Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

When your son’s charged with raping a man’s daughter you think you’d watch the C-bomb around him?

By claire1013 - 28 June 2012 33

The Supreme Court released the sentencing of Dennis Bloomfield after a houso on houso punch up on Twamley Crescent Richardson last year.

In February 2011 two Richardson families (Coghlan and Bloomfield) butted heads.

The Coghlan son had allegedly sexually assaulted the Bloomfield daughter in his family’s home the previous year and was subsequently charged. The two families lived almost adjacent from one another and so there was a large amount of animosity following the charges. More charges were pressed by the Bloomfields about the conduct of the Coghlan’s following the incident.

On the 5th of February 2011, Mr Bloomfield and his partner were leaving their property to go to dinner when they found Coghlan’s son outside of his father’s house, in breach of his bail conditions which stated that he not visit his father’s home. He then proceeded to make an offensive gesture (we can assume it was the bird) towards Mr Bloomfield and his partner.

During the night Mr Bloomfield consumed a lot of alcohol whilst his partner said to him:

“You need to sort this out, Dennis. He’s threatening our family. It has to stop. The kids are only young. You are the head of the family. You need to grow some balls and put a stop to it. You need to sort it out. Please, Dennis, put a stop to it”

Upon returning home, Mr Bloomfield, accompanied by his brother in law, visited Mr Coghlan at his home. The screen door was locked whilst the front door was unlocked and open. Mr Coghlan greeted him unpleasantly, dropping both C and F-bombs. Unsurprisingly, this upset Mr Bloomfield and a yelling match ensued. Mr Coghlan displayed physical signs of aggression which angered Mr Bloomfield even more. Mr Bloomfield gripped the mesh of the screen door and pulled, opening the door and stepping inside.

Punches were thrown about by all parties for about 30 seconds and Mr Coghlan sustained minor injuries. The police and ambulance was called; no one knows who called them. Charges of aggravated burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and damaging property were issued against Mr Bloomfield. In May of 2011, Mr Bloomfield pleaded “not guilty” to the charges, changing his plea in September to “guilty”. Mr Bloomfield had also offered to pay for the damages to the screen door. He does not have a clean slate, having previously faced 11 other charges. One minor charge committed in 2008 and 10 others regarding motor vehicles in 1998. The sentencing judge, Justice Nield, did not take these under consideration when sentencing Bloomfield as they were not of a violent nature.

Justice Nield took many other factors into consideration when deciding the sentence:

I accept that the offender has good prospects for rehabilitation and that he is unlikely to re-offend. This is the first time when he acted violently. He was spurred into acting violently by the actions of the complainant. He is ashamed and remorseful for what he did. He has the support of his wife, children and supervisor. He has changed his place of residence. He has ceased to drink alcohol. He is considered by the author of the pre-sentence report to be a low risk of re-offending. He has commenced anger management programs as suggested by ACT Corrective Services. All this bodes well for his future.

Another factor that I consider to be relevant, in addition to what I have said already about the offences and the offender, is the fact that the offender is the breadwinner, to use that expression, for his family and that his family would suffer financially to a significant degree if he were sentenced to imprisonment.

A final factor that I consider to be relevant is that the offender’s wife has been diagnosed with a form of cancer and that she is to be shortly admitted into hospital for major surgery. The offender will need to be available to care for his two juvenile children during his wife’s hospitalisation and to assist his wife after her discharge from hospital.

The sentence is suspended with a good behaviour bond. Mr Bloomfield has also been ordered to pay $446.55 in damages for the screen door.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
33 Responses to
When your son’s charged with raping a man’s daughter you think you’d watch the C-bomb around him?
HenryBG 4:48 pm 28 Jun 12

Dilandach said :

EvanJames said :

HenryBG said :

snoopydoc said :

Ah, inter-bogan warfare…. it’s so cute…

Yep, two guvvie-housing tribes go to war….and the taxpayer funds the consequences.

Pretty much what I was thinking. These people cost and cost and cost. And, they breed like flies and their offspring maintain the family tradition of consuming resources and services that the law-abiding taxpayers have to pay for.

Eventually there’s going to be a serious tipping point where they’ll be more than the slight annoyance than they are now. I wonder what solutions will be come up with to break the intergenerational welfare dependant families.

You have a growing segment of society that are violent while having very basic social interaction skills that contribute very little to wider society whilst being a drain. Something is going to give sooner or later.

You really need to highlight the fact that the services consumed by this ever-spawning human rubbish are funded by a rapidly shrinking demographic.

The tipping point we will reach requires us to have an escape plan: at some point, the few of us that are left who work and pay taxes will have to retire from our urban homes to our well-secured country retreats while the no-longer-serviced worthless bogans rampage through the streets and start eating each other in the style of “Night of the Living Dead”.

