Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

On bail Justin Monfries named as driver in Canberra hospital horror smash

By johnboy - 4 May 2012 199

The Canberra Times reports that the man being very grudgingly treated at Canberra hospital after yesterday’s fatal collision on Yamba Drive is one Justin Monfries:

The 24-year-old, who has an extensive criminal history, was on bail for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and possessing an offensive weapon, specifically a machete.

He had entered pleas of not guilty to the allegations.

Monfries has been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and at a bail application earlier this year told the court through his lawyer he was terrified of being returned to prison.

On Facebook there is a Justin Monfries revelling in the userid of “evilkid666”.

UPDATE 04/05/12 14:38: Google gives a hefty list of court appearances.

Also the Chief Police Officer has tweeted the charges:

UPDATE 04/05/12 15:12: The police media release is now up:

ACT Policing has charged a 24-year-old Kambah man following a fatal collision yesterday (Thursday, May 3) afternoon.

Around 4.45pm a 38-year-old woman was killed and another suffered serious injuries after being hit by a vehicle while crossing the road outside The Canberra Hospital.

Police will allege the vehicle was stolen when it ran a red light and hit the pedestrians who were crossing the intersection at Bateson Road.

The man was discharged from The Canberra Hospital early this afternoon (Friday, May 4), and transported to the ACT Watch House, where he was charged with manslaughter, culpable driving causing death, culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm and other traffic related offences.

He will face the ACT Magistrates Court this afternoon.

UPDATE 04/05/12 18:53: The ABC has named the victims as the “killed Linda Cox, 38, who worked in the hospital’s cardiology department and seriously injured Ashlee Bumpus, 25”

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
199 Responses to
On bail Justin Monfries named as driver in Canberra hospital horror smash
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
6
devils_advocate 1:32 pm 07 May 12

HenryBG said :

Apparently, if you dare to criticise the current system, that makes you “part of the problem”.

Nope. What makes you part of the problem is looking for ways to get out of participating in the system, and at the same time complaining about the supposed incompetence of the judiciary.

In the same way that people who don’t vote lose their entitlement to complain about the government.

HenryBG 11:53 am 07 May 12

maniac said :

Or do what the Americans do, create a workforce out of the prison population. If they refuse to work they get solitary confinement. Three strikes and you’re out and then free labour, sounds about right to me.

Apparently, if you dare to criticise the current system, that makes you “part of the problem”.

But I’m with *you* – but you missed out the bit about housing them in tents and making them wear hot pink prison uniforms.

maniac 11:38 am 07 May 12

gooterz said :

Its sad that the modernday courtroom is more a lawyers playground than something that deals in the truth and ‘justice’.

Why do we lock crims up? that means we have to pay for them, when its they whom should be repaying us!.

The problem with most crims is that they’ve always been crims they dont know how to actually put in a days work. If you never have to work to support yourself in society then how are you going to respect the people that do.

The british had an excelent idea. Make use of all the crims and put them to work. 10 Years hard labour would likely cause more infulence than 10 years of tv/ gym / whatever it is that those wankers do all day.

Put them out in the middle of nowhere get them working and dont spare the whip!

Or do what the Americans do, create a workforce out of the prison population. If they refuse to work they get solitary confinement. Three strikes and you’re out and then free labour, sounds about right to me.

devils_advocate 11:27 am 07 May 12

HenryBG said :

devils_advocate said :

The significance of this is that it supports the submission of Mr M Lalor, who appeared for Mr Monfries, that Mr Monfries was present at his residence at the relevant time. Taking all these matters into account, I am not satisfied to the relevant degree, namely on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Monfries was not at his residence.

Perhaps you would care to review the exact wording of the bail condition
s to ensure you are not making the same mistake as the judge did:

“Not to absent yourself from your place of residence between 8 pm and 8 am daily and present yourself to any police officer during those hours.”

