The never ending arraignment....
https://onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw....31722316713787Arraignment/daniel james holdom
https://onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw....31722316713787Arraignment/daniel james holdom
GUILTY Australia - Khandalyce Pearce (Wynarka) and Karlie Pearce-Stevenson (Belanglo) #11
- Thread starter Sillybilly
- Start date
Tomorrow morning, Friday Dec 1 10am. Phillip St, Supreme Court, NSW.
This is an arraignment, that is, the charges against Holdom are read out to the public, and into the record, and it is expected that Holdom will plead one way or the other as to the charges so designated. This isn't an optional occasion, he is required by the law to state his situation.
So far, he has gone the not guilty route, but tomorrow , the rubber hits the road, and all airy fairy announcements and statements and his ridiculous claims are put in the record. He is , as far as I know, still determined to represent himself at his own trial for the double murder, plus burglary, perverting the course of justice, interfering with a corpse, on and on. We will know more of the detail of each charge by about noon, I would think.
I am curious as to whether he will plead guilty. It may be to his advantage, in a very very small way, where a not guilty has all the risks of a long trial wherein he comes out guilty and looking an idiot, but the desire for fame and attention is strong and can over ride sense, 9 times out of 10.
This is an arraignment, that is, the charges against Holdom are read out to the public, and into the record, and it is expected that Holdom will plead one way or the other as to the charges so designated. This isn't an optional occasion, he is required by the law to state his situation.
So far, he has gone the not guilty route, but tomorrow , the rubber hits the road, and all airy fairy announcements and statements and his ridiculous claims are put in the record. He is , as far as I know, still determined to represent himself at his own trial for the double murder, plus burglary, perverting the course of justice, interfering with a corpse, on and on. We will know more of the detail of each charge by about noon, I would think.
I am curious as to whether he will plead guilty. It may be to his advantage, in a very very small way, where a not guilty has all the risks of a long trial wherein he comes out guilty and looking an idiot, but the desire for fame and attention is strong and can over ride sense, 9 times out of 10.
I'm hoping we will hear something tomorrow Trooper. However, this is his third arraignment. Is it possible it may be put off for yet another month because Mr Holdom still hasn't found the time to finish reading the brief? :thinking:
there is that possibility, Morrisa, but there comes a time when the forward movement of justice over rides the incapacity of the accused to digest the charges against them. A panel would have, by now , been organized to adjudicate this very point, and this may be the time the Judge rules that the trial must go on.
If Holdom refuses to plead to either status, guilty or not guilty, by law he is deemed as having pleaded not guilty , whether he has read all the volumes, the judge may call it out and set it in motion, and the entire panoply of a contested accusation begins it's roll out, unstoppable, relentless, and it travels this course to the end.
He hasn't been found to be insane, he hasn't been found to be intellectually disadvantaged, he hasn't been found to be unable to appreciate the complexities of running his own defence, sooo. .
If this is the time the Judge calls barley on delay, then it's off to the races. I know that there isn't a designated number of times that the accused can keep this attitude up, on the basis that each accused is different, and these things cannot be arbitrarily decreed. ..
But I do think that tomorrow is going to be crunch day. That said, I've had mighty disappointments before on this very point of legal jiggery-pokery. .
If he pleads guilty, in NSW, there is the slight, the very slightest chance way way decades down the road, that the possibility, not the probability of parole may , just may, be a matter for consideration. That will really be a matter for the judge who has the provision to imprison him for life, without the possibility of parole, regardless of his plea of guilty, that the usual discounts do not apply, due to the savagery of the crime.
Pleading not guilty and being found guilty by the jury, he loses all possibility of parole, and the truth in sentencing thing of NSW states that he will become a lifer, no possibility of parole, , and/or the faint possibility would rest in an act of Parliament, and a decision by the Governor of NSW and the Premier of NSW in the future, not a matter for any future Parole Board.
Pleading not guilty and being found guilty by the jury, he loses all possibility of parole, and the truth in sentencing thing of NSW states that he will become a lifer, no possibility of parole, , and/or the faint possibility would rest in an act of Parliament, and a decision by the Governor of NSW and the Premier of NSW in the future, not a matter for any future Parole Board.
I meant to add , that no politician would be so tone deaf as to even consider parole for Holdom decades away down the track. This is the exact problem Julian Knight faces in Victoria, he can sue and sue the Parole board of Vic, the Prisons establishment, etc, but his fate rests entirely with the Government of Victoria of the day, and successive Governments of any persuasion will not and have not touched the matter of Knights parole due to the political fallout guaranteed to follow such an absurd proposal. He will never get parole.
This will be Holdom's fate, should he be found guilty, as it is the Murphy Bros, Gittany, etc. in NSW. their fate is out of the hands of any convened parole board due to the severity and wording of their sentences.
