Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Get a new bike from $50 per week

What Exactly Does ‘Taking Steps to Stop Re-Offending’ Mean in a Canberra Court?

By vg 20 April 2009 49

Looks like Hilary Penfold is perpetuating the way she started in the ACT Supreme Court [According to a story on the ABC].

    The ACT Supreme Court heard that after an argument with a group of off duty police officers outside a Dickson fast food shop, Bullock chased one of the men and hit him a number of times.

    The court was told he was feeling resentful about the way his sister had been treated by the group.

    Two and a half years ago, Bullock was convicted of assaulting a Sydney man at a bar in Civic in 2005.

    The victim, 23-year-old Mohamed Kamely, was later found dead in his hotel room.

    Today Justice Hilary Penfold said Bullock had taken steps to avoid offending and gave Bullock an 18 month good behaviour order.

I mean the guy ‘had taken steps to stop re-offending’ (the key word here to stop ‘re-offending’, not ‘offending’). The guy gets convicted of an assault 2 years previously in which someone ended up dying and still doesn’t learn his lesson? At what point will a court in this town make someone actually take responsibility for their actions. If he had taken steps he wouldn’t re-offend.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
49 Responses to
What Exactly Does ‘Taking Steps to Stop Re-Offending’ Mean in a Canberra Court?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Emlyn Ward 7:45 pm 22 Apr 09

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Hilary Penfold was an equal-opportunity appointee who has an appalling record of inexpert decision-making.

Pommy bastard 11:33 am 22 Apr 09

Granny, your sarcasm in this thread is approaching high art.

Granny 11:25 am 22 Apr 09

Well, that is ok then!

; )

chewy14 10:49 am 22 Apr 09

Was that aimed at me Granny?
all I am saying is on the scale of things, this guy not going to jail, is probably on the low end of stuff ups by our judiciary.

Granny 10:40 am 22 Apr 09

Yeah, insult the character of the police, because we couldn’t possibly criticise the judges …. It must be the fault of the policeman that got hit. He obviously brought it on himself like all those battered women who will insist on provoking their abusers to violence …. If only people would stop saying and doing the wrong thing then other people wouldn’t have to hit them! Why won’t they realise?

chewy14 8:40 am 22 Apr 09

vg said :

A bit of context for you courtesy of Google.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/04/19/1901880.htm

Interesting to see what the learned judge described his actions as in that case, but of course feeling resentful is an excuse to chase someone down the street and assault them. Imagine if his feelings got weeeeeeely weeeeeely hurt

Didn’t the parents sue the hospital for negligence over the death?
I think its a bit harsh to pin the death wholly on him, even though it was probably a contributing factor.
He may be a thug, but you did say this was a personal opinion VG.
Were you part of the group attacked?

Granny 10:54 pm 21 Apr 09

Oh, look, if Justice Gray and Justice Penfold think this chappie is no threat to society that’s good enough for me ….

So he bashed somebody at a bar and they died later on. So what? Coincidence? I think so!

So what if he assaults somebody else two years down the track? It’s not like the man makes a habit of assaulting people. This practically proves that he’s seen the error of his ways.

I’ll certainly sleep safer knowing our good justices are on the job protecting us all from any old violent redneck scourge!

vg 10:09 pm 21 Apr 09

A bit of context for you courtesy of Google.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/04/19/1901880.htm

Interesting to see what the learned judge described his actions as in that case, but of course feeling resentful is an excuse to chase someone down the street and assault them. Imagine if his feelings got weeeeeeely weeeeeely hurt

Deadmandrinking 10:04 pm 21 Apr 09

Did they harass her?

Danman 9:14 pm 21 Apr 09

Granny, if they did, would that mean that they are Men Without Hats??

Granny 8:54 pm 21 Apr 09

Did they remove their hats??!

Granny 8:53 pm 21 Apr 09

Well, seriously, did they open the door for her? Did they throw down their coats so she didn’t have to walk in the mud? Did they pay for her drinks? Did they wait to be properly introduced before addressing her? Did they stand when she entered the room?

Special G 8:39 pm 21 Apr 09

They were obviously standing in the same general space as her and therefore treating her badly as they were breathing her entitlement of oxygen. Who cares what load of bollocks story you throw at the ACT Supreme Court. It’s all good.

Granny 7:04 pm 21 Apr 09

Thank goodness we have our judiciary to save us all from these violent rednecks!

farq 5:16 pm 21 Apr 09

“The court was told he was feeling resentful about the way his sister had been treated by the group.”

I wonder what this group of off-duty officers did to her?

FC 3:38 pm 21 Apr 09

I was thinking my poor typing skills might offend also..

chewy14 3:36 pm 21 Apr 09

FC said :

I meant to say that use of language.

LOL

FC 3:32 pm 21 Apr 09

I meant to say that use of language.

FC 3:27 pm 21 Apr 09

Yes but what I mean is that even though they are the same charge, the range of type of assaults that occur and the varying warrant different sentences, and different community expectations of sentences.

And perhaps you want “the people” who are assaulting other to be caned. Not “These cnuts”
Language is a powerful tool. And that use language offends me.And likely many others

vandam 3:15 pm 21 Apr 09

FC said :

There are different types, and different levels of assualt Hugh.

For example going up to a stranger and assualting a stranger in the shopping centre is a different type of assault than maybe a brawl that begins on a football feild and assault follows.
And also pushing someone, which still would be assault, is very different from kicking someone in the head.

Maybe morally, but its all the same charge. It only changes on injuries sustained.
Bring back the cane and start whipping these cnuts that find the need to assault anyone regardless of their gender, age, relationship!

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site