Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Recruiting experts in
Accountancy & Finance

Too Dangerous for a Court Room but not Society

By Tooks - 27 May 2013 16

This article caught my eye this morning. Contempt of court obviously isn’t enforced.

FOR the safety of the magistrate and court officers, a bail hearing at the ACT Magistrates Court was held in a loading garage beneath the building beside a van in which the accused was locked.

Kirsty McGukin was granted bail on Friday but not released after she wrote ”F— you” on an undertaking to abide by bail conditions instead of signing her name.

Corrections officers sought to escort her to court on Saturday morning but Ms McGukin refused to leave the van and became violent.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
16 Responses to
Too Dangerous for a Court Room but not Society
Roundhead89 5:26 pm 27 May 13

M0les said :

Roundhead89 said :

IrishPete said :

Tooks said :

Trivial charges? Like assault, property damage etc?

I didn’t see what she’d been charged with. Was it in the article? And I did use the word “if” before trivial…

If you’re referring to the behaviour in the prison van, then I think police would have to be called, a formal complaint made, and the police would decide whether to charge her. Perhaps no-one could be bothered will all that, if they just wanted her out of custody. She’s hard to manage in the prison too.

IP

I saw that article as well. Typical poorly written crap from The Canberra Times. No details about what she was charged with, no suburb of residence, no age of the suspect. The paper seemed to be protecting her for some reason.

Said she was 29 (Maybe a late edit?)

I read it in the print edition of Sunday’s paper. No mention of age or anything else there. Interestingly it was right next to an article that claimed that POS stood for “parent over shoulder”. I’m sure RiotACT readers could set them straight on the real meaning of POS 😉

IrishPete 5:16 pm 27 May 13

vet111 said :

I would possibly hazard a guess and say it’s this one: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/biting-shoplifter-to-face-court-20130527-2n63j.html but I’m not sure if the timeframes add up…

Wrong day I think.

IP

M0les 4:47 pm 27 May 13

Roundhead89 said :

IrishPete said :

Tooks said :

Trivial charges? Like assault, property damage etc?

I didn’t see what she’d been charged with. Was it in the article? And I did use the word “if” before trivial…

If you’re referring to the behaviour in the prison van, then I think police would have to be called, a formal complaint made, and the police would decide whether to charge her. Perhaps no-one could be bothered will all that, if they just wanted her out of custody. She’s hard to manage in the prison too.

IP

I saw that article as well. Typical poorly written crap from The Canberra Times. No details about what she was charged with, no suburb of residence, no age of the suspect. The paper seemed to be protecting her for some reason.

Said she was 29 (Maybe a late edit?)

vet111 4:21 pm 27 May 13

I would possibly hazard a guess and say it’s this one: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/biting-shoplifter-to-face-court-20130527-2n63j.html but I’m not sure if the timeframes add up…

Roundhead89 3:34 pm 27 May 13

IrishPete said :

Tooks said :

Trivial charges? Like assault, property damage etc?

I didn’t see what she’d been charged with. Was it in the article? And I did use the word “if” before trivial…

If you’re referring to the behaviour in the prison van, then I think police would have to be called, a formal complaint made, and the police would decide whether to charge her. Perhaps no-one could be bothered will all that, if they just wanted her out of custody. She’s hard to manage in the prison too.

IP

I saw that article as well. Typical poorly written crap from The Canberra Times. No details about what she was charged with, no suburb of residence, no age of the suspect. The paper seemed to be protecting her for some reason.

IrishPete 1:33 pm 27 May 13

Tooks said :

Trivial charges? Like assault, property damage etc?

I didn’t see what she’d been charged with. Was it in the article? And I did use the word “if” before trivial…

If you’re referring to the behaviour in the prison van, then I think police would have to be called, a formal complaint made, and the police would decide whether to charge her. Perhaps no-one could be bothered will all that, if they just wanted her out of custody. She’s hard to manage in the prison too.

IP

Tooks 1:02 pm 27 May 13

Stevian said :

tim_c said :

So she’s basically said she’s not going to abide by bail conditions, but she was granted bail anyway…

Am I reading this right?

No, she was granted bail, then said she was not going to abide by bail conditions and not released,see

“Kirsty McGukin was granted bail on Friday but not released after she wrote ”F— you” on an undertaking to abide by bail conditions instead of signing her name.”

She was released.

GardeningGirl 12:58 pm 27 May 13

Dilandach said :

That is a good point, too violent / scary for the court to deal with directly but A-OK to send out into the community.

They really need to start moving these people next door to the judges.

+1

Stevian 12:56 pm 27 May 13

tim_c said :

So she’s basically said she’s not going to abide by bail conditions, but she was granted bail anyway…

Am I reading this right?

No, she was granted bail, then said she was not going to abide by bail conditions and not released,see

“Kirsty McGukin was granted bail on Friday but not released after she wrote ”F— you” on an undertaking to abide by bail conditions instead of signing her name.”

Tooks 11:31 am 27 May 13

IrishPete said :

Well it depends on the nature of the charge – if it was trivial, why keep the defendant in custody?

The Magistrate’s decision is constrained by legislation, and refusal of bail (remand in custody) on a trivial charge would not stand up to appeal. Usual criteria for the decision are the seriousness of the offence charged with, likelihood of absconding and not attending court when required, likelihood of reoffending, likelihood of interfering with witnesses; strength of the case sometimes comes into it too.

Of course she could have had a whole load of other charges added as a result of her behaviour in custody, which would then justify the remand in custody.

Trivial charges? Like assault, property damage etc?

IrishPete 11:27 am 27 May 13

Dilandach said :

That is a good point, too violent / scary for the court to deal with directly but A-OK to send out into the community.

They really need to start moving these people next door to the judges.

The only way a judge will be considering bail for someone just arrested is in the scenario where they were already on Supreme Court bail. If you want judges to deal with every tricky bail decision for newly arrested people, it’s going to slow their trials and sentencing even more.

IP

tim_c 11:27 am 27 May 13

So she’s basically said she’s not going to abide by bail conditions, but she was granted bail anyway…

Am I reading this right?

Dilandach 11:03 am 27 May 13

That is a good point, too violent / scary for the court to deal with directly but A-OK to send out into the community.

They really need to start moving these people next door to the judges.

IrishPete 10:56 am 27 May 13

Well it depends on the nature of the charge – if it was trivial, why keep the defendant in custody?

The Magistrate’s decision is constrained by legislation, and refusal of bail (remand in custody) on a trivial charge would not stand up to appeal. Usual criteria for the decision are the seriousness of the offence charged with, likelihood of absconding and not attending court when required, likelihood of reoffending, likelihood of interfering with witnesses; strength of the case sometimes comes into it too.

Of course she could have had a whole load of other charges added as a result of her behaviour in custody, which would then justify the remand in custody.

bundah 10:37 am 27 May 13

To say I was both bemused and amused at the situation would be an understatement.Coincidentally I believe that they’re constructing a dock in one of the courts to prevent the loonies from potentially assaulting judicial officers.Would’ve come in handy for this very aggressive and potty mouthed woman!

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site