This will be Holdom's fate, should he be found guilty, as it is the Murphy Bros, Gittany, etc. in NSW. their fate is out of the hands of any convened parole board due to the severity and wording of their sentences.
Re BBM: I didn't know that. Do you have a link please?
you can look it up in AustLI, or on the NSW Jurisprudence website, or , you can ask the question of google, making sure, of course that you are asking about NSW law, although, Victorian Law is precisely the same, and also Federal law. I am presuming it is also in Qld, SA and WA and TAS and the NT, but I don't know for sure, I rely on you to look that up for me.
the crimes he is charged with, that we know of, we don't know all of the criminal charges as yet, but of the ones he is currently held on , those are crimes that , should he be found guilty, will inevitably result in a life sentence, and added to that, a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Because of the murder of a child, and the callousness of the crimes associated.
If he pleads not guilty, and is found guilty, he loses any possible discount for saving public money and the courts time, but even that does not over ride the severity and savagery of the crimes. The judge is not obliged to give him any discount at all, regardless of a guilty plea. That is entirely up to the perspective of the judge, and his estimation of the public expectation.
If, in time to come, in the year ,say, 2045, for him to apply for parole, he would have to go thru Parliament. He would be out of the authority of the Parole Board of NSW. Only if a term of imprisonment is set, with the provision for an application for parole after so many years does a prisoner come into the authority of the Parole Board.
Without that provision in the sentence, the Parole Board has no authority to grant the prisoner even a hearing about parole, much less parole.
These are not egregious or extreme sentences. Some crimes attract such measures. NSW has , for some time, dealt with life sentences without the provision of parole inbuilt into the set time. Prisons have been erected and instigated with these events in mind. There are quite a few serving such sentences right now, mostly in Goulburn Correctional Facility, but some in Silverwater, some in Cooma, some in Junee, some in old Long Bay, ..
It isn't a new thing, or a radical thing, it's a result of political will in NSW, and other states, Victoria being the latest, I think, to set this kind of sentence.
But I am ahead of myself. He may be found not guilty of any damn thing whatsoever, and skip happily into the sunset, whistling merrily.
Jennifer17
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2017
- Messages
- 9,552
- Reaction score
- 50,624
I think that the savage torture killing of Virginia Morse have been denied parole over and over again, haven' they?
they have been, Jennifer, but , and here is the horrid thing, they were not sentenced to life without parole. They were sentenced to life, but both Crump and Baker have, due to the absence of that parole thing in their sentence, have been able to apply and apply and apply over and over again.
They both get knocked back, but they get an outing just by applying. Even though their sentence was way back in 1973?.. 74?.. they have been allowed by law, as it was back in that day, to apply for parole.
Since then, the laws of NSW have been altered to set a sentence of life without parole, never to be released, but it was never allowed to be retrospective.. that is, those sentenced before the change can apply for parole.
For Mr Morse, it must be such hideous torture.
And for the general public, we all have to rely on the integrity of any parole board to continue to refuse to consider parole to either of these two and others just as lethal. . Risky, I reckon.
They both get knocked back, but they get an outing just by applying. Even though their sentence was way back in 1973?.. 74?.. they have been allowed by law, as it was back in that day, to apply for parole.
Since then, the laws of NSW have been altered to set a sentence of life without parole, never to be released, but it was never allowed to be retrospective.. that is, those sentenced before the change can apply for parole.
For Mr Morse, it must be such hideous torture.
And for the general public, we all have to rely on the integrity of any parole board to continue to refuse to consider parole to either of these two and others just as lethal. . Risky, I reckon.
Briefly, this is the time line of Crump and Baker's problem with parole..
In 1997, Crump's sentence was re-determined to a minimum of 30 years, expiring on November 12, 2003, with a maximum of life imprisonment.
Justice Peter McInerney said expert psychiatric reports found he was largely rehabilitated and would not be a danger if released.
Following a public outcry, the NSW government made several legislative changes to ensure Crump and nine others - the men who killed Anita Cobby and Janine Balding - are virtually never released on parole.
The changes provide that if a "non release recommendation" has been made by the original sentencing judge, the offender is to remain behind bars until he is so physically incapacitated or close to death that he poses no risk to the community.
In introducing the laws, Mr Carr said the changes would "cement them to their cells".
In 2012, Crump lost a High Court challenge to the laws.
As a result, he remains in Wellington Correctional Centre in protective custody despite becoming eligible for parole almost 12 years ago.
Of course, Holdom would be well aware of the saga of Crump and Baker, and of the other killers mentioned . He would not be ignorant of his chances, and the consequences of the decisions he has made, and will make. .. All these matters are endlessly re iterated in prison among prisoners, such is the level of interest in one's outcomes.