Unless a requirement that anybody on benefits or in guvvie housing be required to provide proof of being on contraception, then we are on an unstoppable track for the next civilisational collapse.

vet111 4:32 pm 28 Jun 12

Thank you c_c, surprisingly I am quite familiar with the law – intimate, even. I just did not read this one in the manner that you think it has been handed down.

Being facetious, in Canberra you can almost get a suspended sentence for manslaughter, so I was surprised at the length of the sentence. It’s an interesting one – ordinarily, I would suggest that it is not appropriate for violent offenders to be eligible for suspended sentences. By the same token, is that fair and just punishment for those offenders that punch someone in a pub brawl etc….

c_c 4:13 pm 28 Jun 12

claire1013 said :

I just looked it up and it says that suspending a sentence means that you delay the time before serving out that sentence. In Australia, if you commit a crime on a good behaviour bond you immediately serve your originally delayed sentence as well as any additional charges following the second offence.

That’s all wrong.

claire1013 3:58 pm 28 Jun 12

I just looked it up and it says that suspending a sentence means that you delay the time before serving out that sentence. In Australia, if you commit a crime on a good behaviour bond you immediately serve your originally delayed sentence as well as any additional charges following the second offence.

c_c 3:55 pm 28 Jun 12

claire1013 said :

Notice I said “The sentence is suspended with a good behaviour bond”. He still needs to serve the sentence, he has just been given enough time to see that his wife fully recovers and to maybe get some money behind them for when the time comes. The judge also reduced the sentence by 20%.

You rewrote the whole last paragraph after I posted my comment, and now by posting this comment, you’re trying to make it look like you wrote it that way all along. That is extremely dishonest and you should be ashamed.

And your edit and comment are both still wrong amusingly.

vet111 said :

I read the judgement, and perhaps I’m mistaken but my reading was that the sentences are suspended for a time, but he has to serve them after that time.

Even if they are wholly suspended (which I don’t think they are), considering other cases I think it’s quite harsh. Not necessarily unwarranted, but nonetheless – quite a shock coming from an ACT court….

It’s easy to read it that way, the terminology is quite confusing. The suspension is basically a good behaviour period, or sometimes called an “inactive” period or a “withheld” sentence.

It can be either a partial or a whole suspension. If partial, the offender would have to serve some of the sentence but not all of it. In this case, the judge has elected for a whole suspension.

The condition is that for the period of the suspension (either part or whole), the offender must stay out of trouble, otherwise the original sentence may then be imposed.

He’s rather lucky to get it as in some jurisdictions, a lot of violent offences are been excluded or restricted from application of suspended sentences.

claire1013 3:46 pm 28 Jun 12

qbngeek said :

claire1013 said :

c_c said :

vet111 said :

Just had a read through the judgement, and I’ve got to say it – for what it was, it seems like quite a harsh sentence….

It isn’t, Claire1013 hasn’t bothered to read the sentence properly. The whole last paragraph is just wrong.

The Justice has suspended both sentences, meaning he doesn’t need to serve the time so long as he abides by the good behaviour conditions of the Crimes Act during the period he serves the suspended sentences. If he breaches those conditions, he would more than likely find himself in the slammer.

Only one of the Sentences is suspended until 16 May 2013, the other offence is suspended until 16 September 2014.

The suspensions were directly not because he has to care for his kids and would more likely have been because of his minimal chance of reoffending

So basically he has to stay out of trouble a couple of years. I don’t think that’s harsh.

I think the article should be fixed too.

Notice I said “The sentence is suspended with a good behaviour bond”. He still needs to serve the sentence, he has just been given enough time to see that his wife fully recovers and to maybe get some money behind them for when the time comes. The judge also reduced the sentence by 20%.

Sorry Claire but you don’t seem to understand the sentence. By suspending the sentence that means he does not serve any time unless he breaches the good behaviour order or commits another crime before the dates specified. It does not mean that he is free until that time and then serves his time.

I can understand the confusion as ‘suspension’ could mean either thing, but he will only do time if he screws up.

I’m not jumping to defend myself, but I’m still pretty young and have misunderstood the process of law recently. I find what you have said pretty interesting but I haven’t heard of what you’re talking about before. If you have any links that can help explain this, that would be great. However, until such time I am going to remain blissfully ignorant as I would rather argue my own case that I understand as opposed to accepting one that I don’t. So I urge you to find a link, cause I don’t want to look like an idiot forever 🙂

Dilandach 3:46 pm 28 Jun 12

EvanJames said :

HenryBG said :

snoopydoc said :

Ah, inter-bogan warfare…. it’s so cute…

Yep, two guvvie-housing tribes go to war….and the taxpayer funds the consequences.

Pretty much what I was thinking. These people cost and cost and cost. And, they breed like flies and their offspring maintain the family tradition of consuming resources and services that the law-abiding taxpayers have to pay for.

