Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Was Steven Hillier Guilty of murder?

By bundah 16 September 2012 57

Recently the name Steven Hillier came up in conversation which prompted me look into the case in order to understand the reasoning as to why he was acquitted of the murder of Ana Louise Hardwick and whether it was justified. The only sources reasonably available to me were the following judgements and I therefore offer a summary and opinion based on the information provided in those judgements.

http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgment/view/214/title/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/13.html
.
http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgment/view/216/
.
http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgment/view/3070

Steven Wayne Hillier was charged with the murder of Ana Louise Hardwick who was found strangled in her Isabella Plains home on 2 October 2002. In 2004 Hillier was tried in the ACT Supreme Court by Gray J and a jury over 15 days and after deliberating for only a few hours returned a verdict of guilty. Hillier was subsequently sentenced to 18 years gaol with a non-parole period of 13 years.

Hillier appealed the verdict and in 2005 The ACT Court of Appeal held, by majority (Higgins CJ and Crispin P; Spender J dissenting) that the appeal should be allowed. The majority wrongly concluded that there was a real possibility that another person was responsible for Hardwick’s death. Reading Spender’s interpretation of what transpired left one in little doubt that the jury got it right and that Higgins and Crispin’s conclusions were speculative and erroneous.

Unsurprisingly the High Court in 2007 shared Spender’s views and indicated that Higgins and Crispin erred in their respective judgements. The end result was that the High Court allowed the appeal by the Crown and ordered that the matter be remitted to ACT Court of Appeal for rehearing rather than just simply order a retrial. So back it went to the ACT Court of Appeal who under Madgwick,Weinberg and Dowsett JJ agreed with Spender ‘s analysis, which was mandated by the High Court, and ordered that the case be remitted for retrial.

Hillier opted for a Judge only trial in 2010 knowing that that was his best chance of being acquitted particularly given there had not been a murder conviction in Judge only trials in the ACT for at least a decade. Judge Besanko,a Federal Court judge, heard the case and came to the following conclusions.

Motive

The Crown asserted that Hillier had a strong motive to murder Hardwick given that she obtained orders making her the main custodian of their children. Prior to these orders they had been engaged in a custody battle since 2000 during which time Hillier had been the main custodian. It was clear that Hillier was obsessed with having custody and was extremely angry with the new orders and decided to murder Hardwick in order to eliminate her as a competitor for the custody of their children. Besanko opined that motive was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Consciousness of guilt

The Crown submitted that Hillier caused damage to his hands a few days before he agreed to having his fingerprints taken given that it may establish his guilt and that he was conscious of his guilt. Some two weeks after police took his fingerprints Hillier saw his doctor re his damaged fingernails and denied they had been exposed to chemicals. Dermatologist Dr. Healsmith examined Hillier’s hands a few days later and indicated that the damage was more consistent with fingertips being immersed in an acid or alkali solution not Hillier’s assertions that he was cleaning a motor vehicle engine or a driveway or both without wearing gloves using a small brush with a caustic solution mixed with water. I find Hillier’s claims ludicrous especially given that he was an ex mechanic,who know better,and in my experience use degreaser and high pressure water to clean engines. However for reasons best known to himself Besanko ruled that the Crown did not establish consciousness of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

DNA Evidence

This was problematic for a number of reasons;
Firstly there was no mention in the judgements that the CSI took swabs from Hardwick’s neck which had bruising consistent with strangulation nor were there swabs taken from her hands. While it’s likely the murderer was wearing gloves I am baffled as to why swabs from those areas weren’t taken given they may have potentially contained DNA and gone some way to revealing the identity of the murderer.

Secondly Hardwick’s pyjamas were placed in a room at the Forensic Laboratory and laid out on a table to dry. During the time the pyjamas were drying apparently other exhibits including items taken from Hillier’s premises were also, unbelievably, kept in the room. While there was no direct evidence that those items came into contact with the pyjamas it plainly was a situation that should never have occurred given there was a potential risk of contamination.

Thirdly there were issues raised re the method used which identified Hillier’s DNA on the swab taken from the inside right front of Hardwick’s pyjama top some 7 to 8cms below the collar. The defence expert submitted that the DNA sample tested by the forensic scientist was compromised given the DNA had been loaded right up to the maximum level that the machine would tolerate .However further testing using lower levels of DNA still revealed that Hillier could not be excluded with respect to the partial minor component, the major coming from Hardwick.

Finally,given the circumstances, Besanko ruled that the Crown had not established beyond reasonable doubt that Hillier’s DNA was found on Hardwick’s pyjamas, or if it was there, it wasn’t there by reason of contamination or indirect transfer.

In conclusion, regrettably for the Hardwick famiy, Besanko followed in the footsteps of Higgins and Crispin and found Hillier not guilty of the murder of Ana Hardwick. In my opinion,after giving appropriate weight to the evidence,i believe the jury got it right,Spender got it right,the High Court got it right and Hillier should be behind bars. But that was justice A.C.T. style in the 2000’s. Disgraceful!

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
57 Responses to
Was Steven Hillier Guilty of murder?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Lookout Smithers 11:49 am 14 Nov 12

bundah said :

@ Lookout Smithers

There is no conspiracy theory apparent in this case.The circumstances were quite transparent and yes i felt the need to repeat the sequence of judgements due to the fact that some cited specific evidence as an argument for acquittal without considering other more compelling evidence.None of the judges disagreed on Hellier’s strong motive and opportunity to kill his former partner.However they did disagree on consciousness of guilt and DNA evidence.

None of us including the appeals judges were present for the 15 day hearing which does,obviously,place one at a disadvantage.One of the telling factors,for me, was that the jury only took a few hours to find Hillier guilty which suggests that they were quite convinced of his guilt.

Did they get it wrong? well i don’t think so but it’s somewhat academic given what’s transpired.

The wasn’t an agreement on any motive being “strong”, as you have put it. Evidence of motive for a person to do something is of course relevant but before you may act upon it as a factor pointing to an accused’s guilt its existence must be established beyond reasonable doubt. It also must be viewed in the overall context of the case. Huge amounts of people may have seriously strong motives for committing crimes and never do. So now factor that in to any reference to proof of motive beyond reasonable doubt.
In all the appeals, there is no unanimous consensus by the judges. When you say none of the judges disagree on a strong motive, in which case heard are you referring to? There are several different views where motive is referenced, and with regard to advantages open to the jury.(P&P)
“Specific”evidence for acquittal isn’t an avenue for anything, least of all acquittal. The issue being argued isn’t to do with evidence. It is to do with procedure and practice. You make a good and very important point in that issue of judges and “us” in absence for the 15 hearing. Absence at court proceedings is relevant. All of the facts are not before you. Neither is the information which was not accepted into evidence etc, the agreed facts as per defence and prosecutor negotiations bla bla bla. What you and I think is always going to be interesting, nothing more.

bundah 9:29 am 14 Nov 12

@ Lookout Smithers

There is no conspiracy theory apparent in this case.The circumstances were quite transparent and yes i felt the need to repeat the sequence of judgements due to the fact that some cited specific evidence as an argument for acquittal without considering other more compelling evidence.None of the judges disagreed on Hellier’s strong motive and opportunity to kill his former partner.However they did disagree on consciousness of guilt and DNA evidence.

None of us including the appeals judges were present for the 15 day hearing which does,obviously,place one at a disadvantage.One of the telling factors,for me, was that the jury only took a few hours to find Hillier guilty which suggests that they were quite convinced of his guilt.

Did they get it wrong? well i don’t think so but it’s somewhat academic given what’s transpired.

