15 November 2008

So Mr accused armed robber... you want to work as a security guard?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
20

Here’s a breathtaking one from the ABC about one Roland Chauveau, 24, from Queanbeyan.

Roland is on bail after allegedly storming the Weston Creek Labor Club in February wearing a balaclava and brandishing a gun, tieing up the staff, and making off with $124,000.

And here’s the interesting new development:

    His bail was amended by the Chief Magistrate Ron Cahill, to include a condition allowing Chauveau to work as a security guard in the ACT including at nightclubs, but not in any premises where poker machines operate.

I feel safer already!

Join the conversation

20
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

sepi said :

The money was in the safe.

Perhaps he had the code, having worked there as security previously.

guard on duty opened it……

Tooks said :

It hasn’t been proven that he has offended yet, let alone reoffended.

OK, reoffend should have been offend but that’s my point. JB summed it up exactly – not yet guilty, but we’re going to prevent you from going near cash-laden premises in the meantime…

The money was in the safe.

Perhaps he had the code, having worked there as security previously.

Mary Whitehouse8:05 pm 15 Nov 08

So… where are all the RiotACTers who want to think clubbers should be fingerprinted, that if you’ve nothing to hide you shouldn’t object and all that? This is one of the beneficiaries of their idiocy and yet they’re not defending him.

Spambox & DMD,

Your rational is flawed. What if he was alleged to have committed a child sex offence? Do we allow him to continue to work as a school teacher or babysitter simply because the judicial system hasn’t proven him guilty yet?

GottaLoveCanberra3:40 pm 15 Nov 08

“IMO people acused of violent crimes should not be granted bail.”

Slippery slope there mate.

captainwhorebags3:29 pm 15 Nov 08

I’m staggered that $124,000 is that accessible at the Labor Club. Surely some of it is kept in a safe that can’t be opened by shift staff.

TroyWilliams12:50 pm 15 Nov 08

Even though it can be a bit of a worry sometimes, innocent until proven guilty means exactly that. As disconcerting things like this are, the alternative is worse.

That’s right; however there are options to deal with this dilemma. Many professions (and probably trades to, but I can’t think of one) allow a person to be ‘stood down’ until an issue is resolved and something similar could work here.

I think the no-pokies thing might have something to do with the extra strong regulations concerning gambling environments.

Deadmandrinking12:17 pm 15 Nov 08

I think it’s better if they assess a risk of re-offending or bolting. That way, if someone has been falsely accused, they spend less time unnecessarily in the clink.

IMO people acused of violent crimes should not be granted bail.

Deadmandrinking12:11 pm 15 Nov 08

It has been modified so that he does not carry any responsibility over cash – I assume he’s been given the right to work as security back because this is his only profession.

On the other hand the original bail conditions prohibited him from this sort of work for some sort of reason…

Primal said :

“but not in any premises where poker machines operate.”

So they trust him not to reoffend but can’t risk letting him near temptation??? That fills me with confidence. Either he’s a risk to the community or he’s not.

It hasn’t been proven that he has offended yet, let alone reoffended.

Deadmandrinking11:33 am 15 Nov 08

I agree with Spam Box – in Australia, you are innocent until proven guilty. What if he is innocent?

All Bar Nun or Academy just got a new employee it seems. Wonder if he scrapes his knuckles on the pavemnet like the rest of them?

“but not in any premises where poker machines operate.”

So they trust him not to reoffend but can’t risk letting him near temptation??? That fills me with confidence. Either he’s a risk to the community or he’s not.

He hasn’t “done” anything wrong – yet

If he’s convicted – then one would imagine there will be a re-think about his employment options.

Even though it can be a bit of a worry sometimes, innocent until proven guilty means exactly that. As disconcerting things like this are, the alternative is worse.

This sort of thing does bugger all for the reputation of security businesses. Many already have bad reputations, and a lot of people think they are full of crooks who are very well placed to commit crimes (e.g. beating up people at nightclubs, or doing burglaries under the pretence of ‘patrolling’).

Old mate here has not been convicted of the crime at this time, so it would not be a problem (in theory) to employ him. The wording of the bail amendment suggests he has gained employment somewhere. I wonder if this guy told his employer about the court case, or have they now just found out through the ABC.

And people wonder why the legal system is failing us.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.