A recent sitting was unusual in that two cases had
unusual features to say the least. Kylie had just turned eighteen when she
appeared on a charge of breach of a community order; namely a tagged curfew
which began daily at 9.00p.m. She
admitted the breach which had occurred when she was still a youth. Her representative, however, took us through
her recent history as far as it was relevant.
Her current residence was at the home of the third foster mother she had had in as many
years. He told us that she had been
waiting outside the address since 8.55p.m. for the arrival of the foster mother. She arrived eventually at 11.00p.m. He told us that Kylie was not allowed to have
her own key. When we expressed some
surprise our L/A was quick to tell us that we could not comment as these (the
matter of keys) were the rules of the house and that they were to be
obeyed. We allowed the order to
continue.
The other case was the sentencing of a persistent
thief whose favourite target was rather old cars whose security systems were
virtually non existent but contained
tempting items in the interior. The
unusual feature was that we were also presented with an ASBO which would have prohibited
him from touching a car for the
following three years. It must be at
least five years or more since I had last been involved in a similar matter of
considering an ASBO. The prosecutor`s
manner was such that granting such an ASBO would be almost a forgone
conclusion. We duly
sentenced the offender to custody suspended but declined to grant the ASBO
owing to its one and only term; “touching”
which we felt was unduly onerous especially with regard to the substantive
disposal. Our L/A was also surprised but
wisely made no further comment. I doubt
I will listen to another ASBO application before they decide I`m too senile to
do this job any more.
No comments:
Post a Comment