The crim did *not* present himself to police as per the bail conditions. Whether he was at home or not is an irrelevance which successfully distracted the judge, and you, it seems.

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

Why do we have dimwits occupying our benches, sucking up vast sums of ratepayers’ money, only to produce rubbish that my 12-year-old could do better with.

Well that is part of the justification for the jury system – .

Yes, because bail applications are often held before a panel of jurors being insulted with a $96/day compensation for their efforts. You have NFI, do you?

I was responding to what was clearly a generalised whinge about the judiciary, by someone who is committed to being part of the problem rather than the solution.

HenryBG 10:31 am 07 May 12

devils_advocate said :

The significance of this is that it supports the submission of Mr M Lalor, who appeared for Mr Monfries, that Mr Monfries was present at his residence at the relevant time. Taking all these matters into account, I am not satisfied to the relevant degree, namely on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Monfries was not at his residence.

Perhaps you would care to review the exact wording of the bail condition
s to ensure you are not making the same mistake as the judge did:

“Not to absent yourself from your place of residence between 8 pm and 8 am daily and present yourself to any police officer during those hours.”

The crim did *not* present himself to police as per the bail conditions. Whether he was at home or not is an irrelevance which successfully distracted the judge, and you, it seems.

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

Why do we have dimwits occupying our benches, sucking up vast sums of ratepayers’ money, only to produce rubbish that my 12-year-old could do better with.

Well that is part of the justification for the jury system – .

Yes, because bail applications are often held before a panel of jurors being insulted with a $96/day compensation for their efforts. You have NFI, do you?

Tetranitrate 10:09 am 07 May 12

Dilandach said :

johnboy said :

DHCS write a letter warning us off, or else.

Are you able to post the letter up?

http://the-riotact.com/does-the-children-and-young-people-act-2008-need-changing/

Jim Jones 9:54 am 07 May 12

HenryBG said :

johnboy said :

We’re already on a warning for linking to court documents. Which is ludicrous but I don’t care enough about the issue to be a prisoner of conscience over it.

Where’s Derryn Hinch when you need him?

In jail for inciting a lynch mob?

Skidbladnir 9:46 am 07 May 12

milkman said :

Looks like CRK was back in court a couple of weeks ago for another bail related matter.

Children make mistakes, the point of the CaYP Act is to give them second (or higher) chances.
The fact that CRK’s daddy keeps throwing money around to make certain problems stay below the radar doesn’t seem to have clicked for CRK yet, who so desperately wants a criminal reputation and to throw those (many) chances back into the face of the community, stop linking him to his childhood crimes and let the adult crimes have the consequences they so richly deserve.

If CRK wants the profile and treatment that comes with an adult criminal reputation, let him have it.

dtc 9:40 am 07 May 12

for some reason I can’t quote, but to Henry BG, did you read the rest of the judgment which concludes:

I will also note that contact was made with the probation officer assigned to supervise Mr Monfries and he told Mr Monfries in colourful language to present himself forthwith.

This, no doubt, resulted from the report of the police officers that Mr Monfries had breached his bail. This was said to be about 20 minutes or so after the police officers had left.

The timing is not clear, but it may well be that this occurred shortly after 8.30 am, which I think I can take for judicial notice is the standard commencement time for ACT public servants. While the estimation of time for the relevant events is not such that an accurate prediction is possible, it is not beyond reasonable bounds.

The significance of this is that it supports the submission of Mr M Lalor, who appeared for Mr Monfries, that Mr Monfries was present at his residence at the relevant time. Taking all these matters into account, I am not satisfied to the relevant degree, namely on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Monfries was not at his residence.

In other words, not actually a finding that Monfries breached his bail conditions.

I presume everyone commenting realises that ‘bail’ means ‘charged but not yet put on trial’ and, hence, under our system of law, innocent. If you read that latest bail decision, he was charged in 2008 with various theft offences but had not been tried by 2011. No explanation given as to the delay, but are people saying he should have been in custody all that time?

