One could argue that almost anyone can ‘throw a punch’ these days, cause serious physical damage, and still be granted bail. And that is just wrong.
Remember the Ryan Wells case from last July? A much more serious and vicious assault caught on camera.
Remember the public outrage when that animal was bailed? Reason? As you stated, the remand centres are full.
So, what does this mean? That bail should automatically be allowed for violent offenders because there is no place to hold them? Is that the only solution? If Wells was bailed, then it stands to reason that Ms Potts would be bailed.
Should violent offenders be granted bail? How severe must an assault be before bail is refused? How is a person who has committed a violent offence not a risk to the community? Are judges in touch with public opinion? Are the courts too lenient in dealing with violent crime?
You hit someone in Japan, regardless of the extent of the injury being caused, you will be arrested and bail automatically refused. The police will throw you in a tiny cell. Occasionally solitary confinement, but more likely with one or two other offenders. These cells are tiny. You are only allowed out for 20 minutes per day. With the exception of a pit toilet, there are no other amenities in the cell. They can hold you like that for 23 days without a charge. And they can extend that indefinitely by adding additional charges and seeking further detainment from the courts. Brian Lake was lucky to have only spent 6 days in a cell in Japan for an incident in Japan last July. An apology and most likely a compensation payment to the victim were the reasons he was freed. Otherwise he would have been detained for a while (before facing a judge and sentencing).
Countries have different attitudes to/tolerance of violence/violent crimes. For mine, Australia is too soft on violent crime. And as for bail, there is no common law right to bail. For violent crimes, I think bail should be refused in most cases.
Reminds me of a photo I saw of US police protesting that one of theirs had been charged.
Big dopey bugger with a mo carrying a sign saying ‘IT’S ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW.’
That image has stuck with me because of the…sadness and frustration I felt about him not understanding what that actually means.
They charge them, but they take their time doing it. Assaulting someone is treated very seriously here (and so it should, IMO). Back home it is just a ‘meh’. And bail is almost guaranteed.
Again, I ask, at what point is an assault serious enough to warrant a refusal of bail? Throwing away a lazy line like ‘we can’t refuse em all bail due to overcrowding’ just trivialises a serious issue. I wanna know when bail should be granted and when it should be refused? Repeatedly smashing a police officer’s head into the ground? A random one punch attack that smashes a bloke’s teeth out and knocks him unconscious (with potential brain injury issues down the track)? A bloke who beats his wife to a pulp? A deprivation of the offender’s liberty is too serious for such offences? Please. If it were a loved one (husband, wife, daughter, son, friend, etc) would people be so flippant?
I did not state that anyone who throws a punch should get bail!
There are punches and punches. it seems that, in this case , the main police opposition related to potential interference with witnesses.
The media rarely report the full conditions attached to the grant of bail or the reasons for granting bail.
Thr reasons for granting bail are complex and are often misinterpreted. Danger to the community is uppermost, including the likelihood of reoffending. It is often the case that strict conditions are attached to the grant of bail.
The judiciary here ran a hypothetical course for lay people on bail grants. When those in the course were given full possession of the facts, most agreed with the approach of the judiciary.
On bail grants or sentencing? You are aware of the changes to the Bail Act in recent years, right? These changes followed increased public pressure re: concerns over crimes being committed by those on bail or parole.
Yes, I am aware of the Bail Act and also the recent amendments to the Act. These tougher bail laws have resulted in more people on remand (along with population increases). And while I would like to believe that the granting or refusal of bail is based entirely on the unacceptable risk test and S3AAA on surrounding circumstances, as well as the two-step test, that simply isn’t the case in practice. In theory, yes, in practice, there are far too many people receiving bail that shouldn’t be and much of this involves the overcrowding situation that has occurred in recent years.
It’s not that they’re ruthless. They are law enforcement in a country where everyone has the right to carry a gun. Literally anybody on the street could be armed.
This shouldn’t be a binary question. You need to define this. Use, possession, cultivation, or trafficking a drug of dependence? Trafficking a large commercial quantity & bail would need to be refused due to the potential flight risk.
Recklessly or intentionally causing a serious injury is covered under the Bail Act & requires the accused to provide a compelling reason why bail should be granted. The Ryan Wells case is a classic example of a situation where bail should have been refused but wasn’t.
Getting punched is really just an occupational hazard for police. Having your head repeatedly smashed into the pavement is not. And definitely unacceptable behaviour. Even if you are ■■■■■■. Bail is something that is well considered case by case before being given, and personally I think granting it to the mother of a small child who threw one girlie punch at someone fighting her brother, and had her head split open with a mag light in response, is fair enough.
My sister was in VICPOL for about ten years. Had to leave with mental health issues relating to having her jaw and cheekbone broken when she was attacked by two drunk guys. These guys were verbally abusing a group of girls in the city and my sister and her partner stepped in, these two guys jumped my sister and punched her repeatedly in the face and head. Her partner ended up flooring both of them and they did jail time, but the damage was done in seconds and she is still dealing with it.
You assault a cop when they are doing their duty, you do jail time.