Innocent until proven guilty.

Unless you prefer the Chinese system?
Cheers,
Peter

-- Edited by Peter_n_Margaret on Thursday 16th of May 2024 04:00:33 PM

DMaxer keep looking at who's been granted bail and what for and how many time they have been granted bail . You won't need a salad sandwich to choke.

No, the subtle point you seem to miss is that this is how the justice system works. When I tried to explain this a couple of weeks ago the forum jurists were up in arms. It is nothing to do with judges, lawyers, prosecutors, parole boards. People are bailed every day and it is only the rare incident where someone on bail is arrested and charged on a further allegation.

DMaxer wrote:

---

Exactly Peter n Margaret. This fellow was bailed directly from the police station by a police officer and is yet to have his first court appearance. In the unlikely event he may transgress in the interim who will the forum experts blame. Lawyers, judges I expect.

---

I think the part we mere mortals are having trouble understanding is how some offenders get bail (as they maybe entitled to) get themselves in trouble again, an get out on bail again?

who makes the rules? parliament (government of the day) the judges interpret the laws and lawyers question the laws and police enforce the laws. if the laws need altering/changing the government can do that, if they don't and the people are not happy the government can be changed by the people. the judges/lawyers/police all stay the same.

I do not want to live in a society where EVERYONE who MIGHT offend is locked up.
That being the case, mistakes will happen.
Get over it.
Cheers,
Peter

If a person is granted bail and allegedly offends whilst on bail then bail is revoked. Before revoking bail however, the strength of the evidence relating to the breach is assessed. If this procedure was not adopted then an aggrieved police officer could just arrest anyone whom he thought should not have been granted bail on any weak allegation. The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of the justice system.

The law relating to bail is set out in the statute. The major concerns are whether someone is likely to appear if granted bail, the seriousness of the offence alleged, the concerns of the community and the likelihood of interference with witnesses.

Despite what you read in the newspapers or hear on radio, bail is not an automatic right. In more serious offences it is difficult and if granted, many conditions are imposed. Every so often someone on bail will allegedly reoffend and the media then go into a frenzy.

I think just a bit of appalling and inaccurate reporting Dorian. 

Magnarc wrote:

---

DMaxer wrote:

---

If a person is granted bail and allegedly offends whilst on bail then bail is revoked. Before revoking bail however, the strength of the evidence relating to the breach is assessed. If this procedure was not adopted then an aggrieved police officer could just arrest anyone whom he thought should not have been granted bail on any weak allegation. The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of the justice system.

---

 Recently reported on the nightly tv news there was a young offender who had been granted bail seven times only to re-offend EVERYTIME. How anyone, Lawyer or otherwise, can defend that position by suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the system beggars belief.

What about the victims of this thug?.

So, bail can be revoked. Yes that is true, but after the crime has been committed, thus another victim!!!!! When it becomes obvious that a law is not working it should be changed. In this instance (bail law), I am reminded of Dickens observation in Oliver Twist with regard to the law. He would have had no idea that his words in 1838 would still apply in 2024!!

DMaxer your comment of "every so often" is rapidly becoming De Rigueur.

 

-- Edited by Magnarc on Sunday 19th of May 2024 09:17:09 AM

---

 My view is commit 1 crime awarded bail, commit another crime whilst on bail end of of the line time to protect the community from you, off you go to jail. No if's no but's no maybe's.

 

 

I don't think it is a question of me defending anything Magnarc. I am not an apologist for what a Children's Court Magistrate may have or may not have done. The breaches may have been minor such as reporting later than required or missing school. I don't see how the breaches could all have been reoffending, there is no way bail would have been continued. The fact that it was reported on some TV news does not mean that it was reported correctly.

There will always be people who breach orders. Whether it is someone who is given the opportunity of a no conviction bond, bail requirements, driving whilst suspended, someone will always decide it doesn't apply to them. There is nothing wrong with the bail laws, they are robust. The difficulty that can arise is sometimes the person granting bail may have more confidence in the accused than was warranted. If the prosecutor is not happy with bail being granted then it will go up to the next jurisdiction for review. In the interim the person applying for bail will cool his or her heels in custody. 

It is not always courts granting the bail. After charging at the police station it is the police who set or refuse bail in the first instance for the alleged offender's first court date. It is then up to the presiding magistrate as to whether the bail is continued or varied or refused.

If we just look at the breaches what should we do? Refuse bail to everyone charged and let them sit in a cell for twelve to eighteen months awaiting a trial?

The world is not a perfect place and there are criminals in it. If gaoling everyone solved the problems don't you think someone would have thought about it and implemented it before you mentioned it.? 

Who was the person that had committed seven offences and what were they Magnarc. You referred to him as a thug so I presume it was serious assaults. is that correct?

-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 19th of May 2024 10:43:15 AM

Lawyers don't delay the criminal trial process. Unless it is a simple summary matter with a guilty plea to be entered, the police need to prepare a brief of evidence. This entails detailed statements from every witness they intend to call.  Defence can wait months for this to occur whilst the police interview and record statements. This brief is then served on the defence counsel and a date is given for the committal hearing. The committal hearing determines whether there is sufficient evidence to put the accused on trial and if so, the matter is transferred to either the District or Supreme Court for trial. There is a strict timeline imposed but there are also a lot of other matters competing for court time, with those in custody given priority. Add to that there is also just so much court space and judges. Criminal trials are not a big vote earner and there are more popular things for politicians to spend money on.

In relation to your claim of nine months for a conveyance to take place, then there must have been a major problem involved. Contracts are usually 5 to 6 weeks and if not settled then a notice to complete is issued and if the matter is not settled in 14 days then the deposit is forfeited. If the delay is caused by the vendor, the a notice to complete is issued and specific performance is ordered together with damages.

No conveyance takes 9 months unless there is either a dispute over title or an agreement is reached between the vendor and purchaser to delay settlement. Some conveyances take time because it is a term of the contract that settlement is not to take place until another event has been finalised.

Those stories go well down at the pub during a bit of lawyer bashing but don't fly when you try them on someone that knows how conveyancing works. 

You held the lawyer responsible for not acting quickly. I explained the process as to why that would not have been the reason. You go figure.The reason is more than likely found in your mirror.