Australia Samantha Murphy, 51, last seen leaving her property to go for a run in the Canadian State Forest, Ballarat, 4 Feb 2024 *Arrest* #12

[SouthAussie]

Why can the media mention his other charges?

Probably because they are not prior convictions. And if they weren't allowed to report on the range of current charges, because reporting on one might affect the outcome of another, there would be no charges reported on in cases like this.
Which wouldn't be fair to the public and our freedom of information.


This is what the County Court of Victoria says about reporting during sub judice:

In summary, reporters should be extremely careful to avoid:
• Reporting anything said in the absence of the jury
• Revealing prior convictions
• Breaching any suppression order
• Reports that imply guilt or innocence of the accused
• Reports, including interviews, that could affect witnesses
• Comments, as distinct from reports of the court case
• Confessions
• Pictures of the accused where identity is an issue
• Any contact with jurors
If in doubt, seek legal advice.

https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/files/documents/2018-09/covering-courts.pdf

imo

 

[Trooper]

Some more views on what lines this case may proceed ........

tiny splinter of info re traffic charges which give a snippy glance into Mr. Stephenson's recreational activities only 2 months before the murder...............sort of explains to me why Tamanika moved his client up to have a Barrister's rep on those charges.. .. at the 1 minute 50 sec mark..

 

[SouthAussie]

Some more views on what lines this case may proceed ........

tiny splinter of info re traffic charges which give a snippy glance into Mr. Stephenson's recreational activities only 2 months before the murder...............sort of explains to me why Tamanika moved his client up to have a Barrister's rep on those charges.. .. at the 1 minute 50 sec mark..

"Good evening. The case against Samantha Murphy's accused murderer won't be made public for at least another year"

 

[Rocket333]

A) Could be that he lost his marbles on drink and drugs and is claiming something akin to "temporary insanity" or the like.
B) I certainly wouldn't put it past him. A cocky, young untouchable, or so he thinks.

MOO of course

Yep I’m with you on this. Given MDMA was mentioned, I think we might be going down that rabbit hole. How though can anyone manage such a majestic cover up when on or coming off stuff? I didn’t do it and you can’t prove it or I can’t remember it so I’m not responsible or It was an accident and I can’t remember it, didn’t do it, didn’t mean it and don’t know what happened?

 

[Rocket333]

bit of fishin, shootin, chasin rabbits, chuggin beers, snorting coke, killin wimmin , thrashin the bike around, all the usual stuff...

Why do you think he is cultivating this beard, K?? ahaha.. disguise!!

Because he’s now the pretty prey?
I reckon he’s not coping at all and is beyond desperate to get out and won’t listen at all to reason.

 

[Trooper]

Because he’s now the pretty prey?
I reckon he’s not coping at all and is beyond desperate to get out and won’t listen at all to reason.

Something like that, for sure... the beard as a sort of message,..bad boy here, ..... At his first mention, his barrister of that day told the judge his client was 'having issues' in Remand, that this issues matter would be dealt with at the next mention, but it seems to have sunk, perhaps he has adjusted to life in Remand and the 'issues' evaporated... .. still.. if he was a heavy user of MDMA, he must miss the high... maybe he thinks that might be a mitigating factor...

As Abraham Lincoln said.. the man who represents himself has a fool for a client...

 

[Rocket333]

Something like that, for sure... the beard as a sort of message,..bad boy here, ..... At his first mention, his barrister of that day told the judge his client was 'having issues' in Remand, that this issues matter would be dealt with at the next mention, but it seems to have sunk, perhaps he has adjusted to life in Remand and the 'issues' evaporated... .. still.. if he was a heavy user of MDMA, he must miss the high... maybe he thinks that might be a mitigating factor...

As Abraham Lincoln said.. the man who represents himself has a fool for a client...

I think his appearance is a big indicator of him feeling out of control, scared and/or depressed. The “issues” may have been him feeling threatened and wanting to move remand centres, and now disguising himself to appear more manly or just wanting to make himself unrecognisable and to disappear. Like he’s hiding and in massive denial.
I think we’re starting to see his character and it’s driving this whole show, hence legal reps dropping off and things being somewhat fast tracked. He probably doesn’t play well with anyone and right now I strongly doubt he’ll ever give up the body.

