Stilletto stabber wows Justice Gray

johnboy 4 December 2010 26

The ABC has a good story on the importance of dressing up for court.

Three years ago Rachel Larkin gouged the eye of another young woman with the heel of her stiletto shoe at Gungahlin skate park.

For that she was found guilty and sentenced to 12 months of periodic detention.

But appealing to the ever merciful Supremes, wearing black stilettos, has had the desired effect:

He also convicted Larkin of the offence, but re-sentenced her to a 12 month suspended sentence.

He said Magistrate Campbell’s original sentence was entirely appropriate, but he was taking account of fresh evidence that Larkin has had ongoing counselling and is now studying and working.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
26 Responses to Stilletto stabber wows Justice Gray
Filter
Order
Serenace1 Serenace1 8:29 pm 05 Dec 10

Also criminal law in Australia functions only when both sides are represented equally. One side(prosecutor), cannot whatsoever serve as a function to the law, without the other(Defence). Imagine if you were arrested and tried by the same people. We would all be locked away!

farnarkler farnarkler 8:26 pm 05 Dec 10

Me no fry, obviously David Opas and Raymond Watson pissed people off enough that they felt some payback was called for. As for proposing action like that, I haven’t been in a position where I’ve felt let down by the judicial system.

Serenace1 Serenace1 8:22 pm 05 Dec 10

Wow, there must be a few victims on here. Either that or police officers. Anyways, if I am wrong about this (entirely possible), why not then take the view that if a crime does get to court, be thankful. Many other victims of crime would think it demeaning to them for you all to piss and moan about how ‘such and such’ didn’t get the firing squad. Perspective people. It is not outrageous to think that a judge or judges follow procedure according to law. VG, it is not polite to deem me insane. I’m just giving an opinion, it is not personal.

eh_steve eh_steve 7:06 pm 05 Dec 10

I don’t know why people see gaol as some sort of magic bullet when it comes to punishing unlawful behaviour.

Appropriate punishment needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and this is an example of that.

Gaol in many instances can be what sets inididuals off on a negative path, rather than offer any form of rehabilitation.

In this instance the conviction still stands, the sentence has been suspended rather than removed and a good behaviour bond has been imposed, so the threat of imprisonment remains.

All in all it if the aim of punshing this kind of behaviour is to bring about reform and allow someone to re-integrate into society, then it seems this is a more effective sentence than periodic detention.

Tooks Tooks 6:27 pm 05 Dec 10

Spideydog said :

dvaey said :

OP: He said Magistrate Campbell’s original sentence was entirely appropriate, but he was taking account of fresh evidence that Larkin has had ongoing counselling and is now studying and working.

Firstly, isnt counselling, studying and working, what she’s meant to be doing in Jail? Evidence means blood-stains, alibais and witnesses, not how well she’s doing in jail after the event. Will David Eastman be released in a suspended sentence, because he’s been performing legal studies and undergoing counselling too? This sort of stuff (study, work, etc) should be taken into account for Parole, not for re-sentencing.

What a joke

dvaey and I agree on something ……… lol

No, seriously 🙂

Same here. The world is going crazy 😉

vg vg 4:44 pm 05 Dec 10

“The idea that courts favor the accused is a myth at best”

You’re not right, are you. It is a pricipal of justice that courts must ALWAYS favour the accused. He who accuses must prove, heard of that one? eyong reasonable doubt, how about that? Right to silence etc etc.

Grow up and smell what the law actually is

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 4:34 pm 05 Dec 10

Serenace1 said :

The idea that (ACT) courts favor the accused is a myth at best. Judges deliver justice.

Justice is just as much a myth as mercy, but the systems built to supply them only function so long as everyone involved believes.
But if you think our judges regularly deliver what the community recognises as justice, you must be thinking of somewhere else.
The Human Rights Act seems to severely interfere with the Crimes Act and our Criminal Code.

