Completely confused!
Jan 5th 2016, 4:28 am
#46
has lost The Game
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Chippendale, Sydney
Posts: 8,735
Re: Completely confused!
Bail (and arrest, for that matter) seems to be used very differently in Britain. It sometimes seemed like half the country was on police bail or being arrested on the vaguest of suspicions - i.e. the cops just wanted to have a chat. Here they would usually just say someone was "helping police with their inquiries", unless they had actually been charged and were awaiting court.
"Helping police with their inquiries" is a journailstic way of saying that a person is being investigated as a possible suspect that doesn't prejudice the case in the eyes of the public (which of course it does actually do).
Arrest is where a person is detained for the purposes of questioning/evidence gathering. A person can be released on bail after interview while the investigating officer/s make further enquiries. An officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that person to arrest them - just bringing them in 'for a chat' wouldn't get past the Custody Sergeant, as it's a breach of the Codes of Practice.
Bail is the mechanism by which a person will surrender themselves to either be charged or told there will be no further action, depending on how the evidence gathering went.
S
Jan 5th 2016, 4:40 am
#47
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Completely confused!
Hi All!I know this is quite late after the final thread but just wanted to give you all an update. My boyfriend went to court and ended up with a $2000 fine, reduced to $1600, reason why i am not aware of. He was spared 2 weeks in prison, again, not sure why but i believe it could be due to him coming home 10 days after the court date, first offence, showing remorse etc. He is now paying $50 a week until i can get out there permanatently and help with the bills etc where he will be able to pay a bigger chunk at a time. Thank you for all your responses and help, just thought it might be helpful to post the actual outcome if anyone else ever finds themself in the same situation!
Jan 5th 2016, 8:37 am
#48
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2015
Location: Newbury
Posts: 186
Re: Completely confused!
Jan 5th 2016, 10:54 am
#50
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,807
Re: Completely confused!
If he was found guilty and fined, then surely he was convicted of the offence. They wouldn't have fined him if they found him Not Guilty.
Jan 5th 2016, 5:35 pm
#51
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 5,461
Re: Completely confused!
Penalty without conviction
The provisions of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16 enable the Court to refrain from imposing a conviction in a much broader range of circumstances than those limited to trifling applications (see above). Section 16 allows the sentencing court to impose a penalty without recording a conviction when the Court considers:
the imposition of a fine, community service or both [see Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16]; and
the defendant is unlikely to commit the offence again [see Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16(a)]; and
good reason exists for not recording a conviction, taking into account the character, antecedents, age, or physical or mental condition of the defendant, or the fact the offence was trifling, or any other extenuating circumstances [see Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16(b)].
Penalty without conviction
Jan 5th 2016, 11:15 pm
#52
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,807
Re: Completely confused!
In South Australia at least you can be fined without a recorded conviction as follows:
Penalty without conviction
The provisions of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16 enable the Court to refrain from imposing a conviction in a much broader range of circumstances than those limited to trifling applications (see above). Section 16 allows the sentencing court to impose a penalty without recording a conviction when the Court considers:
the imposition of a fine, community service or both [see Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16]; and
the defendant is unlikely to commit the offence again [see Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16(a)]; and
good reason exists for not recording a conviction, taking into account the character, antecedents, age, or physical or mental condition of the defendant, or the fact the offence was trifling, or any other extenuating circumstances [see Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16(b)].
Penalty without conviction
Penalty without conviction
The provisions of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16 enable the Court to refrain from imposing a conviction in a much broader range of circumstances than those limited to trifling applications (see above). Section 16 allows the sentencing court to impose a penalty without recording a conviction when the Court considers:
the imposition of a fine, community service or both [see Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16]; and
the defendant is unlikely to commit the offence again [see Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16(a)]; and
good reason exists for not recording a conviction, taking into account the character, antecedents, age, or physical or mental condition of the defendant, or the fact the offence was trifling, or any other extenuating circumstances [see Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 16(b)].
Penalty without conviction
WOnder if it then appears on an AFP check or not - I guess not, if its not a conviction, but.......
Jan 5th 2016, 11:22 pm
#53
has lost The Game
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Chippendale, Sydney
Posts: 8,735
Re: Completely confused!
This concept of guilty but not recording a conviction does seem to be a uniquely Australian thing - I wonder if it's a similar thing to a UK caution in that it needs to be admitted and must be a first offence etc. And seems to be at the discretion of the courts rather than that of the custody officer.
S
Jan 6th 2016, 1:32 am
#54
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Completely confused!
This concept of guilty but not recording a conviction does seem to be a uniquely Australian thing - I wonder if it's a similar thing to a UK caution in that it needs to be admitted and must be a first offence etc. And seems to be at the discretion of the courts rather than that of the custody officer.
S
S
Jan 6th 2016, 1:41 am
#55
has lost The Game
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Chippendale, Sydney
Posts: 8,735
Re: Completely confused!
S