 

[MrsAddick]

This is tricky to answer - not stupid enough, or not smart enough?

To share another Aussie colloquial phrase…I don’t think young Patrick is the ‘smartest tool in the shed’

 

[Melt71]

So.. something has happened to his former legal representation. Don't know what it is, for sure, only guessing, but I think he has fired them because they will not represent him as he wishes to be, .. and.. they don't have to. If he was paying them, they would refund his money, and if he is on legal aid, they are allowed to not represent a client in a way that is not in his /her best interest, and they can fire themselves..

Could he have enough assets that he doesn't qualify for Legal Aid, but not enough to pay for a big expensive firm? That's basically what happened to a close family member of mine some years ago (also in Victoria, up on a serious criminal offence a couple of steps below murder).

The fact he's agreed to fast track must mean he's been advised that there's significant evidence - enough to be guaranteed to make it through committal to trial. Could it also signify that he wants to use his limited financial resources for a one-time big hitting legal rep rather than spreading himself thin on lesser mortals over additional proceedings?

Thoughts @Trooper as I'm not 100% across the fast track; in my one close encounter with the Vic courts my relative went the usual committal then trial route.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I find it intriguing that the fancy, expensive legal team have gone by the wayside. Were they at odds with the accused on how he should plead, given the evidence and their wealth of experience? Did they choose to take him on pro bono for the exposure and "free advertising", then pulled out for whatever reason afterwards? Were they in fact paid for their services, but whoever paid them ran out of money? Do we know if his new team were appointed to him, or were they engaged for payment, and when did this change occur? If just recently, they don't have a lot of time to get up to speed before the next court appearance.

On a side note, how many legal teams are you allowed to go through (if appointed to you) before you get tapped on the shoulder and told enough is enough?

Just MY question, too!

Is there a limit to the number of times an accused can fire/hire representation?

If no limit...
these cases could go on to eternity!

JMO...

 

[Trooper]

Could he have enough assets that he doesn't qualify for Legal Aid, but not enough to pay for a big expensive firm? That's basically what happened to a close family member of mine some years ago (also in Victoria, up on a serious criminal offence a couple of steps below murder).

The fact he's agreed to fast track must mean he's been advised that there's significant evidence - enough to be guaranteed to make it through committal to trial. Could it also signify that he wants to use his limited financial resources for a one-time big hitting legal rep rather than spreading himself thin on lesser mortals over additional proceedings?

Thoughts @Trooper as I'm not 100% across the fast track; in my one close encounter with the Vic courts my relative went the usual committal then trial route.

A possible long answer. Currently in Victoria , there is a persistent buzz up in the Justice Precinct ( William and Bourke ) to review the process re murder trials.. one outcome of this review and possible change, adjustment , is this year, and last year a lot of Legal Aid defendants are being advised by their Legel Aid designated Barristers to skip the Committal stuff and head off to trial. There is murmur and whisper of Committal stuff being dropped permanently... but it has not happened yet, it could be that Barristers are testing the water as to how it goes..

To narrow it down to the last couple of months , for brevity, Erin Campbell, (murder of 3 ) , Lachlan Young ( murder of 1 ) and now Patrick Stephenson ( murder of 1 ) ..all of whom have chosen to skip this part , Committal , I am now convinced that Patrick is a recipient of Legal Aid, and this is what he has been advised to do. .. and it seems he is taking his Barristers advice.. ( not all accused do that, )... I am also partly convinced he was advised by his first lot of Barristers to make a different plea, and he balked and they fired themselves, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Requiring Legal Aid to produce another set of Legal Reps.

He appeared to have only his ute as an asset, and that may well have been a work ute owned by his fathers company.. he was living at home, until he temporarily shared a house with a girlfriend at Scotsburn, who was , temporarily, house sitting a property ..