54-11 54-11 2:34 pm 05 Dec 10

Serenace, RA is full of examples of where decisions are well and truly out of step with community expectations. You’re not Hillary Penfold in disguise, are you?

Tooks Tooks 1:58 pm 05 Dec 10

Serenace1 said :

I have no idea why anyone assumes that the ACT supreme court is full of lenient judges.

Must be all the ridiculously lenient sentences handed out for serious crimes.

Serenace1 Serenace1 1:41 pm 05 Dec 10

I have no idea why anyone assumes that the ACT supreme court is full of lenient judges. What utter rubbish. Our courts are for the people with laws made and passed by the people. All people. The idea that courts favor the accused is a myth at best. Judges deliver justice. Nothing more. And for all the professional victims out there claiming otherwise, be thankful for the crimes committed that do get to court and spare a thought for the ones that don’t.

Warmest Regards and hugs.

Me no fry Me no fry 11:04 am 05 Dec 10

farnarkler said :

It really surprises me that these judges haven’t been ‘visited’ by friends/relatives of some of the victims of crims who get light sentences.

Are you proposing that people who are not satisfied with various court judgements make their displeasure known in some sort of non-official way? Pearl Watson and David Opas – two names that spring to mind – would probably disagree with you, if they weren’t dead.

Spideydog Spideydog 8:27 am 05 Dec 10

dvaey said :

OP: He said Magistrate Campbell’s original sentence was entirely appropriate, but he was taking account of fresh evidence that Larkin has had ongoing counselling and is now studying and working.

Firstly, isnt counselling, studying and working, what she’s meant to be doing in Jail? Evidence means blood-stains, alibais and witnesses, not how well she’s doing in jail after the event. Will David Eastman be released in a suspended sentence, because he’s been performing legal studies and undergoing counselling too? This sort of stuff (study, work, etc) should be taken into account for Parole, not for re-sentencing.

What a joke

dvaey and I agree on something ……… lol

No, seriously 🙂

breda breda 10:40 pm 04 Dec 10

I am by no means a loranorder freak, but cannot understand how someone who has breached bail conditions can be given bail again (with stricter conditions, smack on the hand with a wet feather).

It just defies logic, and the most cursory knowledge of human behaviour. People who adhere to their bail conditions are only marginally better off than those who don’t. They may be no better off. What nonsense.

54-11 54-11 9:17 pm 04 Dec 10

Rachel Larkin sounds like a nasty piece of work who knows how to work the system.

Where’s Mully when we need him?

p1 p1 7:31 pm 04 Dec 10

georgesgenitals said :

“He said Magistrate Campbell’s original sentence was entirely appropriate, but he was taking account of fresh evidence that Larkin has had ongoing counselling and is now studying and working.”

How is something that has occurred well after the event in question, and is unrelated to the event in question “fresh evidence”?

+1

If it was appropriate he should not change it. Pretty simple really.

farnarkler farnarkler 5:05 pm 04 Dec 10

It really surprises me that these judges haven’t been ‘visited’ by friends/relatives of some of the victims of crims who get light sentences.

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 4:58 pm 04 Dec 10

“He said Magistrate Campbell’s original sentence was entirely appropriate, but he was taking account of fresh evidence that Larkin has had ongoing counselling and is now studying and working.”

How is something that has occurred well after the event in question, and is unrelated to the event in question “fresh evidence”?

vg vg 4:01 pm 04 Dec 10

“her eye gouged out.”

Stick to the facts, rather than the histrionics, to make a valid point

Tooks Tooks 3:30 pm 04 Dec 10

It should be no surprise really – these kind of sentences are all too common. An offender was recently given a suspended sentence and a GBO for stabbing a security guard who caught him stealing DVDs.

Anyone who’s interested can look at recent judgements/sentences handed down in the Supreme Court at http://www.courts.act.gov.au

DBCooper DBCooper 3:01 pm 04 Dec 10

You can’t even make this shit up……

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site