt 9:47 pm 09 Jan 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

IrishPete said :

howeph said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

Jeepers. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

IP asks a tongue in cheek question and you guys/gals jump on him; again. Showing your insecurity much?

They are trolls, howeph, it’s what they do. They can’t help it. Pity them, do not put them down, further threatening their self-esteem.

None of them has the slightest clue what they are talking about most of the time, particularly not in the criminal justice field. (feel free to post your qualifications and experience peeps.) That’s the only possible explanation for not recognising actual knowledge and experience (15+ years of it, across several different jurisdictions; 20+ if I count a role on the fringes of the CJS).

In fact, they are probably all the same person, sadly posting under different identities.

Everyone always wants the last word on these threads, me included, but I think I shall leave this one to the trolls to cannibalise each other. It won’t be a pretty sight or a pleasant sound.

IP

That acusation is ridiculous. In your expert opinion, should I lawyer up and get a defamation case going against you?

No, he should sue you for not having a source…

Blen_Carmichael 9:15 pm 09 Jan 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

I fear you are not according our Confucius-quoting criminologist (MCJ) of Captains Flat the respect he feels he deserves.

Queen_of_the_Bun 8:22 pm 09 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

howeph said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

Jeepers. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

IP asks a tongue in cheek question and you guys/gals jump on him; again. Showing your insecurity much?

They are trolls, howeph, it’s what they do. They can’t help it. Pity them, do not put them down, further threatening their self-esteem.

None of them has the slightest clue what they are talking about most of the time, particularly not in the criminal justice field. (feel free to post your qualifications and experience peeps.) That’s the only possible explanation for not recognising actual knowledge and experience (15+ years of it, across several different jurisdictions; 20+ if I count a role on the fringes of the CJS).

In fact, they are probably all the same person, sadly posting under different identities.

Everyone always wants the last word on these threads, me included, but I think I shall leave this one to the trolls to cannibalise each other. It won’t be a pretty sight or a pleasant sound.

IP

I enjoy your usually thoughtful posts, IP, and am often on your side. As I was when I posted about the hatin’.

But you do have a habit of labelling other posters as trolls when you disagree with them, or they disagree with you, or they ask you for sources, which could be why today’s conversation has taken this unseemly turn.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 7:52 pm 09 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

howeph said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

Jeepers. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

IP asks a tongue in cheek question and you guys/gals jump on him; again. Showing your insecurity much?

They are trolls, howeph, it’s what they do. They can’t help it. Pity them, do not put them down, further threatening their self-esteem.

None of them has the slightest clue what they are talking about most of the time, particularly not in the criminal justice field. (feel free to post your qualifications and experience peeps.) That’s the only possible explanation for not recognising actual knowledge and experience (15+ years of it, across several different jurisdictions; 20+ if I count a role on the fringes of the CJS).

In fact, they are probably all the same person, sadly posting under different identities.

Everyone always wants the last word on these threads, me included, but I think I shall leave this one to the trolls to cannibalise each other. It won’t be a pretty sight or a pleasant sound.

IP

That acusation is ridiculous. In your expert opinion, should I lawyer up and get a defamation case going against you?

IrishPete 7:23 pm 09 Jan 14

howeph said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

Jeepers. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

IP asks a tongue in cheek question and you guys/gals jump on him; again. Showing your insecurity much?

They are trolls, howeph, it’s what they do. They can’t help it. Pity them, do not put them down, further threatening their self-esteem.

None of them has the slightest clue what they are talking about most of the time, particularly not in the criminal justice field. (feel free to post your qualifications and experience peeps.) That’s the only possible explanation for not recognising actual knowledge and experience (15+ years of it, across several different jurisdictions; 20+ if I count a role on the fringes of the CJS).

In fact, they are probably all the same person, sadly posting under different identities.

Everyone always wants the last word on these threads, me included, but I think I shall leave this one to the trolls to cannibalise each other. It won’t be a pretty sight or a pleasant sound.

IP

howeph 5:18 pm 09 Jan 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

Jeepers. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

IP asks a tongue in cheek question and you guys/gals jump on him; again. Showing your insecurity much?

Queen_of_the_Bun 5:08 pm 09 Jan 14

vet111 said :

IrishPete said :

vet111 said :

All 4000 words of it? No thanks. I asked a question (in a facetious manner). i got an answer. It was the tone of the answer that irritated, not the content.

The tone of your comment isn’t much better. I guess my Masters in Criminal Justice wasn’t an attempt to educate myself about the criminal justice system. Must try harder.

IP

Wow, a masters in criminal justice and you still:

a) complain about having to read a relatively short judgement;
b) have no idea how the law actually works, vs the way you think it should work; and
c) try and justify your lack of knowledge by blaming the tone of another poster?

You must be so proud. Please tell us all where you went to uni, so we can avoid it.

Wow. All this hatin’ is stuffing up the quotin’!

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 4:25 pm 09 Jan 14

Well I guess that explains petey boys ignorance on most thing he comments on, right?

vet111 1:33 pm 09 Jan 14

IrishPete said :

vet111 said :

All 4000 words of it? No thanks. I asked a question (in a facetious manner). i got an answer. It was the tone of the answer that irritated, not the content.

The tone of your comment isn’t much better. I guess my Masters in Criminal Justice wasn’t an attempt to educate myself about the criminal justice system. Must try harder.

IP

Wow, a masters in criminal justice and you still:

a) complain about having to read a relatively short judgement;
b) have no idea how the law actually works, vs the way you think it should work; and
c) try and justify your lack of knowledge by blaming the tone of another poster?

You must be so proud. Please tell us all where you went to uni, so we can avoid it.

IrishPete 12:40 pm 09 Jan 14

vet111 said :

All 4000 words of it? No thanks. I asked a question (in a facetious manner). i got an answer. It was the tone of the answer that irritated, not the content.

The tone of your comment isn’t much better. I guess my Masters in Criminal Justice wasn’t an attempt to educate myself about the criminal justice system. Must try harder.

IP

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site