*ute, ---- Australian for pickup, backie,

 

[Rocket333]

A possible long answer. Currently in Victoria , there is a persistent buzz up in the Justice Precinct ( William and Bourke ) to review the process re murder trials.. one outcome of this review and possible change, adjustment , is this year, and last year a lot of Legal Aid defendants are being advised by their Legel Aid designated Barristers to skip the Committal stuff and head off to trial. There is murmur and whisper of Committal stuff being dropped permanently... but it has not happened yet, it could be that Barristers are testing the water as to how it goes..

To narrow it down to the last couple of months , for brevity, Erin Campbell, (murder of 3 ) , Lachlan Young ( murder of 1 ) and now Patrick Stephenson ( murder of 1 ) ..all of whom have chosen to skip this part , Committal , I am now convinced that Patrick is a recipient of Legal Aid, and this is what he has been advised to do. .. and it seems he is taking his Barristers advice.. ( not all accused do that, )... I am also partly convinced he was advised by his first lot of Barristers to make a different plea, and he balked and they fired themselves, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Requiring Legal Aid to produce another set of Legal Reps.

He appeared to have only his ute as an asset, and that may well have been a work ute owned by his fathers company.. he was living at home, until he temporarily shared a house with a girlfriend at Scotsburn, who was , temporarily, house sitting a property ..

*ute, ---- Australian for pickup, backie,

Apologies for probably stating the obvious, but does the committal skip imply that it has already been determined somehow that there’s enough evidence to proceed to trial?

If so, how and when would that have been determined and by whom (ie a meeting where all parties agree)?

 

[SouthAussie]

A possible long answer. Currently in Victoria , there is a persistent buzz up in the Justice Precinct ( William and Bourke ) to review the process re murder trials.. one outcome of this review and possible change, adjustment , is this year, and last year a lot of Legal Aid defendants are being advised by their Legel Aid designated Barristers to skip the Committal stuff and head off to trial. There is murmur and whisper of Committal stuff being dropped permanently... but it has not happened yet, it could be that Barristers are testing the water as to how it goes..

To narrow it down to the last couple of months , for brevity, Erin Campbell, (murder of 3 ) , Lachlan Young ( murder of 1 ) and now Patrick Stephenson ( murder of 1 ) ..all of whom have chosen to skip this part , Committal , I am now convinced that Patrick is a recipient of Legal Aid, and this is what he has been advised to do. .. and it seems he is taking his Barristers advice.. ( not all accused do that, )... I am also partly convinced he was advised by his first lot of Barristers to make a different plea, and he balked and they fired themselves, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Requiring Legal Aid to produce another set of Legal Reps.

He appeared to have only his ute as an asset, and that may well have been a work ute owned by his fathers company.. he was living at home, until he temporarily shared a house with a girlfriend at Scotsburn, who was , temporarily, house sitting a property ..

*ute, ---- Australian for pickup, backie,

That's interesting, Trooper. I took a look to see if Vic were (publicly) phasing out committal hearings. Didn't notice anything, but I did see that in 2018 NSW phased out committal hearings and replaced them with charge certification and case conferencing.

Changes to Committal Proceedings (NSW)

The Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) was amended in April 2018 so that committal hearings no longer exist. In New South Wales, committal hearings have now been replaced with a new process called charge certification and case conferencing.

www.gotocourt.com.au

Also, when reading parts of the Law Reform Commission of Victoria's 2019 report, it says that a whopping 80% of people in Vic who went to criminal trial were funded by Legal Aid!

https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/VLRC_Committals_Issues_Paper-Web.pdf

 

[Trooper]

That's interesting, Trooper. I took a look to see if Vic were (publicly) phasing out committal hearings. Didn't notice anything, but I did see that in 2018 NSW phased out committal hearings and replaced them with charge certification and case conferencing.

Changes to Committal Proceedings (NSW)

The Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) was amended in April 2018 so that committal hearings no longer exist. In New South Wales, committal hearings have now been replaced with a new process called charge certification and case conferencing.

www.gotocourt.com.au

Also, when reading parts of the Law Reform Commission of Victoria's 2019 report, it says that a whopping 80% of people in Vic who went to criminal trial were funded by Legal Aid!

https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/VLRC_Committals_Issues_Paper-Web.pdf

It seems it's only a matter of time until Vic drops the Committal stuff, but like a lot of things of a legal nature, it all moves at glacial speed. ..

