fwed, what are you going on about?  You said that to you, it sounded like he was found guilty.  That epitimises what I said twice.  6 hours or more was summed up in a couple of paragraphs that you quoted on here from a newspaper report & you didn't even read your own words.  He was not found guilty.  He pleaded guilty to only 3 charges that were laid by the South Australian DPP.  No other charges were laid so he had no other charges to defend.

He was given a 28-month sentence on top of 10 months in detention for the third charge, but Judge Bampton took into account the time he had spent in both youth and home detention, suspending the sentences.

Bit rough don't you think innes for someone who in your words was not found guilty.

Give me a break.

I don't want to be pedantic about this fwed.  But it was you that opened this topic with the report that he PLEADED GUILTY, THEREFORE HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY.  It is sometimes a tactic to plead guilty when you are sure that a trial will be lost, because a guilty plea gets an automatic discount on sentence of 25%, as a reward for saving the Court's time.

As I said, our Court system is not one of justice.

A point that no solicitor will ever tell his client is that, if you have the time & you are picked up for a couple of driving offences that have attracted a combined, on the spot fines of $1,000, you should attend Court, un-represented, plead guilty & give an explanation for your lapse.  The very worst that will happen is that you will get the fines reduced to $750 & there is a good chance that you will get a section 10 on at least one of the offences & often get an even lower fine.

The system stinks, but it can & does get used very effectively.

Yes I can never understand the pleading guilty thing--some are forced even if they are inocent--because of the cost of going through the court, to me saying you are guilty and getting off lighter seems crazy

innes, you are not making sense. If he pleaded guilty, was he found innocent ? And why do you think a NSW law would apply in South Australia ?

He has to be either guilty or innocent and if he was not guilty then why was he given a suspended sentence. You can't have it both ways.

fwed, you are missing the point entirely.  But I now appreciate that it is a misunderstanding of terminology.  To be found guilty by a Court, you must have put up a plea of innocent of the charge/s.  The procedure is then that you are put on trial before a jury or you will dismiss your right to a jury & the case is heard by a Judge or a panel of 3 or more Judges as in the Supreme Court.  The case is then run & you are either FOUND to be innocent or FOUND guilty.  If you plead guilty, you are NOT FOUND to be guilty.  You ARE guilty by admission & the Court goes straight to sentensing procedure.  This is not just a NSW law.  It is similar everywhere in the Western World, even America, with the notable exception of Louisiana, which practices the French system:- "Guilty until proven innocent"

"there is a good chance that you will get a section 10 on at least one of the offences"

That was what I was referring to as NSW law when the case being discussed happened in SA

But the fact remains he was Guilty. Why try and get around that fact.

fwed,  I never suggested that he was not guilty.  You misunderstood my remark that he was not FOUND guilty as meaning innocent.

As far as I am aware, there is a variation of the Section 10 in NSW that applies in every State & indeed under Federal Crimes. (I think Sect 19b of Criminal Sentencing)