I had my car stolen & wrecked by a 17 yr old youth. The magistrate awarded no restitution & placed the youth on 12 mths probation. I wrote to the Qld Law Reform Comm. & to the Attorney Gen. Office querying this decision & these were the replies.

The role of the Qld Law Reform Commission is to review those
areas of the law that are referred to it by the Attorney-General to see
whether the law should be changed. the Commission does not have a project to review the law in relation to the sentencing of offenders, I regret that it is unable to address
your concerns.
Yours sincerely
Dir.
Qld Law Reform Commission

Part of the reply from the Attorney General's Office;

The determination of the appropriate penalty for someone who has broken the law is a difficult function. The sentencing process requires a balance of often competing interests. Such interests taken into account when determining the appropriate penalty for someone who has broken the law include issues of deterrence, rehabilitation of the offender, punishment and retribution. The attitudes of the community and standards expected of society are reflected in the penalties of the courts.The circumstances of the offender, including youth, are important when considering the appropriate penalty. Courts give considerable regard to tailoring a sentence aimed at rehabilitating an offender. .. courts can only exercise their discretion to order compensation or restitution if there is a real prospect that the offender has capacity to pay.
With respect to matters prosecuted by police in the Magistrates Court, there is an avenue of appeal if the police prosecutor is of the view that the sentence imposed was too lenient. Only the police have a right of appeal in this situation. The victim has no right to appeal a decision of a Magistrate.
The Attorney-General is aware that this response is not what you had hoped for, and he has asked me to tell you that he is sorry that he cannot help you any further.

Sen. Policy Advisor

If those comments sound reasonable to anyone please comment.

Unfortunately you are talking about so called justice Australia wide.
Revolving door justice has been a problem for all my life.
It seems to be based on the costs of confinement more than justice.
While it is true confinement may not be called for in every case some get more chances than a bad race horse.
I think just maybe if a real chance of prison or such was known to be the result less crime would take place.
Some who hand down these verdicts commit a greater crime against the victim than the criminals.

The determination of the appropriate penalty for someone who has broken the law is a difficult function.

I would have thought that paying for the damage would be the most appropriate, simple & moral sentence. It was only $5000.- which really wouldn't be excessive for an employed 17 year old. The money isn't so much the issue. . It's the message that's being sent to offenders by the utterly out of touch mentality of the justice system. The least the magistrate could have done is to impose community service. I am sure her ruling does not reflect the community's attitude. Police were dismayed when the youth left the court grinning from ear to ear.

Dear Individual,

It would appear that the wrong message is being sent out to young offenders. There should be a deterant to stop them from re-offending.

I can't understand the reasoning of the magistrate in this case.
Was your car insured? Was this a first offence? Did the youngster have the means to compensate you for what he had done? Were there any
extenuating circumstances that would have influenced the magistrate?

Sounds like you got a raw deal - and it doesn't make sense as to why?

A couple of years ago, my young son bought an old 4WD Hilux ute, fitted with those big nobly off road tires.

A couple of days later, & before he had got round to insuring it, he had an accident. In the wet, those tyres are not too good, & he slid into the back of one car, glancing off that, into another.
It could not have been too bad, as he drove the Hilux home.

However, 3 months later he got the bill, from the other peoples insurance company, for $30,000. I think they have had a bit of a lend of him, but, as he's in the navy, he was not in a possition to fight them. He has paid $20,000, & will pay the rest this year.

There was no criminality here, just a silly young kid, making a couple of costly mistakes.

Isn't it interesting, that the criminal gets off scott free, but the genuine, if silly kid, pays through the nose?

As you said, "justice?".

What we need is Compulsory third party property insurance - not just third party.

Whilst this would be tough on low income families (who may have to be subsidised to get it up and running) the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.

The fact that a driver doesn't have a licence or is under aged or is breaking the law should not affect the insurance. Afterall the insurance is attached to the vehicle not the driver. The lawbreaker, once found guilty should be ordered to pay back all costs to the insurance company for ALL damage that he/she caused.

We have to get the full costs back onto those who committed the offence.

Under the current system the people doing the right thing who have full insurance are continually covering the costs of those who do the wrong thing.

Under this proposed system if an unlicenced driver hits a law abiding citizen in an accident the law abiding citizen has complete peace of mind that they are protected fully under the law. They must get compensated fully!

Whether or not a jail term applies can then be left to the judges ... at least the victim is fully compensated and the debt based on the accident could be re-paid by the guilty party over time.

I would also exclude the debt from bankruptcy provisions so that the guilty party couldn't just wipe the debt through bankruptcy.

