The ubiquitous CT website hasn’t mentioned it, and I can’t find it on the ABC news one either (but I’m sure someone will provide a link) but the ACT Supreme Court, and one justice in particular has done it again.
You all may recall the killing of a man in a caravan park quite a few months ago. In February, before the ACT Supreme Court, the offender pleaded guilty to Manslaughter. The facts were accepted and the offender remanded for sentence yesterday, Friday.
Upon returning to the court yesterday the learned different judge (hazard a quick guess who) decided that the facts did not substantiate Manslaughter. The prosecution and defence then went away for a pow-wow and came back with an amended set of facts that both parties agreed to, and maintained the guilty plea. The judge then rejected this 2nd set of agreed facts and guilty plea and now the offender is free on bail and is more than likely now to be subjected to a full trial.
Weekly NewsletterEvery Thursday afternoon, we package up the most-read and trending RiotACT stories of the past seven days and deliver straight to your inbox..
Please explain to me how a prosecution and defence can agree on such a plea twice, and their extensive legal minds agree twice on what is or isnt manslaughter (a killing the crook admitted doing!) yet once again the 2nd defence counsel, the ACT Supreme Court, steps in to throw another spanner in the works. Lets not forget that the offender’s legal representatives by this stage had agreed twice to plead guilty to manslaughter.
Whilst all may say that it is the job to the judge to do this picture this scenario. There is now a full trial, but instead of manslaughter he is charged and convicted of murder (in front of another different judge). He will be going to the big house for a lot longer than if he pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
Justice at its poorest, a person can’t even plead guilty when they want to.
(Personal, not professional opinion)