Lookout Smithers 4:57 am 14 Nov 12

If you have 20 mins to spare read these paragraphs for it is a snapshot highlighting the different perspectives of the judges.

http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgment/view/214/title/
paras 1-6…102-116…221-233

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/13.html
paras 38-56

http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgment/view/216/
paras 40-48

While it is proper for those to mention case law let’s not lose sight of the fact that it is the interpretation of all the evidence that one needs to make a judgement on in order to determine guilt or innocence

Rules of evidence. Read up on it. Apart from that try look at it like this.
An innocent person is exonerated and freed from prison after say 12 years because of process in the justice system that can take time. This is because appeals avenues are a part of that and a person may be in custody sometimes while the process takes its course. After 12 years, that person would be pretty pissed, but they got justice no less. It is still justice even though the end result differs from that found to be at the original trial. It can be viewed the same way with the hillier case? Judges views differ and also additional evidence can come to light. Thus far, the ruling is that of what we all hear you objecting to, and repeating yourself. We should be grateful that the lawn at the rear of the Supreme Court is looking especially well kept and green. Lets give thanks for that instead of all the negativity and conspiracy theory. Lets.

bundah 8:56 am 13 Nov 12

@vet111

If you have 20 mins to spare read these paragraphs for it is a snapshot highlighting the different perspectives of the judges.

http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgment/view/214/title/
paras 1-6…102-116…221-233

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/13.html
paras 38-56

http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgment/view/216/
paras 40-48

While it is proper for those to mention case law let’s not lose sight of the fact that it is the interpretation of all the evidence that one needs to make a judgement on in order to determine guilt or innocence

NoImRight 3:57 pm 12 Nov 12

HenryBG said :

Lookout Smithers said :

HenryBG said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Pork Hunt said :

Spelling and grammar errors will be attacked without merci….

Meaning that anything you may say before or after has zero merit to the topic at hand.

That doesn’t follow.

Maybe if public schools taught logic instead of political correctness we wouldn’t have these problems?

Yeah ! Hmm, I wonder how teachers would go about teaching the kids how to be logical? .

Considering the proportion of teachers these days who are PE teachers acting above their capability level, you may have a point.

Perhaps it surprises you to learn that Logic is a field of study, like Geography or Chemistry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

So is Religion. Doesnt make it learnt, just taught.

Lookout Smithers 3:40 pm 12 Nov 12

bundah said :

HenryBG said :

Lookout Smithers said :

HenryBG said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Pork Hunt said :

Spelling and grammar errors will be attacked without merci….

Meaning that anything you may say before or after has zero merit to the topic at hand.

That doesn’t follow.

Maybe if public schools taught logic instead of political correctness we wouldn’t have these problems?

Yeah ! Hmm, I wonder how teachers would go about teaching the kids how to be logical? .

Considering the proportion of teachers these days who are PE teachers acting above their capability level, you may have a point.

Perhaps it surprises you to learn that Logic is a field of study, like Geography or Chemistry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Indeed, logic could be likened to discipline and good judgement ie. at times,sadly non-existent.

Can be likened , but isn’t really. Make a logical conclusion based on what you observe? It is different for everybody. Relax, Im not having a go, it sounded funny when I read it, thats all. I have enjoyed my weekend here in Canberra. Its such a nice, safe and clean city. I can’t fault it, especially favoured is the low level of crime and high level of supreme court justice. BAM!

vet111 11:15 am 12 Nov 12

bundah said :

vet111 said :

bundah said :

@Anna Key

Firstly given you’ve thrown in your two bob’s worth and if your genuinly interested in understanding why i have been so critical of Higgins,Crispin and Besanko you will need to peruse the High Court judgement in this case.It is fairly damning.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/13.html

Secondly,getting caught up in ‘credentials’ and questioning one’s ability to understand case law reeks of elitism and could be seen as patronising.I would add it clearly has worked a treat in this case given all the highly credentialed judges could not agree on Hellier’s guilt.I would add that i have known a number of highly qualified professionals in all walks of life whose judgement at times has been poor to say the least.

Thirdly i think you’ll find that there is a inference in #8 which suggests that there is evidence casting doubt on Hiller’s guilt.

Finally i have recently perused the Anu Singh judgements and sentencing and the issue i have with this is that i believe the sentence imposed by Crispin was manifestly inadequate.Borderline personality disorder doesn’t really cut it for me.

