Should breaching a good behaviour order activate a suspended sentence? [With poll]

bundah said :

I as most would agree that judges should have discretionary powers.The problem that we’ve had in the ACT,for many years,is quite simply that the calibre of judges has been the issue,particularly in regard to sentencing practices.Sadly this type of scenario will rear its ugly head for some time to come until the current crop of limp wristed misguided fools retire.One can only hope that they choose wisely when appointing judiciary in the future!

Yeah hopefully they get top notch picks from NSW like Justice Yeldham or federal court legends like Judge Enfield. You joker you, sentencing practices comes after judgement. Yet this is your only issue? You make me giggle with your see-through tears.

p996911turbo said :

Every single time one of these articles comes up on RiotACT it’s just full of vitriol towards the legal system and the offenders. Come on, let’s recognise the fact that we’re not able to see the whole picture and maybe have a bit more faith that the system is actually working.

It seems what you’re saying p996911turbo is that people should back off and let the courts do their job. I see it differently – that we have a responsibility to discuss and consider our judicial system to ensure it’s doing the job we need and want it to be doing. I’m not saying the system isn’t working, but that we shouldn’t have blind faith that it is.

I want Refshauge if i have done nuffing wrong. Its how i was brout up your houner

Should it? Of course!

Will it? Not on your nellie.

Ask anyone in Canberra’s legal community and they’ll tell you Refshauge is a disgrace. Wonder if he realises it himself yet?

98%! That must be a record for RA polls?

How many chances do you get?Mr Monfries had many chances then he killed someone?

bundah said :

That’s you isn’t Tezza,come on Chief Justice you’re not fooling anyone!

Guilty as charged. I sentence myself to 15 minutes community service.

Spiral said :

I think that the woman killed outside the Canberra Hospital last year by someone benefitting from one of Refshauge’s stupid decisions makes it pretty clear that the system is not working.

Well there’s a faulty argument if ever I saw one. Single examples are never indicative of the overall crime reduction strategy. In a low-sentencing regime like Canberra, you can always find people who commit a crime in the public when they could have been in prison. But in a high-sentencing regime you can always find people who weren’t serious criminals until they went to prison for something minor and got involved in the wrong crowd. It simply doesn’t matter what approach you take to crime reduction, there will always be cases that make it look bad.

What really matters is the overall crime rate and recidivism rates across the whole society. And you know what? Canberra doesn’t lock people up all that much but it’s still a pretty damn good place to live. So I’m pretty damn happy the decisions being made in our judicial system.

p996911turbo said :

Spiral said :

Do Refshauge and co think that they are in tune with what the people want, or do they know that their decisions are unpopular but believe that they know best?

The purpose of the judiciary is not to do what the public want. Otherwise we’d have lynch mobs roaming the streets.

I don’t think breaching a good behavior bond should automatically activate a suspended sentence. I think we should have a judge decide that on a case by case basis.

Whether this particular individual deserved to have his sentence activated or not isn’t something that we can judge without seeing all the facts. That’s what the court process is for.

Every single time one of these articles comes up on RiotACT it’s just full of vitriol towards the legal system and the offenders. Come on, let’s recognise the fact that we’re not able to see the whole picture and maybe have a bit more faith that the system is actually working.

I think that the woman killed outside the Canberra Hospital last year by someone benefitting from one of Refshauge’s stupid decisions makes it pretty clear that the system is not working.

p1 said :

johnboy said :

The high court has suggested otherwise.

Suggested what? That the original sentencing judge didn’t intend for the crim to do any time when they gave them a suspended sentence?

Due to the incompetence displayed by some in our judiciary

Justice Dyson Heydon was moved to extraordinarily florid language for a High Court judge: “A party which has a duty to assist the court in achieving certain objectives fails to do so. A court which has a duty to achieve those objectives does not achieve them. The torpid languor of one hand washes the drowsy procrastination of the other.”

It has become so desperate that the ACT Bar Association has lodged a formal complaint with Attorney-General Simon Corbell about one judge. The Canberra Times reported last week that the judge was Richard Refshauge who reportedly has 20 cases with the judgment outstanding for more than 18 months, and one for nearly four years.

Hmm justice Canberra style!

johnboy said :

The high court has suggested otherwise.

Suggested what? That the original sentencing judge didn’t intend for the crim to do any time when they gave them a suspended sentence?

johnboy said :

The high court has suggested otherwise.

Exactly and in no uncertain terms.

p996911turbo said :

Spiral said :

Do Refshauge and co think that they are in tune with what the people want, or do they know that their decisions are unpopular but believe that they know best?

The purpose of the judiciary is not to do what the public want. Otherwise we’d have lynch mobs roaming the streets.

I don’t think breaching a good behavior bond should automatically activate a suspended sentence. I think we should have a judge decide that on a case by case basis.

Whether this particular individual deserved to have his sentence activated or not isn’t something that we can judge without seeing all the facts. That’s what the court process is for.

Every single time one of these articles comes up on RiotACT it’s just full of vitriol towards the legal system and the offenders. Come on, let’s recognise the fact that we’re not able to see the whole picture and maybe have a bit more faith that the system is actually working.

That’s you isn’t Tezza,come on Chief Justice you’re not fooling anyone!

It should be changed so there is a presumption for activating a suspended sentence when a good behaviour order is breached. Therefore there would have to be a compelling reason for the magistrate or justice not to activate the suspended sentence, rather than the other way around as currently exists. And that way any whiff of ‘mandatory sentencing’ is avoided.

After all, if the original sentencing magistrate/justice didn’t want the offender to face the possibility of jail, then why would they include it in the sentence?

Spiral said :

Do Refshauge and co think that they are in tune with what the people want, or do they know that their decisions are unpopular but believe that they know best?

The purpose of the judiciary is not to do what the public want. Otherwise we’d have lynch mobs roaming the streets.

I don’t think breaching a good behavior bond should automatically activate a suspended sentence. I think we should have a judge decide that on a case by case basis.

Whether this particular individual deserved to have his sentence activated or not isn’t something that we can judge without seeing all the facts. That’s what the court process is for.

Every single time one of these articles comes up on RiotACT it’s just full of vitriol towards the legal system and the offenders. Come on, let’s recognise the fact that we’re not able to see the whole picture and maybe have a bit more faith that the system is actually working.

Do Refshauge and co think that they are in tune with what the people want, or do they know that their decisions are unpopular but believe that they know best?

p1 said :

I am against mandatory sentencing as a general rule.

This, however isn’t mandatory sentencing. A judge gave he a suspended sentence and bond. If the idea of the suspended sentence isn’t the “stick” in a carrot and stick scenario, what exactly is it for?

I firmly believe the judges should have the ability to treat cases individually, and if warranted, be lenient. The default though should be the activation of the sentence.

Just be careful, because both carrots and sticks can be shoved up your arse if you do the wrong thing…

I as most would agree that judges should have discretionary powers.The problem that we’ve had in the ACT,for many years,is quite simply that the calibre of judges has been the issue,particularly in regard to sentencing practices.Sadly this type of scenario will rear its ugly head for some time to come until the current crop of limp wristed misguided fools retire.One can only hope that they choose wisely when appointing judiciary in the future!

Refshauge, you’re a disgrace. Both to your profession and the wider community.

I am against mandatory sentencing as a general rule.

This, however isn’t mandatory sentencing. A judge gave he a suspended sentence and bond. If the idea of the suspended sentence isn’t the “stick” in a carrot and stick scenario, what exactly is it for?

I firmly believe the judges should have the ability to treat cases individually, and if warranted, be lenient. The default though should be the activation of the sentence.