20 April 2009

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

| vg
Join the conversation
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.

Join the conversation

49
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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 bastard11:33 am 22 Apr 09

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

Well, that is ok then!

; )

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.

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?

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?

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!

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

Deadmandrinking10:04 pm 21 Apr 09

Did they harass her?

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

Did they remove their hats??!

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?

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.

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

“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?

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

FC said :

I meant to say that use of language.

LOL

I meant to say that use of language.

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

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!

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.

Hugh Lews said :

Just imagine if it was her son who got bashed. Very different outcome.

Duh! she wouldn’t have been allowed to sit on the case, would she. It would have to go to Terry Higgins. Very same outcome.

All pretty standard in the ACT.

Just imagine if it was her son who got bashed.

Very different outcome.

Good attempt by ‘deadmandrinking’ but assult is assult. Police know this (should know this better than most people).

Pommy bastard10:26 am 21 Apr 09

fabforty said :

When the male occupants of seats on our judiciary start showing a reasonable degree of responsibility and accountability then perhaps you can bag out Hilary. At the moment they are all in need of counselling for underperformance. Regardless of gender.

Ahhh… “counseling”, the universal panacea, the cure for all ills. (NOT!)

If someone is “underperforming”, (another weasel word term, translated reads; “not up to the job”) they need to be given a time scale to shape up, or ship out. Not counseling, which only panders to the inadequate.

Die Lefty Scum10:19 am 21 Apr 09

Welcome to the ACT court system – where the perpetrator is really the victim, and the victim is… well… nothing.

Deadmandrinking10:58 pm 20 Apr 09

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

I wonder how she had been ‘treated’ by the group and whether that might have been a explanation as to why Bullock chose to re-offend. Has that aspect of this case been investigated?

People can behave out-of-character if they feel a family member is threatened. Somebody’s sister being mistreated by a group of men can lend itself to the possibility of something serious.

This story is sounding a little one-sided…

Inappropriate said :

FC said :

And why does her name have the suffix ‘QC’ if she has no legal qualifications?

She has a law degree (hon) and is a QC, but has never practiced law.

How in the name of Kevin do you become a Queen’s Council if you’ve never practised law? I thought QC meant “Mad Skills Lawyer”, like Geoffrey Robertson.

Not offended, but +1 Fabforty, they all need to get fair dinkum. Canberra courts are a sad joke.

Fabforty… well said and very valid. Regardless of gender they are all performing well below community expectations.

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

Hells_Bells74 said :

At what point will a court in this town make someone actually take responsibility for their actions.

When we finally have a government which appoints magistrates who are legally qualified rather than appointing people simply because they have a vagina.

Can you possibly be any more offensive ? Where is Johnboy ?

When the male occupants of seats on our judiciary start showing a reasonable degree of responsibility and accountability then perhaps you can bag out Hilary. At the moment they are all in need of counselling for underperformance. Regardless of gender.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy6:39 pm 20 Apr 09

She has a law degree (hon) and is a QC, but has never practiced law.

So its kinda like taking a business school grad and making them CEO… Hmm…

GottaLoveCanberra6:22 pm 20 Apr 09

Special G said :

Why do results like this surprise anyone. The ACT Supreme Court continues to have a soft stance on violent crime.

What it comes down to is this. If someone wishes to assault you defend yourself to the best of your abilities with whatever is available to do so. Do not rely on the Courts to rehabilitate/punish offenders.

And that’s why I’ll be gutting anyone who enters my home with what I gauge to be intent to assault.

Why do results like this surprise anyone. The ACT Supreme Court continues to have a soft stance on violent crime.

What it comes down to is this. If someone wishes to assault you defend yourself to the best of your abilities with whatever is available to do so. Do not rely on the Courts to rehabilitate/punish offenders.

ah, so it would seem that she does have legal qualification then.

Inappropriate4:45 pm 20 Apr 09

FC said :

And why does her name have the suffix ‘QC’ if she has no legal qualifications?

She has a law degree (hon) and is a QC, but has never practiced law.

The point of what he should have learned is obviously lost on you. He should have learned a little thing called consequences

Side note: it’s a bit rough chucking in “his victim was later found dead” when his conviction suggests no life-threatening action… a bit more info on that link would have been nice. Just sayin’.

And why does her name have the suffix ‘QC’ if she has no legal qualifications?

Steady Eddie. She was NOT simply appointed because she was a women.
If that was the case, then they would have just picked any random woman.

Maybe (and I mean maybe), her being a woman played in her favour when being considered for the position, but her sex is not the only reason she was appointed.

Hilary Penfold doesn’t really exist. It’s Terry Higgins in drag – I mean, has anyone ever seen both of them in the same room together??

Steady Eddie3:44 pm 20 Apr 09

FC said :

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

Hells_Bells74 said :

At what point will a court in this town make someone actually take responsibility for their actions.

When we finally have a government which appoints magistrates who are legally qualified rather than appointing people simply because they have a vagina.

I doubt that was why she was appointed.

a very foolish comment in my opinion

Penfold was appointed simply because she is a woman as our PC Chief Minister (and others in the ACT government) felt that the courts were “a boy’s club” and that not enough women were involved. She has no legal qualifications whatsoever and her appointment was severely criticised for this reason.

Sorry, you must have missed Inga Muscio’s book.

What I believe you are calling for are magistrates that hand out tougher sentences,
Not, “real cnuts”

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

Hells_Bells74 said :

At what point will a court in this town make someone actually take responsibility for their actions.

When we finally have a government which appoints magistrates who are legally qualified rather than appointing people simply because they have a vagina.

I doubt that was why she was appointed.

a very foolish comment in my opinion

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy3:22 pm 20 Apr 09

And yet what it seems we need are some real cnuts…

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster3:13 pm 20 Apr 09

Hells_Bells74 said :

At what point will a court in this town make someone actually take responsibility for their actions.

When we finally have a government which appoints magistrates who are legally qualified rather than appointing people simply because they have a vagina.

Pommy bastard2:08 pm 20 Apr 09

“had taken steps to stop re-offending”

Weazel words. How about; “had stopped offending.”

I will add the above is personal, not professional opinion

What steps to avoid offending did he take?

Not punching someone in the head for three years?

Hells_Bells741:26 pm 20 Apr 09

At what point will a court in this town make someone actually take responsibility for their actions.

When pigs fly!

Oh look, it’s a bird, it’s a plane, no…

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.