I’m with Anna Key on this one – given you’re not addressing the issues being raised by others refuting your argument, I think your credentials are important. It’s not about elitism at all – being able to read and understand caselaw is incredibly complex, and it’s difficult to be able to do so effectively without any formal legal training. While it is possible to scrape together an argument based on others’ interpretations of judgments, it’s nearly impossible for a layperson to accurately interpret directly from the source….

Oh contraire while legal training is obviously important it is clear from this case that even those with comprehensive legal training ie. ‘the judges’ could not all agree on the appropriate outcome.However i will take my cue from the High Court who clearly stated that it was necessary to weigh up all the evidence and not resort to a piecemeal approach as was clearly erroneously displayed by Higgins and co.

Never underestimate the capacity of a layman to comprehend that aspect for some have an acute awareness and perception.

Yes, but do you know how each piece of evidence should be appropriately weighted? Do you know the technical application of the law to determine how such things as motive, consciousness of guilt etc may be established? Did you have a look at other ACT Supreme Court judgments, Appeals Court judgments, High Court judgments to determine whether your interpretation of this High Court judgment is in fact as clear as what you think it is? Because while I do not currently have the time to look at this particular judgment, it is very rare that the High Court will provide a definitive response to such a complex question….

Please note, in no way do I support Higgins’ judgment – in fact, generally if I see his name I imagine the flaws in his judgment. However the majority of the flaws are not related to his interpretation of the law, but his application of it where he has discretion.

bundah 10:53 am 12 Nov 12

vet111 said :

bundah said :

@Anna Key

Firstly given you’ve thrown in your two bob’s worth and if your genuinly interested in understanding why i have been so critical of Higgins,Crispin and Besanko you will need to peruse the High Court judgement in this case.It is fairly damning.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/13.html

Secondly,getting caught up in ‘credentials’ and questioning one’s ability to understand case law reeks of elitism and could be seen as patronising.I would add it clearly has worked a treat in this case given all the highly credentialed judges could not agree on Hellier’s guilt.I would add that i have known a number of highly qualified professionals in all walks of life whose judgement at times has been poor to say the least.

Thirdly i think you’ll find that there is a inference in #8 which suggests that there is evidence casting doubt on Hiller’s guilt.

Finally i have recently perused the Anu Singh judgements and sentencing and the issue i have with this is that i believe the sentence imposed by Crispin was manifestly inadequate.Borderline personality disorder doesn’t really cut it for me.

I’m with Anna Key on this one – given you’re not addressing the issues being raised by others refuting your argument, I think your credentials are important. It’s not about elitism at all – being able to read and understand caselaw is incredibly complex, and it’s difficult to be able to do so effectively without any formal legal training. While it is possible to scrape together an argument based on others’ interpretations of judgments, it’s nearly impossible for a layperson to accurately interpret directly from the source….

Oh contraire while legal training is obviously important it is clear from this case that even those with comprehensive legal training ie. ‘the judges’ could not all agree on the appropriate outcome.However i will take my cue from the High Court who clearly stated that it was necessary to weigh up all the evidence and not resort to a piecemeal approach as was clearly erroneously displayed by Higgins and co.

Never underestimate the capacity of a layman to comprehend that aspect for some have an acute awareness and perception.

vet111 10:39 am 12 Nov 12

bundah said :

@Anna Key

Firstly given you’ve thrown in your two bob’s worth and if your genuinly interested in understanding why i have been so critical of Higgins,Crispin and Besanko you will need to peruse the High Court judgement in this case.It is fairly damning.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/13.html

Secondly,getting caught up in ‘credentials’ and questioning one’s ability to understand case law reeks of elitism and could be seen as patronising.I would add it clearly has worked a treat in this case given all the highly credentialed judges could not agree on Hellier’s guilt.I would add that i have known a number of highly qualified professionals in all walks of life whose judgement at times has been poor to say the least.

Thirdly i think you’ll find that there is a inference in #8 which suggests that there is evidence casting doubt on Hiller’s guilt.

Finally i have recently perused the Anu Singh judgements and sentencing and the issue i have with this is that i believe the sentence imposed by Crispin was manifestly inadequate.Borderline personality disorder doesn’t really cut it for me.