I’m not defending him, I am trying to point out that people are jumping to conclusions based on things that arent actually correct. I appreciate this is the internet.

dpm 9:22 am 07 May 12

Maybe he can use this new option to reduce his likely ’12 month good behaviour bond’ conviction for his latest hit-and-run manslaughter to a 6-month one?? After all, i’m sure he was sooo close to ‘rehabilitation’ and this incident was just an unfortunate slip up….
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/sentence-discount-on-offer-for-smooth-criminal-trials-20120506-1y7cw.html

devils_advocate 8:53 am 07 May 12

HenryBG said :

Why do we have dimwits occupying our benches, sucking up vast sums of ratepayers’ money, only to produce rubbish that my 12-year-old could do better with.

Well that is part of the justification for the jury system – to prevent judges from substitution their own judgement for those views that are representative of society as a whole.

Of course, that would require people to turn up to jury duty, and there are just so many selfish pricks in society who think jury duty is beneath them, so we are left with this.

Deref 7:25 am 07 May 12

johnboy said :

We’re already on a warning for linking to court documents. Which is ludicrous but I don’t care enough about the issue to be a prisoner of conscience over it.

WTF? Really? You got pinged for linking to documents that are publicly available?

Dilandach 7:10 am 07 May 12

johnboy said :

DHCS write a letter warning us off, or else.

Are you able to post the letter up?

HenryBG 1:01 am 07 May 12

Geez the law is an ass.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2011/203.html

Refshauge even spells it out:
When granted bail on 26 October 2011, the conditions of the bail included a curfew in the following terms: “Not to absent yourself from your place of residence between 8 pm and 8 am daily and present yourself to any police officer during those hours.

There is no question that two police officers attended and there is no question that Monfries failed to present himself as required by his bail.

Absolutely clear-cut.

Or so you would think – but Refshauge decides to come up with 17 paragraphs of waffle considering the irrelevant question of whether Monfries was at home or not.
Including this pearler:

Thus, the logic of Australian white society is not always a sure sign of the approach that should be adopted in the assessment of evidence from those of Aboriginal descent.

Why do we have dimwits occupying our benches, sucking up vast sums of ratepayers’ money, only to produce rubbish that my 12-year-old could do better with.

HenryBG 12:06 am 07 May 12

johnboy said :

We’re already on a warning for linking to court documents. Which is ludicrous but I don’t care enough about the issue to be a prisoner of conscience over it.

Where’s Derryn Hinch when you need him?

Tetranitrate 11:48 pm 06 May 12

johnboy said :

DHCS write a letter warning us off, or else.

this one I take it?
http://the-riotact.com/does-the-children-and-young-people-act-2008-need-changing/

I’m somewhat surprised that the letter is still up actually.

Thumper 10:04 pm 06 May 12

johnboy said :

DHCS write a letter warning us off, or else.

Maybe you should seek cooment from Corbell.

He’s the AG at the moment isn’t he?

Thumper 10:03 pm 06 May 12

johnboy said :

We’re already on a warning for linking to court documents. Which is ludicrous but I don’t care enough about the issue to be a prisoner of conscience over it.

That is, well, quite incredibly amazing.

Not to mention completely ridiculous.

    johnboy 10:07 pm 06 May 12

    the laws surrounding children are not sane in any conventional sense. But do give bureaucrats and lawyers great powers.

c_c 9:39 pm 06 May 12

johnboy said :

We’re already on a warning for linking to court documents. Which is ludicrous but I don’t care enough about the issue to be a prisoner of conscience over it.

How does that work?

milkman 8:02 pm 06 May 12

johnboy said :

We’re already on a warning for linking to court documents. Which is ludicrous but I don’t care enough about the issue to be a prisoner of conscience over it.

You’re right – linking to publicly available information should hardly be an issue, but I suspect the powers that be might have a problem with you running RiotACT from within the AMC.

Still, you could probably get some good interviews…

6

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site