Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

We'll switch your business
to Led lighting for Free*

What we already knew about the Supreme Soft Court Justice

By Special G - 17 August 2008 10

I spied on the front page of the Crimes today an article about ‘Rough’ Justice meted out in the ACT Magistrates Court and how the local crooks have caught on to this and are making the switch to the Supreme Court where it is well known to be the haven of a slap on the wrist with a limp lettuce leaf.

Victor Violante did his research and came up with a number of quotes from Defence council and a Magistrate (neither named)

Several lawyers have already said they would take contested hearings to the Supreme Court every time.

“A strong perception exists among offenders and defence lawyers that most custodial sentences will be discounted on appeal.

Legal practitioners, magistrates and prosecutors believe the Supreme Court metes out more favourable treatment.

One criminal barrister said, ”You always get a discount on appeal, just for having gone to the trouble [of lodging one].”

One magistrate said, evidently with his tongue only slightly in his cheek, ”It’s almost professional misconduct for defence counsel not to appeal against a custodial sentence given by a magistrate.”

The article also mentions new legislation to stop crooks going shopping for the best Magistrate to hear their case.

My thoughts are we need to get rid of this trial by Judge alone crap and put it before the people. Let them have a say in the sentencing as well.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
10 Responses to
What we already knew about the Supreme Soft Court Justice
Mr Evil 10:13 am 18 Aug 08

I had a little chuckle to myself on Saturday morning when I read the Canberra Times – as it seems they really do trawl RiotACT for their story ideas.

Headbonius 8:52 pm 17 Aug 08

As I have previously stated, Ms Saunders is a comical irrelevance. I recall this piece the Canberra Times did on her. When I read the self serving, I am a goddess and defender of the down trodden and oppressed comments I nearly lost my lunch. She wears some stupid ring and I forget what the article said about it but maybe it like some super-heroine ring….what was that cartoon called? Shazaam I think it was.

novocastrian 5:16 pm 17 Aug 08

I have always assumed Jennifer Saunders’ many letters to the CT are free advertising for her. The fact that I have never met anyone who agrees with the content of said letters doesn’t matter, it gets her name in the public eye..ear…whatever.

vg 2:46 pm 17 Aug 08

vandam said :

It seems that everyone agrees on this one except the barristers. Which can be explained…… It takes longer to get a decision in the Supreme court, meaning more work and more money…….

I wonder if we are going to get that ‘I hate everything about Canberra’ barrister on here otherwise known as Jennifer Saunders to defend the court system?

Whenever I hear the name Jennifer Saunders all I can think of is a sentence that ends in ‘….as a hat full of bum holes’.

The funny this is, as a legal counsel, she is average or worse. She spends more time writings letters to the CT than doing actual legal work

DJ 1:47 pm 17 Aug 08

vg said :

Ant

Has hell frozen over?

I wholeheartedly agree with you for the 2nd time this week

It is a little chilly over here so I guess I too agree with ant….

vandam 1:27 pm 17 Aug 08

It seems that everyone agrees on this one except the barristers. Which can be explained…… It takes longer to get a decision in the Supreme court, meaning more work and more money…….

I wonder if we are going to get that ‘I hate everything about Canberra’ barrister on here otherwise known as Jennifer Saunders to defend the court system?

vg 12:11 pm 17 Aug 08

Ant

Has hell frozen over?

I wholeheartedly agree with you for the 2nd time this week

heinous 9:56 am 17 Aug 08

I like the Bali system, where sometimes life sentences are changed to death sentences. This makes you think long and hard before deciding to appeal or not.

Special G 9:21 am 17 Aug 08

I’m going to agree with you on this one ant. The system is designed currently to waste time, resources and shop around for the best outcome. If you appeal and found to be still guilty then you should be slaped harder

ant 9:06 am 17 Aug 08

Back in the halcyon days of defamation in Australia, where to sue was pretty-well guaranteed to succeed (because almost anything was defamatory under the law), Canberra was a favoured jurisdiction to lodge the complaint, due to the case being heard by a judge, rather than a jury. Judges were more likely to respond to fine points of law and award big damages, whereas juries were inconveniently prone to applying common sense.

They need to put a stop to people going straight to the supreme court just because they don’t like the magistrate’s decision. People doing this should be automatically penalised. If they don’t have a serious and clear reason for the appeal (other than they don’t like the verdict or sentence), they should not be able to waste our resources like this.

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