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

[HoneyBunOne]

I certainly agree with and join with you in your hesitation.. for what it's worth, and in particular , in this case, I am cranky about him choosing to scoot thru to the Supreme Court.. I very much wanted a Committal hearing for my own selfish purposes!!.. but it is trending in VIctoria, in quite high profile cases to go this route.

Money, as in most things, is the driver, but Stephenson still gets the very best of representation my taxes can donate to, and this, while personally infuriating is absolutely correct in it's process.

Don't even get me started on the cost to house him for 20 odd years should he be found guilty. Meanwhile, we have struggling individuals who don't have meals, accommodation or free recreation who are living on the streets or in dire conditions. But that's a whinge for another day and somewhat off topic.

 

[Tweet57]

Sounds like young Patrick just can't wait to get back to his normal good life!

Young Patrick is coming across as an entitled a$$ hole who seems to think he is smarter than the police and thinks only of himself. His time is coming.

 

[SouthAussie]

It might be time to again remind folks that Victoria rarely , rarely goes to a judge only trial. It does it occasionally but when that happens, it means a judge has decided that it is in the public interest for that to be so. . Mr Stephenson will likely, most likely appear in front of a jury.


In NSW, for example, the defendant can choose to have a judge only trial, he/she has no choice in what judge it will be, and it often backfires... one of the things about a judge only trial, is, other judges are reluctant to find any fault in a brother / sister judge on appeal.. on a jury trial there are some areas to use in an appeal.

Judges also have to write lengthy explanations - with reasons and precedent provided - of how and why they arrived at their verdict.

I remember the verdict in the Simon Gittany trial took 5 hours for the Justice to read to the court.

Juries don't have to explain their reasons.

 

[Rocket333]

That Magistrate was right onto it, he had a certain amount of , a sort of pity , for Stephenson, but it did not deter him from laying out the steps Stephenson has to take, .. he was adamant about the 7am and 7pm bit...and then he told him the really awkward news , that he had 14 days to do it in. Be back NOV 27th. bang goes the gavel.

You say he can't !!!! I second that motion.

Wow, I didn’t know about the alibi bit.
Is that usual? Why 14 days (seems long for an alibi…unless you don’t have one). Hasn’t raised it before, so raise it now or forfeit the chance to raise it at trial. The squeeze has begun and he must be feeling it.

“The magistrate also reminded Stephenson that he now had 14 days from today to file alibi evidence if he wished to raise any at trial. He told the 23-year-old that it was “very important” to obtain legal representation for the trial.”

Families watch on as Samantha Murphy’s accused killer opts to fast-track murder trial

Patrick Stephenson will have his trial fast-tracked to the Supreme Court after pleading not guilty to murdering the missing Ballarat mother.

www.theage.com.au

 

[mrjitty]

Wow, I didn’t know about the alibi bit.
Is that usual? So raise it now or forfeit the chance to raise it at trial. The squeeze has begun.

“The magistrate also reminded Stephenson that he now had 14 days from today to file alibi evidence if he wished to raise any at trial. He told the 23-year-old that it was “very important” to obtain legal representation for the trial.”

Families watch on as Samantha Murphy’s accused killer opts to fast-track murder trial

Patrick Stephenson will have his trial fast-tracked to the Supreme Court after pleading not guilty to murdering the missing Ballarat mother.

www.theage.com.au

A number of commonwealth countries have reformed the law in ways that cuts across the right to silence, but in sensible ways IMO.

Albis is one of them, because otherwise the defendant can just come up with a alibi which is only disclosed on the stand which means it can't be investigated and corroborated.

You see it also with police interviews where a defendant may need to answer certain types of questions, where he could be expected to disclose related facts. Otherwise it will draw a negative inference when raised at trial.

 

[SouthAussie]

Wow, I didn’t know about the alibi bit.
Is that usual? Why 14 days (seems long for an alibi…unless you don’t have one). Hasn’t raised it before, so raise it now or forfeit the chance to raise it at trial. The squeeze has begun and he must be feeling it.

“The magistrate also reminded Stephenson that he now had 14 days from today to file alibi evidence if he wished to raise any at trial. He told the 23-year-old that it was “very important” to obtain legal representation for the trial.”

Families watch on as Samantha Murphy’s accused killer opts to fast-track murder trial

Patrick Stephenson will have his trial fast-tracked to the Supreme Court after pleading not guilty to murdering the missing Ballarat mother.

www.theage.com.au

Yes, it appears to be usual.



Google search

 

[Melt71]

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.