At the moment the victim always pays and that just isn't right!

Hasbeen.... sorry I missed your post.

Under the proposition I mentioned in my post the Insurance company should only be allowed to claim the cost of damage caused PLUS a pre-determined (by legislation) handling fee... say $200.

Give an insurance company the ability to claim all costs and they may do what they did to your son... and that isn't right either. Insurance companies I'm sure don't claim such huge costs when settling between each other so why should they be put on an individual.

It seems outrageous that your son was charged such an exorbitant amount of money if what you say is correct.

I would be contacting the "Office of Fair trading" or a solicitor.

What happened to reasonableness in our society?

The Policy Adviser is not an authorised representative of the Qld Attorney-General, he is a member of the fascist labour party who is paid taxpayers money to keep the peasants at bey.

You wont get an answer from the grub who claims to be the first law officer and who is going to object to the nice official looking letter from the Policy Adviser, you will just go away like the rest of the victims who get scammed by our legal system, not a judicial system.

He failed to advise you that you are able to review the decision of the Magistrate as, not the victim, but as the Complainant because if you, as the complainant did not exist what did the Police act on to take this matter before one of their mates employed in the court house as a magistrate.

It was not a decision of a court and especially not the Queensland Magistrate's Court, try and get a copy of the so called Court decision, Certificate of Conviction or an official ORDER OF THE COURT and locate the SEAL of the Queensland Magistrates-Court or the Magistrate's signature on the document, they just dont exist and they can't produce either the SEAL of the Queensland Magistrates- Court or the SEAL of the Queensland District-Court.

Keep voting labour and supporting the coppers for the wonderful job they do at scamming all of us.

I was not informed of the date of the hearing & only found out after calling the Police several times. When I did hear about the extraordinary leniency I asked about compensation. I was told that I should have asked the Prosecutor to appeal within 28 days of the hearing. It was well past that period when I found out that the case had been heard.
In all my ignorance I believed that the Police or Magistrate would contact me immediately re the outcome. Well, my problem for thinking the system is there to help & protect.
What really gets to me is that the Law Reform Commission says it can't act unless the Attorney General gives the ok yet the Attorney General is sorry that he can't help. So, who the hell can initiate badly needed Law Reform. Just watch the current affairs etc. where people are being let down time and again by the very lot charged with protecting us. Don't be surprised if vigilantism starts up before long.

Individual. Your response seems to be the norm. I have had similar responses with regard to the covering up allegations of bias and misconduct in NSW Government Departments from the ICAC who basically said that if the allegations do do involve money then they will not look at it and that they have discretion and lack of funding to use as an excuse for failing in their duty of care. I have had similar responses from the Legal Services Commissioner about the failure of our Legal representatives to act on our written and verbal instructions. The Legal Services Commissioner said.

"To put it simply, your allegations could only amount to "mere negligence". Disciplinary action will only be warranted if the practitioner's conduct demonstrates a quality of indifference to the basic standards of legal practice".

I have had similar responses from the Administrative Decisions Tribunal who apparently do not have the power to enforce their own orders.

The Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission are prohibited by the Ombudsman’s Act from asking questions about bias, victimisation, misconduct and conspiracies to cover up in Government Departments.

It seems that the power is with the criminals.

It goes on. The thing is that the laws are made to protect those in power and as a result criminals benefit and victims suffer.

Education – Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

Look into what happened after OJ was found not guilty... he was later tried and lost in Civil Damages.

Can someone with legal qualifications clarify this, as occurs in each state of Australia ?

Can people sue for similar damages in Australias Federal Court ?

If a Criminal Court rules for a conviction, guilty, is that conviction sufficient to obtain a judgement for damages in the civil court ?

If not what is required ?

.

polpak, it would appear that these so called legal minds you invited for comment are not prepared to give you any hints of your rights.
The fact is you have none, not in Queensland or any other State in Australia. You have indicated that you have not read the Federal Court Act and that would be a good place to start but it will not give you any thing you are after.
Why do you believe you or any other person, who is the victims of crimes, are entitled to any form of compensation when all of your rights, property or a claim for criminal compensation, vests with the State of which you are a constituent part of as a soft slave ?
I could answer your questions but as I am not a certified legal practitioner, my comments would not be published on this site as it is politically regulated just like the claims for criminal compensation.
If you were personally related to a politician or a member of the ruling elite you would have no problems getting compensation if the claim was officially made by way of notice, but as you are no different to the other 90% of the slaves in this Democratic Socialist Republic of the United States of Australia , you will get nothing and if you make too much noise you could end up in jail for your comments