Because his face has grown fat and he thinks he can hide the chins.
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
- Thread starter StillDiggin
- Start date
- Status
''''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.
“Do you understand those matters, sir?” Stratmann asked.
“Yes, your honour,” Stephenson replied.'
( he has to obtain legal representation for trial...
does this mean he is unrepresented, at the moment?? can this be right ? ) so he has to file his alibi evidence within 14 days, of anything he consequently wishes to raise at trial. if he does not submit stuff, he cannot bring it up at trial... which means, he may not have filed any evidence he plans to use, at all....
The court heard Stephenson was also facing five unrelated driving charges that were expected to progress ahead of a further hearing for those matters in December.
(SO not just one driving offence.. more than the one that is rostered for DEC 2. )
Last edited:
(snipped)--Could be multiple charges arising from one event, and all covered by the same case number.
Could be, could be not... David Tamanika , his Ballarat solicitor was representing him on one driving thingo, but at some stage, Tamanika passed Stephenson's other matters on up to a barrister, which signifies that the charges, whatever they were, were of a nature that attracted a substantial penalty, either time served or fiscal fine of a large sum, plus loss of licence. .. if it was small stuff , Tamanika would have represented him for all of it.
*crosseyed* ...
Ye gods! Can he be planning to represent himself?!( he has to obtain legal representation for trial...
the horrror!!! PleASE God, no, say it isn't so.. That would be ghastly.. ghastly..
ZombieKittie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2021
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 1,118
Surely he's not stupid enough to rep himself
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 33,242
- Reaction score
- 218,187
Michael Allen is on the Vic list of their Legal Aid preferred barristers. Maybe he is too busy (or doesn't want) to take the case on - but agreed to help out for this hearing?
Who is on the Criminal Trial Preferred Barrister List
Barristers on this list are able to represent legally aided accused in criminal trials.
www.legalaid.vic.gov.au
The only scenario I can think of , today, ( there are probably thousands of explanations ) is, he has had some conflict with Galbally Bros, possibly, after perusing all the stuff the DPP gave them, they advised him to plead guilty, as they have to do if that's how they see it, on oath they cant bulldust their client, he's done his block and fired them, and is appearing unrepresented , and was assigned a duty barrister, Allen, to appear for him before the Magistrate today.....
Edit# ''done his block' Australian slang for temper tantrum , usually epic and loud
Last edited:
i wonder if Allen is just local to the Ballarat Court and could appear in person for the other guys.
it’s also possible the original guys can’t do the fast track dates due to a different trial.
in any event nothing here says he is representing himself at trial.
it’s also possible the original guys can’t do the fast track dates due to a different trial.
in any event nothing here says he is representing himself at trial.
This is tricky to answer - not stupid enough, or not smart enough?
His original legal rep, one of the Galbally associates, was representing him when they asked the judge for an extension, when the DPP handed over all their evidence ( discovery disclosure), they agreed they needed months, to study the amount of stuff.. so the date for todays appearance was at Galbally Frere's request.
The fact that no one from Galbally Chambers was representing him, ( Allen is from Parnell Chambers ) , is, to me, quite significant.. Significant exactly of what I am only guessing, but ... in the absence of any other explanation coming from the defence bench, I'm sticking with him having fired his original rep. and picking up a duty barrister today.
This whole thing was conducted by Zoom, it's not as if any one had to travel 115klms back and forth from Melbourne, where Stephenson is, and his original barrister is, and as far as I know, perhaps even ALLEN was on the ZOOM call, I can't tell if he was in person at Ballarat court... so the distance was not the problem,... If his original reps could not do the fast track , that is not relevant, they should have been there today to rep him and tell the magistrate how it was going to be..
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..
it’s possible for sure! or conflicted out for some reason.
In any event it looks like a case of significant size and scope and fast tracked so i expect he will have barristers with the capability to deal with such a trial.
especially the SC is not going to schedule a such trial without representation and time to prepare.
If the other guys have dropped out midstream for whatever reason i think we can anticipate new guys to move for a continuance and fair enough.
Last edited:
a possible consequence.. no reporting of witnesses testimony... grr.. This case has now had two magistrates getting a bit agitated and wanting a bit of speed to be applied, they might have some success.. I hope so, anyways...
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2024
- Messages
- 1,187
- Reaction score
- 11,447
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
Yes, one incident can certainly end with 5 charges. Speeding, drink driving, driving under the influence of drugs, reckless driving and being unlicensed to name a few. Or 5 even!
Why can the media mention his other charges?
Samantha Murphy’s alleged killer charged with drink and drug driving offences
Patrick Stephenson charged over crash that occurred months before Ballarat mother’s alleged murderwww.theguardian.com
I thought there was an option for him not to make a plea and then it’d be made for him?
Did he have to speak or could he have remained silent?
Also does it seem a bit at odds that he refused to speak to the police, remains silent about everything for so long and then pleas innocence?
He has to answer the judge.. Guilty, not guilty, no plea ,------ he has to actually say it. He cannot remain mute.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2024
- Messages
- 1,187
- Reaction score
- 11,447
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?
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?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
