SouthernCrossAI/Reddit-posts · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 1 5.24k	extra_info stringclasses 1 value
During the trial, the court heard on May 21, 2022 Bell was eating at Broome McDonald's at the same time as the group of five young girls.
At the time of the incident, the girls were aged between seven and 10.
The court heard Bell encouraged the girls to engage in sexual behaviour with him, by asking them to come to the restaurant's toilets and motioning with his hands what the girls described as a "rude" sign.
The court heard Bell also tried to offer a $50 note to the children.
A McDonald's employee testified at Johnny Bell's trial in February. (ABC Kimberley: Mya Kordic)
During the trial, one McDonald's employee testified they witnessed Bell talking to the girls a few times while she was on shift and that he appeared drunk.
They said one of the girls asked her to call the police to "take them home".
"The youngest was holding onto my leg under the table, she told me she was scared," they told the court.
Prosecutors argued CCTV footage and recordings of the girls' 000 calls supported the allegations of Bell's predatory behaviour.
In her sentencing remarks on Tuesday, Judge Stewart said there was "persistence" in Bell's offending.
"You remained in the restaurant and playground area for over an hour," she said.
"You told the staff in McDonald's the children were your grandchildren, so the staff would not intervene."
Broome man Johnny Bell was sentenced in the Perth District Court on Tuesday. (ABC News: Glyn Jones)
The court heard the author of a pre-sentence report determined a community-based disposition for Bell could not be supported due to several factors.
"You were assessed as having high needs in areas of sexual offending, substance abuse and pro-criminal attitudes," Judge Stewart told Bell.
In imposing a sentence, Judge Stewart considered Bell's childhood disadvantage and trauma, along with his mental health issues and cognitive assessment.
"I have decided the seriousness of your offending, the need to protect vulnerable children, and the need to impose a sentence capable of acting as a general and personal deterrent is such that only imprisonment can be justified," she said.
Judge Stewart sentenced Bell to a collective three years and four months in jail. He will be eligible for parole in March 2025.
yeah dard
It sounds like the defense wanted him to stay in the "community-based disposition" but the judge decided that wouldn't work
I hope a judge would offer justification for putting somebody in prison.
Doing so without due process would see them back on the streets anyway.
Probably both.
Defence would have a duty to argue for the lightest sentence they can get. (Even if they think their client is scum.)
And judges do justify whatever sentence they’re giving. They don’t just say your sentence is X. They say the law allows them this or that, and they’ve chosen X because of various factors.
Examples might be related to the severity of the crime itself (e.g., assault could be a light shove or a brutal beating), criminal history, evidence of turning your life around, social stuff like being a single parent etc.
If they didn’t give their logic everyone would be asking “why’d I get X sentence instead of Y?” and certain judges could be accused of being too harsh when they’re actually just getting the worst cases. Also needs to be on the record in case they somehow screwed up and got the facts wrong.
What's especially horrific is that some of these kids were like 7, it's almost unimaginable how awful or mentally messed up someone needs to be to do this
That's not justice.
3 years is absolutely not enough , the guys intent was there for all we know what has happened in the past? Why are these sentences so low ?
>Defence would have a duty to argue for the lightest sentence they can get. (Even if they think their client is scum.)
I think the defence (in any case) should argue for a realistic lightest sentence though? There was no way in hell he was getting a community based sentence (like the property bound parole he was in since Feb).
>If they didn’t give their logic everyone would be asking “why’d I get X sentence instead of Y?” and certain judges could be accused of being too harsh when they’re actually just getting the worst cases. Also needs to be on the record in case they somehow screwed up and got the facts wrong.
I always presumed that the Judge just wrote down their reasoning.
Just think what would happen if he’s another Dante Arthurs. If Bell(end) gets released in 3 years he needs to be very well monitored.
And what if justice fails?
And he's eligible for parole in a few months
Because you can't punish a crime that he didn't commit. He committed a crime and was punished. People can't even get actual criminals punished who did do something as you have to prove it in court and that's very difficult. You can't prove something that didn't happen
"So low" is subjective. It's a bit Goldilocks and the Three Bears. What you consider to be low, others may consider to be too high and others may think it's just right.
The judge has the advantage of a number of pre-sentence reports that we don't get to see. All of that plus sentencing guidelines have guided the judge into passing the sentence she did.
He got longer for attempting to assault them than the person who assaulted one of my family members and many other vulnerable children got. I do hope he is very closely monitored on release and that he is chemically castrated.
(I should’ve mentioned that I’m not a lawyer, so it’s just my understanding/experience.)
I think you’re either over-estimating the average criminal’s reading ability or underestimating how much judges say.
Here’s an example of sentencing remarks. (Not for this case, was just the first WA one I found) https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/DownloadDecision/6f4c8129-6851-4cdf-b86f-9b6ab21c581b?unredactedVersion=False
Something like 30% of prisoners read by sounding out letters and/or can only read clear familiar info. (And 1% can’t read or write at all.) They wouldn’t be able to read all that.
Actually, after skimming that, I’m not sure the average person is registering all of it, even as a speech. Judges use too much jargon and there’s a massive amount of info there. Start reading that to me and I probably vague out after 5 minutes. (I’d be better off with the written copy, but I can read.)
As for the defence - not their job to decide what a reasonable/realistic sentence is. That’s the judge’s job. What if defence thought X was unrealistic and they were wrong?
Unfortunately I doubt that monitoring will happen
Justice fails all the time. Literally every day. Would still rather that than mob rule like people talk about anytime a pedo case comes up.
Pathetic
I'm sorry to hear : (
The courts can be a joke more so of the time
I just read earlier of a man in MT Druitt raping a 13 year old boy at a train station ?? What will he get ? Most probably under 10 years ...
I am so angry and over all of this
