by UK Fan » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:22 pm
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.
Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.
by Fricky » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:59 pm
JK wrote:Not long enough
by on the rails » Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:02 pm
by JK » Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:16 pm
on the rails wrote:Better sentence than most would get for similar crimes!
by on the rails » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:01 pm
by southee » Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:10 pm
by LPH » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:00 pm
by RB » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:10 pm
LPH wrote:to be fair we don't know ALL the facts of the case.
Only the Judge knows & he has made his determination.
by LPH » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:15 pm
by RB » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:30 pm
by westozfalcon » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:07 pm
RB wrote:Ok, but I still don't see your point - we do know all the facts of this case. It is incorrect to say that 'only the judge knows'. While in some cases the judge's determinations on issues of law may be hard to understand for the layperson, the determinations of fact the judge makes are not really in a 'professional' capacity as you have suggested; the judge makes his determinations of fact like a jury would - namely by deciding if, on the evidence presented, the charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
No element of a judge's decisions on fact, or on law, are inaccessible or unfathomable to the general public.
by SimonH » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:46 pm
No, "we" (as in, 99.99% of people reading and writing about this) don't know all of the facts of this case. Not because legal cases are heard in dark corners, closed off to the public. Nor because the law is too obscure. Just because, as a simple matter of fact, people don't actually know all the evidence. They know a bare-bones summary. Yep, the hearing was open to the public, and the Magistrate's judgments on both conviction and sentence were pronounced in a Court open to the public. Doesn't change the fact that almost nobody who wasn't directly involved in the case would have viewed the whole thing. Barring the possibility of some Court-obsessed tourist, no-one who lives in SA. As far as I can tell, the reasons for decision on Mr Stevens' conviction and sentence aren't published. This is normal at Magistrates Court level. Of the thousands of cases decided in Victorian Magistrates Courts already this year, six have reported reasons for decision. And those 6 are all WorkCover; not one criminal case as yet.RB wrote:Ok, but I still don't see your point - we do know all the facts of this case. It is incorrect to say that 'only the judge knows'. While in some cases the judge's determinations on issues of law may be hard to understand for the layperson, the determinations of fact the judge makes are not really in a 'professional' capacity as you have suggested; the judge makes his determinations of fact like a jury would - namely by deciding if, on the evidence presented, the charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
No element of a judge's decisions on fact, or on law, are inaccessible or unfathomable to the general public.
by locky801 » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:42 am
by Dogwatcher » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:47 am
by Q. » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:54 am
JK wrote:on the rails wrote:Better sentence than most would get for similar crimes!
You would know more than me mate, but (IMHO only) sentences for violent offences against women in this country nearly always seem inadequate.
by amber_fluid » Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:26 pm
by Spargo » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:22 pm
by FOURTH ESTATE » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:55 pm
by Dogwatcher » Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:42 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |