PrimeSuspect
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 10,594
- Reaction score
- 19,731
I'm getting, 'sorry, this page doesn't exist'. Big day though, I wonder if VS will enter a plea? :thinking:
GUILTY Australia - Stephanie Scott, 26, Leeton, NSW, 5 April 2015 - #3
- Thread starter Makara
- Start date
I'm getting, 'sorry, this page doesn't exist'. Big day though, I wonder if VS will enter a plea? :thinking:
You can go to post #213 and click on it if you wish. Just bumped it forward to confirm date for arraignment was today.
Wondering if the Supreme Court of Sydney hearing will go ahead today. Can't find any reference on daily law lists.:findinglink:
FYI UPDATE
http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/
General enquiries 1300 679 272 informed that:
the arraignment of Vincent and Marcus Stanford was listed for July 1st 2016.
This had been 'vacated'.
The arraignment is now listed for Tuesday July 5th 2016.
:waiting:
http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/
General enquiries 1300 679 272 informed that:
the arraignment of Vincent and Marcus Stanford was listed for July 1st 2016.
This had been 'vacated'.
The arraignment is now listed for Tuesday July 5th 2016.
:waiting:
https://onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw....ate%22%2C%22sortOrder%22%3A%22ASC%22%7D%7D%7D
NSW Supreme Court lists
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 results (last refreshed at 11:11am 01 Jul 2016)
05 Jul 9:30 am 2015/00104505 R v VINCENT STANFORD Criminal Supreme Court Justice RA Hulme Supreme Court Sydney
05 Jul 9:30 am 2015/00167544 R v Marcus Stanford Criminal Supreme Court Justice RA Hulme Supreme Court Sydney
NSW Supreme Court lists
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 results (last refreshed at 11:11am 01 Jul 2016)
05 Jul 9:30 am 2015/00104505 R v VINCENT STANFORD Criminal Supreme Court Justice RA Hulme Supreme Court Sydney
05 Jul 9:30 am 2015/00167544 R v Marcus Stanford Criminal Supreme Court Justice RA Hulme Supreme Court Sydney
http://www.irrigator.com.au/story/4004002/stanford-arraignments-put-on-hold/?cs=1524
Stanford arraignments put on hold
July 1, 2016.
THE expected arraignment of the man accused of murdering high school teacher Stephanie Scott at Leeton has been stood over at the last minute.The reason for the delay was not immediately available.Vincent Stanford’s legal team has flagged the possibility of a mental health defence.
Marcus Stanford's arraignment was also stood over.
Both cases are now listed for mention next Tuesday, July 5, at which time a new date for arraignment might be set...
Stanford arraignments put on hold
July 1, 2016.
THE expected arraignment of the man accused of murdering high school teacher Stephanie Scott at Leeton has been stood over at the last minute.The reason for the delay was not immediately available.Vincent Stanford’s legal team has flagged the possibility of a mental health defence.
Marcus Stanford's arraignment was also stood over.
Both cases are now listed for mention next Tuesday, July 5, at which time a new date for arraignment might be set...
sleuthermelb
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 40
I'd be interested to see how Vincent's lawyers finagle this into a mental health defence when it seems the murder was pre-meditated.
sleuthermelb
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 40
I don't want a rapist and murderer to have fun. I stand by my comment.
Eloise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 2,533
- Reaction score
- 9,540
? I didn't say it was fun. I said the exact opposite. You are still detained against your will, sometimes indefinitely instead of for a set sentence. It's just not in an institution called prison. It's de facto imprisonment nonetheless.
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
http://www.news.com.au/national/cou...e/news-story/64c0e4bd33791c8e83ed0c2d8466eb90
Plea offer made in Stephanie Scott murder case
July 5, 201612:58pm
Stanford appeared on the videolink screen from Long Bay jail .
Justice Robert Allan Hulme was told ongoing discussions had resulted in an offer to enter 'a plea offer' over the death of Ms Scott ...
It wasnt said in court what charges Stanford might enter pleas to...
CASE ADJOURNED UNTIL JULY 22ND, 2016.
:waitasec:
Plea offer made in Stephanie Scott murder case
July 5, 201612:58pm
Stanford appeared on the videolink screen from Long Bay jail .
Justice Robert Allan Hulme was told ongoing discussions had resulted in an offer to enter 'a plea offer' over the death of Ms Scott ...
It wasnt said in court what charges Stanford might enter pleas to...
CASE ADJOURNED UNTIL JULY 22ND, 2016.
:waitasec:
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/loca...5/plea-offer-made-in-teacher-murder-case.html
Plea offer made in teacher murder case
Tuesday, 5 July 2016
A plea offer has been made for the man accused of the rape and murder of Stephanie Scott ...
'There have been ongoing discussions,' Vincent Stanford's defence barrister Janet Manuell SC said:'the offer was crystallised last week.'
Crown prosecutor Lee Carr said the facts of Vincent Stanford's case would be discussed during the adjournment and he was confident the man's next appearance on July 20 would be 'short'.
Plea offer made in teacher murder case
Tuesday, 5 July 2016
A plea offer has been made for the man accused of the rape and murder of Stephanie Scott ...
'There have been ongoing discussions,' Vincent Stanford's defence barrister Janet Manuell SC said:'the offer was crystallised last week.'
Crown prosecutor Lee Carr said the facts of Vincent Stanford's case would be discussed during the adjournment and he was confident the man's next appearance on July 20 would be 'short'.
FYI
http://www.aww.com.au/latest-news/news-stories/stephanie-scotts-killer-offered-plea-deal-27871
Stephanie Scott’s killer offered plea deal
School cleaner Vincent Stanford has been offered a deal by the state prosecution.
Jul 5, 2016.
The NSW Supreme Court heard this morning that school cleaner Vincent Stanford was offered a deal some time last week after “ongoing discussions”
between the prosecution and his defence team.
It is not known which charges the deal relates to.
Stanford has yet to enter any plea.
His twin brother Marcus Stanford, pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact in April this year...
http://www.aww.com.au/latest-news/news-stories/stephanie-scotts-killer-offered-plea-deal-27871
Stephanie Scott’s killer offered plea deal
School cleaner Vincent Stanford has been offered a deal by the state prosecution.
Jul 5, 2016.
The NSW Supreme Court heard this morning that school cleaner Vincent Stanford was offered a deal some time last week after “ongoing discussions”
between the prosecution and his defence team.
It is not known which charges the deal relates to.
Stanford has yet to enter any plea.
His twin brother Marcus Stanford, pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact in April this year...
PrimeSuspect
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 10,594
- Reaction score
- 19,731
What kind of deal would that be, anyone care to guess? I'll start.
Could it be a guilty plea (offered by prosecution) but with mitigating circumstances (offered by defence), like a mental disorder, so the family is spared a trial but his sentence is slightly reduced or served in an institution?
Maybe, VS is offered a deal if he confesses to the crime in detail and the role his brother played, his sentence is reduced and Stephanie's family is spared a trial?
Offering a deal is usually an enticement of some kind, 'this for that'. :thinking:
Could it be a guilty plea (offered by prosecution) but with mitigating circumstances (offered by defence), like a mental disorder, so the family is spared a trial but his sentence is slightly reduced or served in an institution?
Maybe, VS is offered a deal if he confesses to the crime in detail and the role his brother played, his sentence is reduced and Stephanie's family is spared a trial?
Offering a deal is usually an enticement of some kind, 'this for that'. :thinking:
Possibly overwhelming 'evidence' of guilt; possible mental health mitigating factors; guilty plea from Marcus re accessory after the fact; avoid emotional cost of trial for Stephanie's family of such alleged horrific entrapment, deprivation of liberty, aggravated sexual assault, murder and burned corpse; also avoid emotional trial for Stanford family; avoid unnecessary financial cost of trial for State. Hopefully this 'plea offer' does not diminish the crime and does deliver JUSTICE for Stephanie's family and fiance, friends and local community. My opinion only.
PrimeSuspect
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 10,594
- Reaction score
- 19,731
Thanks Fuskier, I think the emotional toll on the family is a good point. I would hope the Prosecution team are in consultation with Stephanie's family for approval of the 'deal' offered.
Just so tragic because the sentence will never be enough. He deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his natural life, 25 yrs and less (which is the usual) is absolutely pathetic! He's a danger to women everywhere. JMO
I take some comfort that should Vincent plead guilty to everything, we, the taxpaying public, will know exactly what he is pleading guilty to. All criminal acts, all criminal consequences will be outlined by the presiding judge in the sentencing element of the trial. Vincent will be informed then of what particular element of sentencing is being declared and attached to each criminal act. Even if they were seconds apart.
Under NSW State law, the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 20 years, or 25 years for the murder of a child under the age of 18. So Vincent pleading guilty doesn't alter that situation, it only alters the predictive and projection of the future as to parole. Which wont be under 20 years. What will be taken as given is the aggravation and deliberation of the crime, which is added onto the 20 years non parole, ( parole isn't guaranteed, it is only a point where Vincent has legal opportunity to apply for parole, there is no requirement to grant it ) .. and if there are any mitigating factors. (??) they are deducted from the overall non parole amount of years sentenced.
But life is the usual set sentence, and in Vincent's case, there doesn't appear to be any mitigating factor. At all. A heck of a lot of aggravating factors, though, which I think , even if he is adjudged intellectually diminished in some way, ( which I doubt ) will add on at the very least about 10 to 12 years onto his non parole sentence.
What does Vincent get for pleading guilty to all elements of the crime as charged? .. he gets a discount .. all criminals who plead guilty at trial, get a discount, but not as much of a discount as those who plead guilty before the trial starts. Those get a bigger discount, because they have saved a lot of time and money. Vincent has offered a deal, at the beginning of his committal proceedings, so that attracts a lesser discount, but a discount, nonetheless.
I think the discount would be a matter of a few years back from the non parole sentence, but .. there is no requirement from the judge to set Vincent the 20 year mandatory until parole can be applied. Vincent could be sentenced to 35 years, with a discount of 2 years for pleading guilty, that's 33 years until he can apply for parole which may take anything up to 10 years to be granted. Even more, since his sentence is , and will be, life. Pleading guilty doesn't alter that. The Crime of Murder is deemed a life sentence regardless of plea.
Under NSW State law, the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 20 years, or 25 years for the murder of a child under the age of 18. So Vincent pleading guilty doesn't alter that situation, it only alters the predictive and projection of the future as to parole. Which wont be under 20 years. What will be taken as given is the aggravation and deliberation of the crime, which is added onto the 20 years non parole, ( parole isn't guaranteed, it is only a point where Vincent has legal opportunity to apply for parole, there is no requirement to grant it ) .. and if there are any mitigating factors. (??) they are deducted from the overall non parole amount of years sentenced.
But life is the usual set sentence, and in Vincent's case, there doesn't appear to be any mitigating factor. At all. A heck of a lot of aggravating factors, though, which I think , even if he is adjudged intellectually diminished in some way, ( which I doubt ) will add on at the very least about 10 to 12 years onto his non parole sentence.
What does Vincent get for pleading guilty to all elements of the crime as charged? .. he gets a discount .. all criminals who plead guilty at trial, get a discount, but not as much of a discount as those who plead guilty before the trial starts. Those get a bigger discount, because they have saved a lot of time and money. Vincent has offered a deal, at the beginning of his committal proceedings, so that attracts a lesser discount, but a discount, nonetheless.
I think the discount would be a matter of a few years back from the non parole sentence, but .. there is no requirement from the judge to set Vincent the 20 year mandatory until parole can be applied. Vincent could be sentenced to 35 years, with a discount of 2 years for pleading guilty, that's 33 years until he can apply for parole which may take anything up to 10 years to be granted. Even more, since his sentence is , and will be, life. Pleading guilty doesn't alter that. The Crime of Murder is deemed a life sentence regardless of plea.
Another reason Vincent is offering a plea. This would be on the advice of his assigned barrister. .. Vincent is under the auspices of Legal Aid, and the money allocated and disbursed for Legal Aid has been tweaked and changed a lot over the years. In Vincent's case, there would be the element of the money allocated not being enough for Vincent to plead Not Guilty and proceed thru the million dollar process of a 6 week trial at tax payer expense.
There would have been a panel of experts who would have given opinion on the outcome of a plea of Guilty , or not Guilty, and it is reasonable to assume that the panels verdict would be what is seen now as an offer by Vincent to the Court.
Also, for quite some time, Vincent wasn't talking to anyone, neither his family, the police or his solicitor. To his disadvantage, as the process of the Courts roll on whether the accused decides to speak or remain silent. It doesn't stop the wheel from rolling on. So Vincent has lost a lot of time for discussion and obtaining a barrister himself , paid for by him. He would have had to raise a lot of money in a very short time.
It isn't that Vincent is not getting expert and competent legal advice and representation by this method. He is, and he will remain in the loop of receiving legal advice of a high standard. But there are limits to how much Legal Aid is allowed or is willing to spend on a lost cause. Which sounds harsh, but Legal Aid money has to go around a lot of clients. It cant be absorbed by just one.
When I say Vincent's offer to the court, I don't know if, in fact , Vincent has offered it himself, for all I know Vincent isn't talking to his Barrister, either, although there doesn't seem to be any claim that Vincent is unable to engage with his solicitor or/and barrister. No one has said this situation has arisen. As far as I can tell, Vincent is capable of directing his Barrister, and that's that until it isn't so.
The hint about some ' mental health issue' hasn't been attached to whether Vincent is unable to give his Barrister instructions, and that is the only criteria by which Vincent will be adjudged as mentally unable to stand trial. The fact that he is offering a plea negates the idea that he is unable to stand trial, because if that was the case, he wouldn't be offering a plea, he would be claiming inability to stand trial due to mental impairment. I think the mental thingy is a nod to the sentencing situation, but even so, I don't think it will buy him much of a lessening of the sentence.
Even if a Dutch Doctor 20 years ago had Vincent for a patient about some deficiency or disabling disease that Vincent presented with, that Doctor would have to be called to give evidence before the court and be subjected to cross examination by the prosecution. A letter doesn't have a lot of clout under these circumstances. However, the judge may take it into consideration in regard to the non parole element of Vincent's sentence, but this has backfired every now and then in court and the non parole element has been extended solely due to the component of mental health issues.
There would have been a panel of experts who would have given opinion on the outcome of a plea of Guilty , or not Guilty, and it is reasonable to assume that the panels verdict would be what is seen now as an offer by Vincent to the Court.
Also, for quite some time, Vincent wasn't talking to anyone, neither his family, the police or his solicitor. To his disadvantage, as the process of the Courts roll on whether the accused decides to speak or remain silent. It doesn't stop the wheel from rolling on. So Vincent has lost a lot of time for discussion and obtaining a barrister himself , paid for by him. He would have had to raise a lot of money in a very short time.
It isn't that Vincent is not getting expert and competent legal advice and representation by this method. He is, and he will remain in the loop of receiving legal advice of a high standard. But there are limits to how much Legal Aid is allowed or is willing to spend on a lost cause. Which sounds harsh, but Legal Aid money has to go around a lot of clients. It cant be absorbed by just one.
When I say Vincent's offer to the court, I don't know if, in fact , Vincent has offered it himself, for all I know Vincent isn't talking to his Barrister, either, although there doesn't seem to be any claim that Vincent is unable to engage with his solicitor or/and barrister. No one has said this situation has arisen. As far as I can tell, Vincent is capable of directing his Barrister, and that's that until it isn't so.
The hint about some ' mental health issue' hasn't been attached to whether Vincent is unable to give his Barrister instructions, and that is the only criteria by which Vincent will be adjudged as mentally unable to stand trial. The fact that he is offering a plea negates the idea that he is unable to stand trial, because if that was the case, he wouldn't be offering a plea, he would be claiming inability to stand trial due to mental impairment. I think the mental thingy is a nod to the sentencing situation, but even so, I don't think it will buy him much of a lessening of the sentence.
Even if a Dutch Doctor 20 years ago had Vincent for a patient about some deficiency or disabling disease that Vincent presented with, that Doctor would have to be called to give evidence before the court and be subjected to cross examination by the prosecution. A letter doesn't have a lot of clout under these circumstances. However, the judge may take it into consideration in regard to the non parole element of Vincent's sentence, but this has backfired every now and then in court and the non parole element has been extended solely due to the component of mental health issues.
And... he is offering a plea. . Vincent doesn't have much to bring to the table of offers. The NSW seem to have more than enough evidence of a tangible sort to bring this thing to trial, photos, phone taps, DNA, weaponry, pre planning, coverup, evasiveness, etc.. consciousness of guilt, so it is a bit of a mystery to me what Vincent would have as an 'offer' as mitigation.
Anyone have any ideas of what Vincent could be offering to gain some sort of lessening of sentence?
It is possible the NSW coppers have enough without Vincent's input. I suppose everyone would like to know why, but even if Vincent gave an explanation who would believe it ? ... A motive isn't necessary for conviction.
Anyone have any ideas of what Vincent could be offering to gain some sort of lessening of sentence?
It is possible the NSW coppers have enough without Vincent's input. I suppose everyone would like to know why, but even if Vincent gave an explanation who would believe it ? ... A motive isn't necessary for conviction.