>Something like 30% of prisoners read by sounding out letters and/or can only read clear familiar info. (And 1% can’t read or write at all.) They wouldn’t be able to read all that.
What you're describing is functional illiteracy. It's obviously hard to measure and prisoners are by nature a captive audience, but it's estimated that in the general population it might be as high as 20% of all people over 16.
>underestimating how much judges say.
Yeah I might be showing that I've never had a court case (not for a lack of trying :P) to attend so I don't really know what happens in one. I keep meaning to go sit in at the Supreme Court on a day off, but still haven't gotten around to do so.
>Actually, after skimming that, I’m not sure the average person is registering all of it, even as a speech. Judges use too much jargon and there’s a massive amount of info there.
Yeah German has good a word for it, amtsdeutsch, which sort of sounds better than the English equivalent of 'Officialese'. By nature, the documents have to be specific and descriptive to prevent misunderstanding/interpretation. But that sort of writing lends its way to sentence structures and words that aren't used elsewhere (at least not often), and a certain level of verbosity.
>As for the defence - not their job to decide what a reasonable/realistic sentence is. That’s the judge’s job. What if defence thought X was unrealistic and they were wrong?
No but they were also leaning on him being intoxicated as part of the initial trial. I don't think 'throw everything until something sticks' works in defence any better than it does in prosecution. I think going for something realistically obtainable and focusing on it, rather than what it reads like the defence did ( The kids made it up in their heads - there was CCTV footage and staff, he was just drunk and staring - explain the $50 note, etc.) both during the trial and sentencing, is overall better for the defendant.
I'm not exactly losing sleep over it, this time it is probably not a miscarriage of justice, I'm just wondering if the ALSWA is providing its clients the best defence it can/should.
As DefinitionOfAsleep said, the Magistrates/Judges have to include all of the justifications for their decisions when issued court orders. I was a Social Worker both in Child Protection and Hospitals and did a lot of stuff in various courts and tribunals for clients. It’s a legal requirement for the court orders to list the pieces of legislation being used to issue the order.
I don't believe in mob mentality apart from literally cases like this. No idea why you would choose an obviously guilty paedo hill to stand on. Wierdo.
Yeah he's guilty of what he was accused of. Unfortunately we cannot convict someone of something he didn't do. That's hundreds of years of the justice system at work.
He didn't touch anyone. Yeah he's probobly a pedo but not legally.
It's literally a throwaway comment about someone who is obviously a piece of shit. No idea why you would feel compelled to argue this point. I am not trying to reform the justice system just would be happy to hear he was bashed severely in prison. How is this any different from planning a terrorist attack or an assasination that hadn't eventuated.
Yep still not justice. Are we not better than hoping people get bashed in prison?
It's different because it's more similar to trying to steal a plane for a terrorist attack but without written plan to do the attack. You cannot prove in a court of law what he was going to do.
Regardless there is no-one that should be mob justiced in or out of prison.
Does anyone know a Tiler that would travel to Ellenbrook?
A friend has been after quotes for months for having tiles placed on the floor of their Ellenbrook for a small ensuite?
Pmd
I can highly recommend GIB tiling out of Joondalup.
Hi all, any recommendations for campervan hire? My girlfriend and I are looking at doing ~12 days travelling from Perth down the coast and back.
Found a good deal on IndieCampers but reviews are pretty bad. Also had a look on Camplify too.
Any advice/recs welcome, thanks!
Advice? Check the excess. Someone joined a caravan brand group I follow to ask about the cost of a repair. They had scratched the front of a Camplify hire van. The consensus was that it comprised a big repair to reinstate perfectly and would definitely be an insurance claim.
That was when they added that the excess was $3k.
Welp.
Camplify can be good if you get a good owner.
The first person I reached out to was a pain in the arse (e.g. they listed 200km/day, but then when given the details of the trip, which would be far less than 200km/day, they started arguing that we needed to book for a longer time because "it would be too hard on the engine to go so far in such a short time").
I found someone else who had almost the same vehicle for $10/day less, and they were very easy to deal with. No problems with the itinerary, they ran through how everything worked when we picked it up, showed a couple of minor scratches so we could take photos, the trip went fine, and return was equally painless.
I did take out a separate travel insurance policy that covered hire vehicle excess. Also, be careful to read the clauses about off-road use and overhead damage (neither are typically covered).
Christ. Will do, thanks
My mum had a missed call early this morning from a lady saying her name was Janette Nye and that I had enquired to view a house in Frenchs Forest in NSW.
As much as it's a lovely place, I haven't done such a thing.
Now, my question is, is this a sign that my details have been sold online somewhere (very likely so), and if so, is there any apps, websites or ways to find out how much info has been leaked and how to protect it from occurring again?
I'm not so naive to think that none of my info is out there, but this is the first time that someone has contact a family member and used my first name in talking. The lady also didn't come across as a typical scam type with a script, rather, she seemed quite genuine. A quick google search to find the place in mention shows that she doesn't work with the agent either.
Try this website:
https://haveibeenpwned.com/
I know the website itself looks like it's trying to hack you but it's actually recommended by the Australian Cyber Security Centre
https://www.cyber.gov.au/report-and-recover/recover-from/data-breaches
I don’t see how that’d work as a scam. You’re not going to go “yeah, that was me, I’ll send money to your bank account”.
People browsing often leave fake numbers to avoid REA spamming them. And it’s not like they actually matched phone number and name - they got your mum’s number and your name. It’d seem like a crazy fluke if they got your name, your mum’s name, dad’s name, or siblings or cousins etc., etc.
Your mum might’ve got the name slightly wrong, or it could be a new employee or could be a front office assistant while the agency only lists its real estate agents.
They can buy your data from data brokers.
And the scam can start from there.
===

During the trial, the court heard on May 21, 2022 Bell was eating at Broome McDonald's at the same time as the group of five young girls.

At the time of the incident, the girls were aged between seven and 10.

The court heard Bell encouraged the girls to engage in sexual behaviour with him, by asking them to come to the restaurant's toilets and motioning with his hands what the girls described as a "rude" sign.

The court heard Bell also tried to offer a $50 note to the children.

A McDonald's employee testified at Johnny Bell's trial in February. (ABC Kimberley: Mya Kordic)

During the trial, one McDonald's employee testified they witnessed Bell talking to the girls a few times while she was on shift and that he appeared drunk.

They said one of the girls asked her to call the police to "take them home".

"The youngest was holding onto my leg under the table, she told me she was scared," they told the court.

Prosecutors argued CCTV footage and recordings of the girls' 000 calls supported the allegations of Bell's predatory behaviour.

In her sentencing remarks on Tuesday, Judge Stewart said there was "persistence" in Bell's offending.

"You remained in the restaurant and playground area for over an hour," she said.

"You told the staff in McDonald's the children were your grandchildren, so the staff would not intervene."

Broome man Johnny Bell was sentenced in the Perth District Court on Tuesday. (ABC News: Glyn Jones)

The court heard the author of a pre-sentence report determined a community-based disposition for Bell could not be supported due to several factors.

"You were assessed as having high needs in areas of sexual offending, substance abuse and pro-criminal attitudes," Judge Stewart told Bell.

In imposing a sentence, Judge Stewart considered Bell's childhood disadvantage and trauma, along with his mental health issues and cognitive assessment.

"I have decided the seriousness of your offending, the need to protect vulnerable children, and the need to impose a sentence capable of acting as a general and personal deterrent is such that only imprisonment can be justified," she said.

Judge Stewart sentenced Bell to a collective three years and four months in jail. He will be eligible for parole in March 2025.

yeah dard

It sounds like the defense wanted him to stay in the "community-based disposition" but the judge decided that wouldn't work

I hope a judge would offer justification for putting somebody in prison.

Doing so without due process would see them back on the streets anyway.

Probably both.

Defence would have a duty to argue for the lightest sentence they can get. (Even if they think their client is scum.)

And judges do justify whatever sentence they’re giving. They don’t just say your sentence is X. They say the law allows them this or that, and they’ve chosen X because of various factors.

Examples might be related to the severity of the crime itself (e.g., assault could be a light shove or a brutal beating), criminal history, evidence of turning your life around, social stuff like being a single parent etc.

If they didn’t give their logic everyone would be asking “why’d I get X sentence instead of Y?” and certain judges could be accused of being too harsh when they’re actually just getting the worst cases. Also needs to be on the record in case they somehow screwed up and got the facts wrong.

What's especially horrific is that some of these kids were like 7, it's almost unimaginable how awful or mentally messed up someone needs to be to do this

That's not justice.

3 years is absolutely not enough , the guys intent was there for all we know what has happened in the past? Why are these sentences so low ?

>Defence would have a duty to argue for the lightest sentence they can get. (Even if they think their client is scum.)

I think the defence (in any case) should argue for a realistic lightest sentence though? There was no way in hell he was getting a community based sentence (like the property bound parole he was in since Feb).

>If they didn’t give their logic everyone would be asking “why’d I get X sentence instead of Y?” and certain judges could be accused of being too harsh when they’re actually just getting the worst cases. Also needs to be on the record in case they somehow screwed up and got the facts wrong.

I always presumed that the Judge just wrote down their reasoning.

Just think what would happen if he’s another Dante Arthurs. If Bell(end) gets released in 3 years he needs to be very well monitored.

And what if justice fails?

And he's eligible for parole in a few months

Because you can't punish a crime that he didn't commit. He committed a crime and was punished. People can't even get actual criminals punished who did do something as you have to prove it in court and that's very difficult. You can't prove something that didn't happen

"So low" is subjective. It's a bit Goldilocks and the Three Bears. What you consider to be low, others may consider to be too high and others may think it's just right.

The judge has the advantage of a number of pre-sentence reports that we don't get to see. All of that plus sentencing guidelines have guided the judge into passing the sentence she did.

He got longer for attempting to assault them than the person who assaulted one of my family members and many other vulnerable children got. I do hope he is very closely monitored on release and that he is chemically castrated.

(I should’ve mentioned that I’m not a lawyer, so it’s just my understanding/experience.)

I think you’re either over-estimating the average criminal’s reading ability or underestimating how much judges say.

Here’s an example of sentencing remarks. (Not for this case, was just the first WA one I found) https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/DownloadDecision/6f4c8129-6851-4cdf-b86f-9b6ab21c581b?unredactedVersion=False

Something like 30% of prisoners read by sounding out letters and/or can only read clear familiar info. (And 1% can’t read or write at all.) They wouldn’t be able to read all that.

Actually, after skimming that, I’m not sure the average person is registering all of it, even as a speech. Judges use too much jargon and there’s a massive amount of info there. Start reading that to me and I probably vague out after 5 minutes. (I’d be better off with the written copy, but I can *read*.)

As for the defence - not their job to decide what a reasonable/realistic sentence is. That’s the judge’s job. What if defence thought X was unrealistic and they were wrong?

Unfortunately I doubt that monitoring will happen

Justice fails all the time. Literally every day. Would still rather that than mob rule like people talk about anytime a pedo case comes up.

Pathetic

I'm sorry to hear : (

The courts can be a joke more so of the time

I just read earlier of a man in MT Druitt raping a 13 year old boy at a train station ?? What will he get ? Most probably under 10 years ...

I am so angry and over all of this

>Something like 30% of prisoners read by sounding out letters and/or can only read clear familiar info. (And 1% can’t read or write at all.) They wouldn’t be able to read all that.

What you're describing is functional illiteracy. It's obviously hard to measure and prisoners are by nature a captive audience, but it's estimated that in the general population it might be as high as 20% of all people over 16.

>underestimating how much judges say.

Yeah I might be showing that I've never had a court case (not for a lack of trying :P) to attend so I don't really know what happens in one. I keep meaning to go sit in at the Supreme Court on a day off, but still haven't gotten around to do so.

>Actually, after skimming that, I’m not sure the average person is registering all of it, even as a speech. Judges use too much jargon and there’s a massive amount of info there.

Yeah German has good a word for it, *amtsdeutsch,* which sort of sounds better than the English equivalent of 'Officialese'. By nature, the documents have to be specific and descriptive to prevent misunderstanding/interpretation. But that sort of writing lends its way to sentence structures and words that aren't used elsewhere (at least not often), and a certain level of verbosity.

>As for the defence - not their job to decide what a reasonable/realistic sentence is. That’s the judge’s job. What if defence thought X was unrealistic and they were wrong?

No but they were also leaning on him being intoxicated as part of the initial trial. I don't think 'throw everything until something sticks' works in defence any better than it does in prosecution. I think going for something realistically obtainable and focusing on it, rather than what it reads like the defence did ( The kids made it up in their heads - there was CCTV footage and staff, he was just drunk and staring - explain the $50 note, etc.) both during the trial and sentencing, is overall better for the defendant.

I'm not exactly losing sleep over it, this time it is probably not a miscarriage of justice, I'm just wondering if the ALSWA is providing its clients the best defence it can/should.

As DefinitionOfAsleep said, the Magistrates/Judges have to include all of the justifications for their decisions when issued court orders. I was a Social Worker both in Child Protection and Hospitals and did a lot of stuff in various courts and tribunals for clients. It’s a legal requirement for the court orders to list the pieces of legislation being used to issue the order.

I don't believe in mob mentality apart from literally cases like this. No idea why you would choose an obviously guilty paedo hill to stand on. Wierdo.

Yeah he's guilty of what he was accused of. Unfortunately we cannot convict someone of something he didn't do. That's hundreds of years of the justice system at work.

He didn't touch anyone. Yeah he's probobly a pedo but not legally.

It's literally a throwaway comment about someone who is obviously a piece of shit. No idea why you would feel compelled to argue this point. I am not trying to reform the justice system just would be happy to hear he was bashed severely in prison. How is this any different from planning a terrorist attack or an assasination that hadn't eventuated.

Yep still not justice. Are we not better than hoping people get bashed in prison?

It's different because it's more similar to trying to steal a plane for a terrorist attack but without written plan to do the attack. You cannot prove in a court of law what he was going to do.

Regardless there is no-one that should be mob justiced in or out of prison.

Does anyone know a Tiler that would travel to Ellenbrook?

A friend has been after quotes for months for having tiles placed on the floor of their Ellenbrook for a small ensuite?

Pmd

I can highly recommend GIB tiling out of Joondalup.

Hi all, any recommendations for campervan hire? My girlfriend and I are looking at doing ~12 days travelling from Perth down the coast and back.

Found a good deal on IndieCampers but reviews are pretty bad. Also had a look on Camplify too.

Any advice/recs welcome, thanks!

Advice? Check the excess. Someone joined a caravan brand group I follow to ask about the cost of a repair. They had scratched the front of a Camplify hire van. The consensus was that it comprised a big repair to reinstate perfectly and would definitely be an insurance claim.

That was when they added that the excess was $3k.

Welp.

Camplify can be good if you get a good owner.

The first person I reached out to was a pain in the arse (e.g. they listed 200km/day, but then when given the details of the trip, which would be far less than 200km/day, they started arguing that we needed to book for a longer time because "it would be too hard on the engine to go so far in such a short time").

I found someone else who had almost the same vehicle for $10/day less, and they were very easy to deal with. No problems with the itinerary, they ran through how everything worked when we picked it up, showed a couple of minor scratches so we could take photos, the trip went fine, and return was equally painless.

I did take out a separate travel insurance policy that covered hire vehicle excess. Also, be careful to read the clauses about off-road use and overhead damage (neither are typically covered).

Christ. Will do, thanks

My mum had a missed call early this morning from a lady saying her name was Janette Nye and that I had enquired to view a house in Frenchs Forest in NSW.

As much as it's a lovely place, I haven't done such a thing.

Now, my question is, is this a sign that my details have been sold online somewhere (very likely so), and if so, is there any apps, websites or ways to find out how much info has been leaked and how to protect it from occurring again?

I'm not so naive to think that none of my info is out there, but this is the first time that someone has contact a family member and used my first name in talking. The lady also didn't come across as a typical scam type with a script, rather, she seemed quite genuine. A quick google search to find the place in mention shows that she doesn't work with the agent either.

Try this website:

https://haveibeenpwned.com/

I know the website itself looks like it's trying to hack you but it's actually recommended by the Australian Cyber Security Centre

https://www.cyber.gov.au/report-and-recover/recover-from/data-breaches

I don’t see how that’d work as a scam. You’re not going to go “yeah, that was me, I’ll send money to your bank account”.

People browsing often leave fake numbers to avoid REA spamming them. And it’s not like they actually matched phone number and name - they got your mum’s number and your name. It’d seem like a crazy fluke if they got your name, your mum’s name, dad’s name, or siblings or cousins etc., etc.

Your mum might’ve got the name slightly wrong, or it could be a new employee or could be a front office assistant while the agency only lists its real estate agents.

They can buy your data from data brokers.

And the scam can start from there.

===