The 80% thing is also a cause for concern, .. changes are in the offing there, but , again, the speed is at 1/2 glacial for that one, Legal Aid is predicated on the actual crime, and the likelihood of imprisonment, of a certain length, I think that's how it goes, in Victoria... It is seen that one should not go broke to defend oneself.. again , it's the power imbalance of the state versus the individual.. .. for all that, the system has all the merit under the sun and tinkering with it is not seen as casual arvo job, it's a big thing to even consider changes, no one hates change more than the legal chaps and chapesses,, ...

 

[Rocket333]

That's interesting, Trooper. I took a look to see if Vic were (publicly) phasing out committal hearings. Didn't notice anything, but I did see that in 2018 NSW phased out committal hearings and replaced them with charge certification and case conferencing.

Changes to Committal Proceedings (NSW)

The Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) was amended in April 2018 so that committal hearings no longer exist. In New South Wales, committal hearings have now been replaced with a new process called charge certification and case conferencing.

www.gotocourt.com.au

Also, when reading parts of the Law Reform Commission of Victoria's 2019 report, it says that a whopping 80% of people in Vic who went to criminal trial were funded by Legal Aid!

https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/VLRC_Committals_Issues_Paper-Web.pdf

Thanks SA.
3.54 states that if the Magistrate thinks the evidence can’t support a conviction the accused is to be discharged.

So the evidence has been determined to be strong and supportive of a conviction.

PS would know this yet pleads not guilty (not unusual but insightful). “Not guilty” isn’t necessarily innocent or not culpable is it?

What’s the chances of him taking the stand?

 

[Trooper]

Thanks SA.
3.54 states that if the Magistrate thinks the evidence can’t support a conviction the accused is to be discharged.

So the evidence has been determined to be strong and supportive of a conviction.

PS would know this yet pleads not guilty (not unusual but insightful). “Not guilty” isn’t necessarily innocent or not culpable is it?

What’s the chances of him taking the stand?

Quick answer.. if he is able , and amenable to following his Barristers instructions, absolutely no chance what so ever of taking the stand.. if he is a pig headed, smartypants boofhead with no insight at all, sure. up he gets and pits his superior wit with a Kings Counsel.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

[QUOTE="Rocket333, post: 19168498, member: 131226"

What’s the chances of him taking the stand?
[/QUOTE]
Slim to none if he takes the advice of his legal team in my opinion. I feel it would not bode well for him, but ultimately it's his choice, so he could very well do so, still thinking he's invincible and not accountable.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Quick answer.. if he is able , and amenable to following his Barristers instructions, absolutely no chance what so ever of taking the stand.. if he is a pig headed, smartypants boofhead with no insight at all, sure. up he gets and pits his superior wit with a Kings Counsel.

Snap! Seems we essentially posted the same response at the same time, just yours was worded more eloquently than mine.

 

[SouthAussie]

What’s the chances of him taking the stand?

Is he able to say more than 4 words at a time?

 

[JLZ]

Thanks SA.
3.54 states that if the Magistrate thinks the evidence can’t support a conviction the accused is to be discharged.

So the evidence has been determined to be strong and supportive of a conviction.

PS would know this yet pleads not guilty (not unusual but insightful). “Not guilty” isn’t necessarily innocent or not culpable is it?

What’s the chances of him taking the stand?

I think 3.54 like 3.53 is talking about the committal process, what happens at the end of/after the committal hearing. The magistrate either commits the accused for trial or discharges the accused.

Apologies for probably stating the obvious, but does the committal skip imply that it has already been determined somehow that there’s enough evidence to proceed to trial?

If so, how and when would that have been determined and by whom (ie a meeting where all parties agree)?

No. Not unless you count the DPP, the prosecution side. The point of the committal process is to filter out before trial prosecutions which have next to no chance of succeeding. But the committal process seems to have swollen over the years, it's expensive for both sides, and for the accused a committal then trial may feel like going through trial twice.