Criminal earns $143 an hour
November 26th, 2004 at 10:11 am by David FarrarThis is just so stupid. A rotorua teenager refuses to pay his fines because he “hates the Police” so the judge lets him off $43,000 of fines in return for a mere 300 hours of community work. So effectively paying him $143 an hour for community work.
The teenager in question has said he did have money but he just chose not to use it paying off his fines.
Here is what Judge Farrar would have decided:
“Your fines are not an option. They are an obligation for your offending. They have just been increased to $45,000. Also this court is seizing all your assets to start paying them off, and putting a lieu on your future income. And on top of that you are also being given 500 hours of community service being five hours every Saturday and Sunday for a year. And if you don’t finish them, you will be going to jail, and if you drive whiule disqualified once more you will also be going to jail and I will ban you from driving for the next twenty years”
No tag for this post.
November 26th, 2004 at 10:40 am
Judge Farrar, you should have hauled his parents in and asked them to contribute. Maybe then they might control their son a bit better.
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 11:40 am
You might get on a bit better with a lien instead of a lieu.
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 12:38 pm
Judge Gaz would have sent him to jail to work off his debt to society. By forced labour, at minimum wage. Or maybe across the oceans to Australia. And confiscated his car, his next car and three more after that.
Vote:We all don’t like traffic cops, especially when they hide in the bushes with radar guns, really that’s no excuse.
November 26th, 2004 at 1:12 pm
Judge Smith (name witheld for security reasons) would have sentenced the person in question to serve in military, preferably in the area of mine clearing.
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 1:59 pm
Judge Donaldson would have made not entirely unlike Judge Farrar. The speech by the judge in question that – in effect – told the police off for applying the law has only reinforced this little shit’s anti-social behaviour.
Will the judge blame the police when the little twit kills someone?
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 3:25 pm
So you send him to jail.
He comes out a hardened violent criminal crackhead and spends the rest of his life in and out of jail for various crimes of violence and dishonesty.
Just so you can get revenge for his minor motoring offences and lack of respect to the police.
If student loans can be stopped out of wages why not fines?
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 5:12 pm
Prior to 1962 it was commonplace to charge the parents with having care of a child(under 17) who was not under proper control whenever they committed an offence. It was very effective. In this case of course the youth is unlikely to bother completing his community service, most of them don’t and there is no further sanction.
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 7:26 pm
Judges Farrar, Gaz, Smith & Donaldson for the Supreme Court.
Is Australia still open for business as a prison colony? If not, we can always invade Tonga.
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 7:31 pm
And even though he didn’t nominate himself, let Judge Bhatnagar round off the Supreme Court line-up.
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 8:00 pm
I know both the kid and the Judge and was in court when the decision was given. I must admit I expected the Judge to impose a prison sentence especially when the kid had a prior sentence of PD for fines amassed a further heafty amount. Dislays a seriously bad attitude. But he has a condierable amount of rope now and I do expect the kid to fail in his sentence so we will see what happens.
Vote:November 26th, 2004 at 9:46 pm
I’m with Judge Farrar on this, but there is another issue here that needs looking at.
How on earth does a guy build-up this level of fines before he lands up before the court? And as Baxter has informed us, this is a sort of Groundhog Day for this guy.
Surely there should be a limit to how high an individuals fines debt can go, after which any additional fine results in vehicle confiscation or some such other motivational technique? And surely then, this limit would be much lower for someone who is a recidivist offender, as this guy is?
And wouldn’t the police have a database that tracked this kind of information? Questions..questions..questions.
Vote:November 27th, 2004 at 7:34 am
These kids have no money and openly flout the law of driving while disqualified. Seize what you might ask. His shoes? That is about all they own. What we try and do is rehabilitate them. I am afraid turning them into dog sausage is about all they are useful for but unfortunately that is unavailable. Sterner and sterner punishments simply set them up to fail and then what? Shoot them you scream well I have sympathy for that frankly but that is all you end up with.
Vote:November 27th, 2004 at 9:45 am
I suspect that the above supreme court lineup would greatly improve judgements in this country. A line up of right winged judges would be great! And the idea to take fines out of future wages is great!
Vote:November 28th, 2004 at 2:33 pm
For the record I am playing devils advocate and do not actualy agree with this position but I see this as a ‘Bill of Rights Act 1990′ case.
(1) Section 3 States “This Bill of Rights applies only to acts done (a) by the legslative, executive or judicial branches of the government of New Zealand”
This is the case, without a doubt the Department of Corrections is part of the executive (and also judicial to a certian extent) branch of the New Zealand Government.
(2) Sections 13 guarntees Freedom of thought, concience and religeion; 14 freedom of expression; and 15 manefestation of religion and belief.
“Hating the police” while not a normal political outlook seems to be a genuine one, as evidenced by the activity of the Anarchist community. It must therefore be protected under at least one of these BOR sections. The Bill of rights applies.
(3) Exceptions under Sections 4,5 and 6. Now I am unfimilar with the actual law of this case but am making my arguement based on the fact the judge found infavour of community servise.
Section 4 states that other enactments are not affected but section 6 hold that if possible a reading must be inconsistent with the BOR. This has been taken to mean that the reading that is most consistent is to be used. This must be the case. If one did not pay thier fines because they “hate the police” the law clearly breaches the BOR 1990, it seems though that imposing another penalty (of community servise) while still breaching the BOR 1990 would be a justified limitation under section 5. The judge therefore made the right decision.
Vote: