4 December 2010

Stilletto stabber wows Justice Gray

| johnboy
Join the conversation
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.

Join the conversation

26
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 😉

“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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 🙂

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.

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

Where’s Mully when we need him?

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.

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.

georgesgenitals4:58 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”?

“her eye gouged out.”

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

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

You can’t even make this shit up……

Campbell’s sentence clearly wasn’t soft enough. Glad the Supreme Court fixed it. Well done Justice Gray.

A complete disgrace. No wonder people feel the justice system is a joke. There’s no justice for the girl who had her eye gouged out.

Pommy bastard12:22 pm 04 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.

Ah counselling, the universal panacea for all of society’s ills….

Bring on the starchamber.

For the super sensitive Justice’s sake let’s hope the victim doesn’t live by ‘an eye for an eye’

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

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.