In 1997, Crump's sentence was re-determined to a minimum of 30 years, expiring on November 12, 2003, with a maximum of life imprisonment.
Justice Peter McInerney said expert psychiatric reports found he was largely rehabilitated and would not be a danger if released.
Following a public outcry, the NSW government made several legislative changes to ensure Crump and nine others - the men who killed Anita Cobby and Janine Balding - are virtually never released on parole.
The changes provide that if a "non release recommendation" has been made by the original sentencing judge, the offender is to remain behind bars until he is so physically incapacitated or close to death that he poses no risk to the community.
In introducing the laws, Mr Carr said the changes would "cement them to their cells".
In 2012, Crump lost a High Court challenge to the laws.
As a result, he remains in Wellington Correctional Centre in protective custody despite becoming eligible for parole almost 12 years ago.
Of course, Holdom would be well aware of the saga of Crump and Baker, and of the other killers mentioned . He would not be ignorant of his chances, and the consequences of the decisions he has made, and will make. .. All these matters are endlessly re iterated in prison among prisoners, such is the level of interest in one's outcomes.
Trooper, my understanding (based on reading sentencing provisions relating to other jurisdictions) was that it was standard though not invariable practice for a non-parole period to be provided for. So most prisoners would eventually be released on parole. I thought it unlikely that the mere fact of pleading not guilty would be enough to take that possibility out of the judge's hands, which is what I read you as saying NSW law required. I think you have clarified that that's not what you meant. Anyway, thanks for the explanation.
I am aware that pleading guilty is often taken into account in sentencing as supposedly showing remorse.
I am aware that pleading guilty is often taken into account in sentencing as supposedly showing remorse.
Standard where? And for what crime? . What other jurisdictions?
' I thought it unlikely that the mere fact of pleading not guilty would be enough to take that possibility out of the judge's hands, which is what I read you as saying NSW law required.'
I do not understand what you mean by this.. why would it be enough to take it out of a judge's hand, , without taking into consideration the gravity of the crime committed? I just don't understand your basis for dissent , here..
It is a concrete law, that pleading not guilty, and then being found guilty , invalidates any possibility of any discount one may, perhaps have been entitled to HAD ONE PLED GUILTY in the first place, the provision to grant a discount is wiped away even before the trial starts.. I don't under stand why you would think this to be 'unlikely'..
Jennifer17
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2017
- Messages
- 9,552
- Reaction score
- 50,624
Virginia was taken when she was making a wedding cake for her brother.
I cant allow my self to even consider what Khandalyce was doing when she was taken and murdered. .
fingers crossed indeedy. He most probably will appear via video, although he has refused to appear even on video up to now.. I bet he is longing to get out and about though, and play this farce right to it's most extended length, suited, booted, shirt and tied, it has all the makings of a fabulous fantasy, his last, hopefully...
Time to take a look at the Judge presiding.
Justice Peter Johnson has been allocated this trial, he has been the Justice thru the arraignments, etc. . and is in his 12th year as a Supreme Court Judge.. .. He was the justice for the Lin trial, and the truly horrible hideous one of the Oberon couple and the little child, ..
His main signature is a lack of haste, and an eye for extreme detail, and a real genius for the written word, and is eminently capable of dealing with a criminal running his own defence. This requires tremendous stamina from the judge, and the Police Prosecutor, I don't know who that will be right now..
Justice Peter Johnson has been allocated this trial, he has been the Justice thru the arraignments, etc. . and is in his 12th year as a Supreme Court Judge.. .. He was the justice for the Lin trial, and the truly horrible hideous one of the Oberon couple and the little child, ..
His main signature is a lack of haste, and an eye for extreme detail, and a real genius for the written word, and is eminently capable of dealing with a criminal running his own defence. This requires tremendous stamina from the judge, and the Police Prosecutor, I don't know who that will be right now..
Trial date set, August 2018!!!
Didn't enter plea today, still fluffing around with legal representation.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/38109159/nsw-man-to-face-trial-over-double-murder/
Didn't enter plea today, still fluffing around with legal representation.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/38109159/nsw-man-to-face-trial-over-double-murder/
That is a relief. He can muck around , but the trial goes on AS IF he has pled not guilty. This is how it works. It would have been radical and extreme had Justice Johnson gave him another shot at delay, and truly, how dreadful for Karlie's Uncle and Aunt, and the cousins .. they drove down from Darwin to Sydney for his committal, air fares being beyond their means, 4000 klms.. a horror of a journey down the Mitchell Highway, and especially now, in the Wet, for this part of the trial, with the risk of another adjournment ...
For them, I am relieved that they have a firm date, and that they will be driving down in winter, in 2018 , a more comfy event. This is going to be a hard , hard time for them.
Similar threads