Eventually there’s going to be a serious tipping point where they’ll be more than the slight annoyance than they are now. I wonder what solutions will be come up with to break the intergenerational welfare dependant families.

You have a growing segment of society that are violent while having very basic social interaction skills that contribute very little to wider society whilst being a drain. Something is going to give sooner or later.

qbngeek 3:26 pm 28 Jun 12

claire1013 said :

c_c said :

vet111 said :

Just had a read through the judgement, and I’ve got to say it – for what it was, it seems like quite a harsh sentence….

It isn’t, Claire1013 hasn’t bothered to read the sentence properly. The whole last paragraph is just wrong.

The Justice has suspended both sentences, meaning he doesn’t need to serve the time so long as he abides by the good behaviour conditions of the Crimes Act during the period he serves the suspended sentences. If he breaches those conditions, he would more than likely find himself in the slammer.

Only one of the Sentences is suspended until 16 May 2013, the other offence is suspended until 16 September 2014.

The suspensions were directly not because he has to care for his kids and would more likely have been because of his minimal chance of reoffending

So basically he has to stay out of trouble a couple of years. I don’t think that’s harsh.

I think the article should be fixed too.

Notice I said “The sentence is suspended with a good behaviour bond”. He still needs to serve the sentence, he has just been given enough time to see that his wife fully recovers and to maybe get some money behind them for when the time comes. The judge also reduced the sentence by 20%.

Sorry Claire but you don’t seem to understand the sentence. By suspending the sentence that means he does not serve any time unless he breaches the good behaviour order or commits another crime before the dates specified. It does not mean that he is free until that time and then serves his time.

I can understand the confusion as ‘suspension’ could mean either thing, but he will only do time if he screws up.

vet111 3:19 pm 28 Jun 12

I read the judgement, and perhaps I’m mistaken but my reading was that the sentences are suspended for a time, but he has to serve them after that time.

Even if they are wholly suspended (which I don’t think they are), considering other cases I think it’s quite harsh. Not necessarily unwarranted, but nonetheless – quite a shock coming from an ACT court….

claire1013 2:40 pm 28 Jun 12

c_c said :

vet111 said :

Just had a read through the judgement, and I’ve got to say it – for what it was, it seems like quite a harsh sentence….

It isn’t, Claire1013 hasn’t bothered to read the sentence properly. The whole last paragraph is just wrong.

The Justice has suspended both sentences, meaning he doesn’t need to serve the time so long as he abides by the good behaviour conditions of the Crimes Act during the period he serves the suspended sentences. If he breaches those conditions, he would more than likely find himself in the slammer.

Only one of the Sentences is suspended until 16 May 2013, the other offence is suspended until 16 September 2014.

The suspensions were directly not because he has to care for his kids and would more likely have been because of his minimal chance of reoffending

So basically he has to stay out of trouble a couple of years. I don’t think that’s harsh.

I think the article should be fixed too.

Notice I said “The sentence is suspended with a good behaviour bond”. He still needs to serve the sentence, he has just been given enough time to see that his wife fully recovers and to maybe get some money behind them for when the time comes. The judge also reduced the sentence by 20%.

EvanJames 2:32 pm 28 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

snoopydoc said :

Ah, inter-bogan warfare…. it’s so cute…

Yep, two guvvie-housing tribes go to war….and the taxpayer funds the consequences.

Pretty much what I was thinking. These people cost and cost and cost. And, they breed like flies and their offspring maintain the family tradition of consuming resources and services that the law-abiding taxpayers have to pay for.

HenryBG 2:13 pm 28 Jun 12

snoopydoc said :

Ah, inter-bogan warfare…. it’s so cute…

Yep, two guvvie-housing tribes go to war….and the taxpayer funds the consequences.

c_c 2:12 pm 28 Jun 12

vet111 said :

Just had a read through the judgement, and I’ve got to say it – for what it was, it seems like quite a harsh sentence….

It isn’t, Claire1013 hasn’t bothered to read the sentence properly. The whole last paragraph is just wrong.

The Justice has suspended both sentences, meaning he doesn’t need to serve the time so long as he abides by the good behaviour conditions of the Crimes Act during the period he serves the suspended sentences. If he breaches those conditions, he would more than likely find himself in the slammer.

Only one of the Sentences is suspended until 16 May 2013, the other offence is suspended until 16 September 2014.

The suspensions were directly not because he has to care for his kids and would more likely have been because of his minimal chance of reoffending

So basically he has to stay out of trouble a couple of years. I don’t think that’s harsh.

I think the article should be fixed too.

snoopydoc 1:57 pm 28 Jun 12

Ah, inter-bogan warfare…. it’s so cute…

vet111 1:46 pm 28 Jun 12

Just had a read through the judgement, and I’ve got to say it – for what it was, it seems like quite a harsh sentence….

1 2 3

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