Also possible that he may want to stand up if his mental health isn't great and isn't being well managed, but he isn't unfit to appear, just 'off base' and making poor choices. Based on my relative's experience I would say that mental health conditions are not well managed in remand. It seemed more focused on achieving inmate compliance, rather than achieving wellness.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

A longish response..
1. this is what a committal trial is, in Victoria . at this time.
Different states and territories have different rules about whether committal hearings are needed.

During a committal hearing, a magistrate will consider the evidence the prosecution intends to use and decide if there is enough to take the matter to a trial. Depending on where the trial takes place, it will be held in either the Supreme, County or District Court.

If the magistrate decides the prosecution does not have enough evidence, they will dismiss the matter and the defendant will be free to leave.

At a committal hearing, there is no jury and the magistrate makes all the decisions and judgments.

• If the magistrate decides there is enough evidence, the defendant will be committed for trial. This means the matter will be heard in one of the higher courts at a later date.

( so. you see that this component is a pre trial, .. an opener, a matter previous to a trial at the Supreme Court.. it points the way to a full blown , 24 carat Supreme Court trial, if the magistrate sees it that way. )

Thank you, Trooper, for this information.

This may have been explained...
and perhaps I just overlooked it...

But...
Is the defense present while the prosecution exhibits evidence during the committal hearing?

I see that defense gives "their side" at a later date than the prosecution...

But are the prosecution and the defense present at both events?

TIA!

 

[Trooper]

Thank you, Trooper, for this information.

This may have been explained...
and perhaps I just overlooked it...

But...
Is the defense present while the prosecution exhibits evidence during the committal hearing?

I see that defense gives "their side" at a later date than the prosecution...

But are the prosecution and the defense present at both events?

TIA!

Yes, the defence is there, keeping in mind, the defence already has the stuff the Prosecution intends to bring to trial.. sometimes a little thing is held back, a viewpoint, a theory, but the defence has had all the relevant matters for months, now, in fact, there was so much given to them , artifacts, CCTV, recordings, whatnots, by the Prosecution ( that the police gave to the DPP ) that an extension of 4 months was granted , because it was of such unprecedented quantity.

And yes, the Prosecution is there also, during a committal hearing.

Who isn't there? the Press. It is not to be reported. ( gritted teeth emoji ) .. .

 

[Trooper]

Reading about Stephenson seeming to concentrate on altering his appearance, the thick beard, the long shoulder length hair, I am reminded of Arthur Freeman in Melbourne Vic, back in 2011. who did all this stuff as well while in remand, so that when his trial came to be, he looked uttery bonkers, so off the planet, so very very crazy, he also did a lot of shouting in the court, about weird nonsense in his head concerning some police matter in Perth, I wonder if Stephenson has in mind pulling off the same stunt...

A picture of Freeman, ( this was one of his good days, most days he looked totally deconstructed) ..

https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/arthur-freeman-jury-urged-to-reject-evidence-of-sole-defence-witness/news-story/8b669124848fb8951090e3347aecbd36

 

[Trooper]

Judges also have to write lengthy explanations - with reasons and precedent provided - of how and why they arrived at their verdict.

I remember the verdict in the Simon Gittany trial took 5 hours for the Justice to read to the court.

Juries don't have to explain their reasons.

I think that is the bit I love the most about Judge only trials.. the language judges use is like a symphony of gorgeousness, 5 hours is hardly long enough, .... and that Gittany judgement was from a lady judge too, fabulous ... Gittany did not factor in the chances of getting a lady judge, when he chose his judge only trial..

 

[Trooper]

Somewhere, along the way, a big chunk of news has slipped by me, unless it has not been made news, ..

The unexplained absence of Stephenson's highly publicised legal reps,

The appearance of a totally new Barrister at this hearing just gone past. Assigned? or

The names and pedigree of who is representing him going forward.

The fact that he has not entered into the court his alibi, and has had to be reprimanded about it, and given a 14 day deadline to rectify this matter, since he has chosen to plead Not Guilty.

The reasons for his developing appearance of dishevelment. This is a choice, there are barbers who do all this stuff in remand .

 

[JLZ]

Yes, it appears to be usual.

View attachment 545353

Google search

This is about evidence rules. He doesn't have to explain his whereabouts. But, if he intends to bring alibi evidence, he has to give notice within the court's timeframe.

From your JCV source, 4.25 (3), BBM:

The admissibility of alibi evidence is regulated, in part, by the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. An accused must obtain leave of the court in order to give evidence of an alibi personally, or to call evidence in support of an alibi, if the accused has not given notice of alibi within 14 days of being committed for trial or, if that does not apply, within 14 days of receiving a copy of the indictment (Criminal Procedure Act 2009 ss 190(1), (2). See also DPP v Debs [2002] VSC 79, [11]–[12]).

