SA Footy

Nick Stevens jailed for 8 months.

Not long enough

JK wrote:Not long enough

I agree. Problem is him and his lawyers are appealing the decision so he stays out of jail for the time being.

Better sentence than most would get for similar crimes!

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.

I agree JK but I have seen worse get no custodial. Hopefully this will serve as some sort of warning that no matter who you are you cannot expect to get away with any sort of violence towards anyone and domestic violence is abhorrent and cowardly.

Disgraceful sentence.

Does nothing to stamp out DV and show the public that it is not accepted in our society

Frickin Joke!!! .

Whilst I agree that any man who hits a woman is not a Man but a Coward, to be fair we don't know ALL the facts of the case.
Only the Judge knows & he has made his determination.
Not sure THIS is the forum to be discussing such Social Issues?
Just sayin'

LPH wrote:to be fair we don't know ALL the facts of the case.
Only the Judge knows & he has made his determination.

The trial was open to the public, and the reasons for the decision are publicly available. There's nothing hidden or withheld from the public in this or almost any trial in Australia.

Agreed, but the system relies on the judgement of a Professional person to make a determination based on the Law.
He's done that & the decision is made.

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.

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.

I think LPH was referring to the sentence handed down.

A sentence is definitely a 'professional' determination by the judge. The jury has no involvement in that.

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.

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.

The opinion of those on (for example) SA Footy is based upon very brief summaries that are contained in media reports on the case. That's a vastly inferior foundation for an opinion on what happened, and what the right sentence is, compared with the Magistrate who saw and heard every last bit of the actual evidence. Again, this is not because the journo is part of some dark conspiracy to make everything look worse (or better), but just because it's the journo's job to make things simple and readable for those who want to spend about 2 minutes to find out the essence of what's happened, then move on to the next story.

Can the Magistrate get it wrong? Yep. Can people mount reasonable arguments that a given sentence is too light or too heavy? Yep. It's just that the opinion of, say, the County Court Judge who hears the appeal, is likely to be better informed than whatever some dude who uses the handle lindsayheadeagles53, and is basing his views on a brief article or two he's read in the Herald Sun or 'Tiser (maybe supplemented by a 'my mate reckons that he knows his cousin, who told me...') has to say on an internet forum.

On the topic (mostly) being debated here—studies consistently show that if you ask people the generic question, 'Are sentences handed down by Judges too light?', they will mostly answer, 'Hell yeah they are—pissweak Judges should lock 'em up for longer.' But if you give them all of the facts and evidence in an individual case, both the damning and the mitigating stuff, and then ask their view on an appropriate sentence, they will come up with results remarkably similar to Judges.

Lets hope the appeal back fires and a lengthier sentence is imposed

Interestingly, if you wish to read the full judgement, here's the procedure for the Victorian courts (I was chasing up another case earlier this week):

The Magistrates' Court is not a court of record like trial courts, therefore we usually do not write judgments like the Supreme or County Court or provide written sentencing remarks.
Obtaining final orders

The right of a person who is not a party to a proceeding to access court records is limited to the register of court orders, and is contained in section 18(3) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. It provides:

Any person may, subject to any order made under section 126 and on payment of the prescribed fee, inspect the part of the register that contains the final orders of the court.

The Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 can be accessed at Victorian Parliamentary Documents and Legislation.

Upon payment of the prescribed fee, journalists can obtain information on final orders by applying for a certified extract of the court register. This can be done in person at any court over the counter. The list of current Magistrates’ Court fees can be found on our website.

If the application cannot be made in person, you should write to the Registrar of relevant court, enclosing a cheque or money order for the fee. The extract will then be sent to you.

Access to audio recordings

Journalists may request a copy of the audio recording of a proceeding.

The fee of $55.00 per case per day must be paid when submitting the request.

Chief Magistrate approval is required for any application made in the following circumstances:


· the request is made by a person who is not a party to the proceeding
· a current suppression or publication prohibition order exists in relation to that proceeding
· the request relates to an intervention order proceeding There are circumstances where intervention order recordings can be released without Chief Magistrate approval., or a case relating to a sexual offence

Further information on the Court’s audio recording protocols can be found on our website Magistrates' Court of Victoria Audio Recording Protocols Fact Sheet | Magistrates' Court of Victoria
Requests that require Chief Magistrate approval are made by completing a ‘Request for Copy of Audio Recording’. The form can be found on our website Request for Copy of Audio Recording | Magistrates' Court of Victoria.

A written statement, outlining the applicant’s interest/involvement in the proceeding, and the reasons they require the recording must accompany the application. The request must be made by the journalist / media organisation who seeks the recording.

These requests must be referred to:

Manager, Magistrates’ Support Services
Melbourne Magistrates' Court
GPO Box 882
Melbourne Vic 3001

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.

When the gender roles are reversed, the sentences are even more inadequate.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscribe ... =anonymous

I see the weak prick is finally going to plead guilty to bashing his ex girlfriend.
Hope he gets what he deserves!!

Lock him up.
Once again, wonderful due diligence by Chigwidden & Co.

They were told by some very reliable Carlton sources to stay away from him.

But dumb is dumb and they appointed him anyway. The Bloke is a freaking nut job off the field. Saw him 1st hand in reserves final absolute whack job of the highest degree!!!!

Chiggy and Co wonder why people don't have a lot of confidence in them!!!

Three months