I’m with Anna Key on this one – given you’re not addressing the issues being raised by others refuting your argument, I think your credentials are important. It’s not about elitism at all – being able to read and understand caselaw is incredibly complex, and it’s difficult to be able to do so effectively without any formal legal training. While it is possible to scrape together an argument based on others’ interpretations of judgments, it’s nearly impossible for a layperson to accurately interpret directly from the source….

bundah 10:36 am 12 Nov 12

HenryBG said :

Lookout Smithers said :

HenryBG said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Pork Hunt said :

Spelling and grammar errors will be attacked without merci….

Meaning that anything you may say before or after has zero merit to the topic at hand.

That doesn’t follow.

Maybe if public schools taught logic instead of political correctness we wouldn’t have these problems?

Yeah ! Hmm, I wonder how teachers would go about teaching the kids how to be logical? .

Considering the proportion of teachers these days who are PE teachers acting above their capability level, you may have a point.

Perhaps it surprises you to learn that Logic is a field of study, like Geography or Chemistry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Indeed, logic could be likened to discipline and good judgement ie. at times,sadly non-existent.

HenryBG 10:15 am 12 Nov 12

Lookout Smithers said :

HenryBG said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Pork Hunt said :

Spelling and grammar errors will be attacked without merci….

Meaning that anything you may say before or after has zero merit to the topic at hand.

That doesn’t follow.

Maybe if public schools taught logic instead of political correctness we wouldn’t have these problems?

Yeah ! Hmm, I wonder how teachers would go about teaching the kids how to be logical? .

Considering the proportion of teachers these days who are PE teachers acting above their capability level, you may have a point.

Perhaps it surprises you to learn that Logic is a field of study, like Geography or Chemistry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Lookout Smithers 1:44 am 12 Nov 12

HenryBG said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Pork Hunt said :

Spelling and grammar errors will be attacked without merci….

Meaning that anything you may say before or after has zero merit to the topic at hand.

That doesn’t follow.

Maybe if public schools taught logic instead of political correctness we wouldn’t have these problems?

Yeah ! Hmm, I wonder how teachers would go about teaching the kids how to be logical? Hahaha. Im sorry I couldn’t help it. I just read it like that. I know what you meant. I think.

HenryBG 12:54 pm 11 Nov 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Pork Hunt said :

Spelling and grammar errors will be attacked without merci….

Meaning that anything you may say before or after has zero merit to the topic at hand.

That doesn’t follow.

Maybe if public schools taught logic instead of political correctness we wouldn’t have these problems?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 12:38 pm 11 Nov 12

Pork Hunt said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

bundah said :

Lookout Smithers said :

bundah said :

poetix said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Guess she chose the wrong Hillier

*sunglasses*

to die on

YEEEAAAAAAAAHHHH

Your well developed sense of what is appropriate never ceases to amaze me.

WMC if that happened to be a family relative of yours that was beaten and strangled to death would you be as keen to ridicule?

I think you should champion the cases you want to see retried in the form of a life-project, get law degree and the relevant credentials to be admitted so you can put your obvious passion for these issues to a more meaniful use. It will be all the more sweeter for you if you can show rather than tell the world what the truth and facts are here. I will wholeheartedly commend you and stand corrected on my opinion. But what ever you do and what ever opinions you may have about crime and criminal cases, you don’t have to call people cunts or dumbness. It cheapens your view and really is just a lazy and easy option for anyone to take. Do better than that and back it with a dignified approach if you really care enough.

One of the advantages of being self-employed is that one has much greater autonomy and discretion,not unlike judges.The thought of attempting to right the perceived wrongs is unpalatable and largely futile to say the least no matter how well intentioned one is.The wheels of bureaucracy,especially in relation to the legal world turn vey slowly and i have neither the patience nor inclination to become involved.However that doesn’t prevent me from researching cases and then offering an opinion on a public forum,even if i get a little demonstrative.At no stage have i ever referred to anyone commenting on RA as c***s nor would i.But referring to someone as stupid or dumb combined with a touch of ridicule in response to patronising or derogatory comments is entirely acceptable and has pretty much become the norm.

You called somebody a dickhead because they disagreed with you. If you are debating someone and resort to insults, any other points you have made get thrown out the window. It’s on par with attacking somebody’s spelling.

Spelling and grammar errors will be attacked without merci….

Meaning that anything you may say before or after has zero merit to the topic at hand.

bundah 12:12 pm 11 Nov 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

bundah said :

Lookout Smithers said :

bundah said :

poetix said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Guess she chose the wrong Hillier

*sunglasses*

to die on

YEEEAAAAAAAAHHHH

Your well developed sense of what is appropriate never ceases to amaze me.

WMC if that happened to be a family relative of yours that was beaten and strangled to death would you be as keen to ridicule?

I think you should champion the cases you want to see retried in the form of a life-project, get law degree and the relevant credentials to be admitted so you can put your obvious passion for these issues to a more meaniful use. It will be all the more sweeter for you if you can show rather than tell the world what the truth and facts are here. I will wholeheartedly commend you and stand corrected on my opinion. But what ever you do and what ever opinions you may have about crime and criminal cases, you don’t have to call people cunts or dumbness. It cheapens your view and really is just a lazy and easy option for anyone to take. Do better than that and back it with a dignified approach if you really care enough.

One of the advantages of being self-employed is that one has much greater autonomy and discretion,not unlike judges.The thought of attempting to right the perceived wrongs is unpalatable and largely futile to say the least no matter how well intentioned one is.The wheels of bureaucracy,especially in relation to the legal world turn vey slowly and i have neither the patience nor inclination to become involved.However that doesn’t prevent me from researching cases and then offering an opinion on a public forum,even if i get a little demonstrative.At no stage have i ever referred to anyone commenting on RA as c***s nor would i.But referring to someone as stupid or dumb combined with a touch of ridicule in response to patronising or derogatory comments is entirely acceptable and has pretty much become the norm.

You called somebody a dickhead because they disagreed with you. If you are debating someone and resort to insults, any other points you have made get thrown out the window. It’s on par with attacking somebody’s spelling.

As penance for my intemperance i will now resort to severe self-flagellation with video to follow,assuming the moderator approves.

Pork Hunt 11:54 am 11 Nov 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

bundah said :

Lookout Smithers said :

bundah said :

poetix said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Guess she chose the wrong Hillier

*sunglasses*

to die on

YEEEAAAAAAAAHHHH

Your well developed sense of what is appropriate never ceases to amaze me.

WMC if that happened to be a family relative of yours that was beaten and strangled to death would you be as keen to ridicule?

I think you should champion the cases you want to see retried in the form of a life-project, get law degree and the relevant credentials to be admitted so you can put your obvious passion for these issues to a more meaniful use. It will be all the more sweeter for you if you can show rather than tell the world what the truth and facts are here. I will wholeheartedly commend you and stand corrected on my opinion. But what ever you do and what ever opinions you may have about crime and criminal cases, you don’t have to call people cunts or dumbness. It cheapens your view and really is just a lazy and easy option for anyone to take. Do better than that and back it with a dignified approach if you really care enough.

One of the advantages of being self-employed is that one has much greater autonomy and discretion,not unlike judges.The thought of attempting to right the perceived wrongs is unpalatable and largely futile to say the least no matter how well intentioned one is.The wheels of bureaucracy,especially in relation to the legal world turn vey slowly and i have neither the patience nor inclination to become involved.However that doesn’t prevent me from researching cases and then offering an opinion on a public forum,even if i get a little demonstrative.At no stage have i ever referred to anyone commenting on RA as c***s nor would i.But referring to someone as stupid or dumb combined with a touch of ridicule in response to patronising or derogatory comments is entirely acceptable and has pretty much become the norm.

You called somebody a dickhead because they disagreed with you. If you are debating someone and resort to insults, any other points you have made get thrown out the window. It’s on par with attacking somebody’s spelling.

Spelling and grammar errors will be attacked without merci….

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site