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

[Trooper]

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

He will have to submit his Notice of Alibi in 14 days, this is correct. .. What this means. ...

A notice of alibi defense is a written notice that a defendant in a criminal case must give to the prosecutor if he intends to claim that he was somewhere else at the time of the crime. The notice must explain where the defendant was and what witnesses or evidence he will present to support the alibi12345. The notice must be given within a certain time frame before the trial, usually at least 10 days245. If you are charged with a crime and believe you have an alibi, contact an attorney immediately1


( note that he does not have to GIVE the Alibi he intends to use at trial AT THIS TIME< he is giving NOTICE that he has one, he will be using an alibi, and who he will be calling to support the alibi, and an outline of any phone records, paperwork, ....)

Alibi ( it' s NSW site , but it is a Fed Direction for all states )

 

[Rocket333]

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

What happens in the instance that the hired legal rep advises the client to plead guilty and the client disagrees or refuses, hence disagreeing and reaching a stalemate? Can the legal rep still stay on and defend anyway, or is it go your separate ways?

 

[JLZ]

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.

I don't think the magistrate is reacting to a situation at all, except if the accused is unrepresented he may be trying to be extra-clear. The accused is being committed to trial (without a committal hearing). Certain time-limits start ticking now. The magistrate is following his script for when he commits an accused to trial. That's it.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

He will have to submit his Notice of Alibi in 14 days, this is correct. .. What this means. ...

A notice of alibi defense is a written notice that a defendant in a criminal case must give to the prosecutor if he intends to claim that he was somewhere else at the time of the crime. The notice must explain where the defendant was and what witnesses or evidence he will present to support the alibi12345. The notice must be given within a certain time frame before the trial, usually at least 10 days245. If you are charged with a crime and believe you have an alibi, contact an attorney immediately1


( note that he does not have to GIVE the Alibi he intends to use at trial AT THIS TIME< he is giving NOTICE that he has one, he will be using an alibi, and who he will be calling to support the alibi, and an outline of any phone records, paperwork, ....)

Alibi ( it' s NSW site , but it is a Fed Direction for all states )

Thank you- that really helps!

 

[Trooper]

I don't think the magistrate is reacting to a situation at all, except if the accused is unrepresented he may be trying to be extra-clear. The accused is being committed to trial (without a committal hearing). Certain time-limits start ticking now. The magistrate is following his script for when he commits an accused to trial. That's it.

I think the Magistrate did not know that Stephenson had the Duty Barrister as his rep. This sometimes happens , all sorts of comings and goings at Court on court day, and this was a zoom hearing. He was making it very clear to Stephenson what he had to do , and when he had to do it. The words 'very very clear, Mr Stephenson', were used twice, I think.. The magistrate certainly expected the Notice along with the plea.

but this is entirely my opinion, I take on board your view as just as possible.. .

 

[Rocket333]

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

I thought of that angle too. There’s no sketch available of Patrick in the court this week is there? Just the one from court in August.

 

[Trooper]

I thought of that angle too. There’s no sketch available of Patrick in the court this week is there? Just the one from court in August.

No.. no sketch as yet of the hirstute -ness evolving.

 

[JLZ]

What happens in the instance that the hired legal rep advises the client to plead guilty and the client disagrees or refuses, hence disagreeing and reaching a stalemate? Can the legal rep still stay on and defend anyway, or is it go your separate ways?

Sometimes the accused tells the lawyer he did what he's accused of doing, but wants to plead not guilty. That's OK, the lawyer will simply argue that the prosecution hasn't proved its case. But sometimes the accused wants the lawyer to do more than that, eg argue that the victim could have suicided, or that somebody else had the opportunity and motive to kill her. And the lawyer won't be in it because it's misleading the court. So, if the accused is adamant that that's the way he wants to run his case, the lawyer will withdraw, and the client finds another lawyer and knows to be more discreet in what he reveals.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Sometimes the accused tells the lawyer he did what he's accused of doing, but wants to plead not guilty. That's OK, the lawyer will simply argue that the prosecution hasn't proved its case. But sometimes the accused wants the lawyer to do more than that, eg argue that the victim could have suicided, or that somebody else had the opportunity and motive to kill her. And the lawyer won't be in it because it's misleading the court. So, if the accused is adamant that that's the way he wants to run his case, the lawyer will withdraw, and the client finds another lawyer and knows to be more discreet in what he reveals.