Wow, I didn’t know about the alibi bit.
Is that usual? Why 14 days (seems long for an alibi…unless you don’t have one). Hasn’t raised it before, so raise it now or forfeit the chance to raise it at trial. The squeeze has begun and he must be feeling it.

Not 14 days of alibi. 14 days before it's due to be handed in.

 

[SouthAussie]

This is about evidence rules. He doesn't have to explain his whereabouts. But, if he intends to bring alibi evidence, he has to give notice within the court's timeframe.

From your JCV source, 4.25 (3), BBM:

The admissibility of alibi evidence is regulated, in part, by the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. An accused must obtain leave of the court in order to give evidence of an alibi personally, or to call evidence in support of an alibi, if the accused has not given notice of alibi within 14 days of being committed for trial or, if that does not apply, within 14 days of receiving a copy of the indictment (Criminal Procedure Act 2009 ss 190(1), (2). See also DPP v Debs [2002] VSC 79, [11]–[12]).


Not 14 days of alibi. 14 days before it's due to be handed in.

Aren't we talking about the same thing? He wants to go straight to trial (committed himself for trial) so he now has 14 days in which to give notice of an alibi?

 

[Trooper]

I think the magistrate expected him to know that he had to give the notice on that day that he pled Not Guilty, .. That is, give notice to the court that he is pleading Not Guilty, and registering his Notice of Alibi with the Magistrate.

Apparently, he did not do this, so the Magistrate copped onto it smartly, and gave him 14 days to submit it to the court. Normally, and this is of concern to me, his Barrister would naturally, as part of administration , had the Notice ready to lay on the bench, knowing his client would be pleading Not Guilty. SO it was a smallish , but significant glitch ...

The Barrister who did represent him did not have this Notice prepared... leading me to believe he was the Duty Barrister, the bloke there to handle all comers that day at court, who may need legal advice, .. this is part of the legal service in AU, you go to court, some lawyer or barrister is available to assist you in your travail, he/she is called the Duty Barrister/solicitor, it's usually a solicitor, but someone assigned a barrister for Stephenson.. he being on a murder charge.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I’ve been following, but not commented yet, I just want to say thank you to all who have patiently explained the court process to those of us who might be clueless to how it works in Australia- thank you!

 

[SouthAussie]

I think the magistrate expected him to know that he had to give the notice on that day that he pled Not Guilty, .. That is, give notice to the court that he is pleading Not Guilty, and registering his Notice of Alibi with the Magistrate.

Apparently, he did not do this, so the Magistrate copped onto it smartly, and gave him 14 days to submit it to the court. Normally, and this is of concern to me, his Barrister would naturally, as part of administration , had the Notice ready to lay on the bench, knowing his client would be pleading Not Guilty. SO it was a smallish , but significant glitch ...

Yes, it does seem to point to him not having had representation for a bit.

 

[Rocket333]

This is about evidence rules. He doesn't have to explain his whereabouts. But, if he intends to bring alibi evidence, he has to give notice within the court's timeframe.

From your JCV source, 4.25 (3), BBM:

The admissibility of alibi evidence is regulated, in part, by the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. An accused must obtain leave of the court in order to give evidence of an alibi personally, or to call evidence in support of an alibi, if the accused has not given notice of alibi within 14 days of being committed for trial or, if that does not apply, within 14 days of receiving a copy of the indictment (Criminal Procedure Act 2009 ss 190(1), (2). See also DPP v Debs [2002] VSC 79, [11]–[12]).


Not 14 days of alibi. 14 days before it's due to be handed in.

Yes sorry, that’s what I meant; it’s due in 14 days. I know it’s a due process and dependent on various factors. I love that this is happening as I didn’t realise it could be requested. What a weight if you don’t have one, or you have one but don’t want to hand it over due to implicating someone or something else.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Yes sorry, that’s what I meant; it’s due in 14 days. I know it’s a due process and dependent on various factors. I love that this is happening as I didn’t realise it could be requested. What a weight if you don’t have one, or you have one but don’t want to hand it over due to implicating someone or something else.

It will have to be resolved in 14 days one way or the other correct?

 

[JLZ]

Yes sorry, that’s what I meant; it’s due in 14 days. I know it’s a due process and dependent on various factors. I love that this is happening as I didn’t realise it could be requested. What a weight if you don’t have one, or you have one but don’t want to hand it over due to implicating someone or something else.

If he doesn't have one or doesn't want to reveal where he was, then the 14-day limit is not a problem, because he won't be bringing that evidence in court anyway.