So in Australia a public defender can withdraw if the accused says he’s guilty and wants the lawyer to deceive the court- is that correct- sorry for my ignorance

 

[Trooper]

What happens in the instance that the hired legal rep advises the client to plead guilty and the client disagrees or refuses, hence disagreeing and reaching a stalemate? Can the legal rep still stay on and defend anyway, or is it go your separate ways?

My operative theory, in the light of the absence of Galbally barristers, is , that is what has actually happened. My theory goes like this. they received all the stuff from the DPP< the excessive , unprecedented stuff, the CCTV and all that.. went over it with their usual fine toothcomb concentration and professionalism, and, as all barristers must do, gave their client their best options.

And that Stephenson has disagreed with their proposed best options that are open to him , and Galbally's have retired gracefully and silently,...

I just can't come up with another explanation that fits the parameters. I've probably missed something so significant, like an elephant in the room that I am not seeing..

 

[Deleted member 296739]

My operative theory, in the light of the absence of Galbally barristers, is , that is what has actually happened. My theory goes like this. they received all the stuff from the DPP< the excessive , unprecedented stuff, the CCTV and all that.. went over it with their usual fine toothcomb concentration and professionalism, and, as all barristers must do, gave their client their best options.

And that Stephenson has disagreed with their proposed best options that are open to him , and Galbally's have retired gracefully and silently,...

I just can't come up with another explanation that fits the parameters. I've probably missed something so significant, like an elephant in the room that I am not seeing..

Again please pardon my ignorance- is the court required to provide barristers to the accused?

 

[Rocket333]

Sometimes the accused tells the lawyer he did what he's accused of doing, but wants to plead not guilty. That's OK, the lawyer will simply argue that the prosecution hasn't proved its case. But sometimes the accused wants the lawyer to do more than that, eg argue that the victim could have suicided, or that somebody else had the opportunity and motive to kill her. And the lawyer won't be in it because it's misleading the court. So, if the accused is adamant that that's the way he wants to run his case, the lawyer will withdraw, and the client finds another lawyer and knows to be more discreet in what he reveals.

Great, thanks. If Galbally has in fact exited the scene, what’s happened? Why would Patrick not understand and appreciate their value and that they are his best bet? What’s wrong here?

 

[Trooper]

So in Australia a public defender can withdraw if the accused says he’s guilty and wants the lawyer to deceive the court- is that correct- sorry for my ignorance

He /she can, indeed, citing irreconcilable differences.. indeed, he/she must do this.... again, a short reminder, a solicitor and a barrister, and a judge are all officers of the court, that is to whom and to what their loyalties lie, they are all 'called to the bar', and swear an oath to the bar to uphold the principles of the law to which they defend and prosecute. They cannot discard that loyalty for the sake of the client. This is when folks get DISbarred.

It's done without fanfare, usually, .. not a lot of fuss is made, the defender just retreats and moves on to the next client, the accused finds another legal rep, who will tell him the same thing..

 

[Deleted member 296739]

He /she can, indeed, citing irreconcilable differences.. again, a short reminder, a solicitor and a barrister, and a judge are all officers of the court, that is to whom and to what their loyalties lie, they are all 'called to the bar', and swear an oath to the bar to uphold the principles of the law to which they defend and prosecute. They cannot discard that loyalty for the sake of the client. This is when folks get DISbarred.

It's done without fanfare, usually, .. not a lot of fuss is made, the defender just retreats and moves on to the next client, the accused finds another legal rep, who will tell him the same thing..

Thank you- that is very helpful

 

[Trooper]

Again please pardon my ignorance- is the court required to provide barristers to the accused?

The state is required to do this... the court , in it's entirety, has barristers available, they all go on a roster, to be called to be public defenders. You get a public defender solicitor if your crime is of a certain level, . you get a public barrister if your crime is above that level and into the really serious stuff, stuff that attracts a long prison sentence,... ( AU does not have the death penalty, except for Treason, ) ... this aspect of defending oneself is supported by the taxpayer....

The premise is, the state has power far beyond the individual, and that individual's integrity must be protected by the very best legal representation that is available, at state ( taxpayer ) expense. It is done to even out somewhat the balance of power. No one should go broke defending themselves from the power of the state..

 

[Deleted member 296739]

The state is required to do this... the court , in it's entirety, has barristers available, they all go on a roster, to be called to be public defenders. You get a public defender solicitor if your crime is of a certain level, . you get a public barrister if your crime is above that level and into the really serious stuff, stuff that attracts a long prison sentence,... ( AU does not have the death penalty, except for Treason, ) ... this aspect of defending oneself is supported by the taxpayer....

The premise is, the state has power far beyond the individual, and that individual's integrity must be protected by the very best legal representation that is available, at state ( taxpayer ) expense. It is done to even out somewhat the balance of power. No one should go broke defending themselves from the power of the state..

Ok thank you- that makes sense- if I may what is the difference between a barrister and a solicitor in your court system- again I’m sorry for my ignorance

 

[SouthAussie]

So in Australia a public defender can withdraw if the accused says he’s guilty and wants the lawyer to deceive the court- is that correct- sorry for my ignorance

Lawyers are definitely not allowed to mislead the court here. They can point to all kinds of other reasonable scenarios to try to create reasonable doubt, but they are not allowed to deliberately mislead. We read it in a legal link somewhere in the posts.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Lawyers are definitely not allowed to mislead the court here. They can point to all kinds of other reasonable scenarios to try to create reasonable doubt, but they are not allowed to deliberately mislead. We read it in a legal link somewhere in the posts.

Thank you

 

[Trooper]

Ok thank you- that makes sense- if I may what is the difference between a barrister and a solicitor in your court system- again I’m sorry for my ignorance

These two terms might be used interchangeably in most places around the world, but in Australia there’s a crucial difference between what these two legal professionals do. A solicitor’s main job is to represent their clients in court and to negotiate with other parties involved in criminal cases, such as the prosecution or the defendants themselves.

On the other hand, barristers are more often than not tasked with arguing cases on behalf of their clients before the courts, and they’re also expected to perform extensive research into relevant case law and law codes before presenting their arguments to judges and juries alike.

( it's a big question and requires a longish answer, because, AUstralian barristers are a slightly different animal than an English barrister, or a Jamaican one, or a South African one, .. barristers are mainly found in British Commonwealth countries.. )

This site will do it better than I can, and quicker! What Is The Difference Between A Solicitor And A Barrister In Australia? - Lawyer.com.au

 

[JLZ]

The state is required to do this... the court , in it's entirety, has barristers available, they all go on a roster, to be called to be public defenders. You get a public defender solicitor if your crime is of a certain level, . you get a public barrister if your crime is above that level and into the really serious stuff, stuff that attracts a long prison sentence,... ( AU does not have the death penalty, except for Treason, ) ... this aspect of defending oneself is supported by the taxpayer....

The premise is, the state has power far beyond the individual, and that individual's integrity must be protected by the very best legal representation that is available, at state ( taxpayer ) expense. It is done to even out somewhat the balance of power. No one should go broke defending themselves from the power of the state..

I'll add to this what I've observed in the lower courts. There's a front desk where the accused has to check in before the appearance. The administration staff will ask if the accused has a lawyer. If not, they'll help link him up with one. There will be a local lawyer there doing other cases, or popping in to see what's going on (I don't know if many do this, but the one I knew had very informal habits). So the lawyer and client have a chat, the lawyer handles the appearance and later they meet eg at the lawyer's office and fill out the forms or whatever to request Legal Aid for the work done and needed to be done.