Damon Locantro has made a name for himself on the Sunshine Coast defending people charged with breaking the law. His practice, Locantro Lawyers, specialises in criminal defence but also offers services to those facing action by a government department. Damon has 15 years experience in criminal law and was formerly a NSW prosecutor and member of the NSW Police Service. Let the man have a drink!
| Damon Locantro
What happens when you set someone up to fail? They probably fail, right?
I believe Brisbane Supreme Court Justice Richard Chesterman’s comments about the arrest of Trevor Toms for breaching his supervision order have merit.
Convicted rapist Toms was arrested this week after being caught drinking in a Brisbane hotel, in breach of a strict supervision order which required he abstain from alcohol.
The judge looked behind the technical breach to the substance – namely, whether Toms had done anything sinister or anything that posed a danger.
When told that there was no suggestion that the defendant was a threat to anyone after one or two drinks, Justice Chesterman said: "Well, then, why shouldn't that condition of alcohol be removed?"
These comments are refreshingly down-to-earth. Conditions imposed on people on bail, on parole and on orders such as supervision orders should not be too onerous or unrealistic so as to set the person up to fail.
A client of mine was recently released from a short term of imprisonment. It was a condition of his parole that he not have any contact with anyone associated with boxing for 12 months.
The crime had nothing to do with boxing. My client was a boxing trainer and all of his friends were involved in boxing in one way or another.
When they all called to see how he was and to catch up, he had to tell them that he could not have any contact with them. That condition was not relevant nor necessary.
I’m not excusing criminal behaviour and I’m not suggesting people should not pay a price for committing a crime, but the Parliament and the xourts should not impose conditions that set someone up to fail.
As the judge said: “Let the man have a drink.”
Have your say
Not Registered? Quick registration and comment.
Already Registered? Login and comment.
The path to economic recovery must be forged on the ... >>
Mark My Words : Carers for elderly need more support
Police Patrol : Last alcoholic drink was 10 hours prior?
Paul Munnings : It's elementary, pick Watson
Ashley Robinson : Stay clear of Roy
Through My Eyes : Crack open a beer
More RSS feeds
Install the news toolbar
Set up an email news alert 
Recent Comments
You don't mention that alcohol is a contributing factor to alot of assaults and criminal acts, that is lowers inhibitions and self control, all reasons why a convicted sex offender would be barred from drinking.
Considering that defense lawyers are now starting to use the diminished capacity argument for people that commit crimes while intoxicated, I see no problem with a serious offender not being allowed to drink. You can't have it both ways.
As for your client not being allowed to associate with anyone involved in boxing, maybe his crime didn't have anything to do with boxing but maybe the people he associated with encouraged or facilitated the crime? There are many possible reasons for that condition, you need to give the whole story not just parcel out snippets of information to suit your argument.
Toms knew his conditions and decided to flout them in contempt of a court order. You can't tell me that a court would impose such an order, or indeed an order about consorting with boxing affiliates, if there wasn't a link between that circumstance and the crime. If courts are imposing orders that have nothing to do with a previous offence, then the only conclusion is that their lawyers are pretty incompetent when it comes to arguing against them. For surely, that is their mandate, to protect their client?
Onerous conditions of bail or parole have two purposes, to prevent the offender committing an offence on bail and/or to secure their appearance. Quit blubbering about your boxing mate and take the matter to appeal, the proper arena for whinging about conditions or orders.
And lastly, sure, let the man have a drink, let the man go within 100 metres of a school, let the man reside in his house where he just bashed the living daylights out of his partner...but come back before the court and it should be 'go to jail, go directly to jail, if you pass 'go' you dont collect $200 for your lawyer's fee.
Wouldn't the condition imposed on your client of not associating with anyone to do with boxing be imposing a condition on innocent third parties? Appears a bit over the top, be interesting to hear the full story.
Darkknight has posted that he wants to throw 30% of Australians out of the country, hardly a rational view when it comes to law and order. Same when you see the phase "bleeding hearts". The goal should be to prevent re-offending and social harm not harsh retribution and creating more victims.
Down-to-earth comments are rare where it comes to law and order especially when grubby politicians get involved.
Usually have to look to the Australian Institute of Criminology or someone like Nicholas Cowdery for a rational point of view on such topics.
Firstly, 0.5 would be fatal, so let's get the numbers right. Second, .05 in public? So it's fine to be smashed in private where this sexual predator's offences probably occurred but take a step outside and your gone? Stupidity.
If those 30% of Australians are the sexual molesters, thugs, theives, drug addicts etc etc, then yeh, out you go. Get some self control and stop trying to change the system, legalise the sh*t and blame everyone else for your offending because you had a poor/drug addled/depressive/whatever childhood. Boo hoo. Plenty do, but still live a crimefree life.
Perhaps the reason why down to earth comments are rare is because it is an emotional subject. Every day in this and other papers we see stories of fathers raping their daughters, people being bashed, prangs where people are goosed up to their eyeballs on drugs or grog, domestic violence. Maybe, just maybe, people are blood sick of it all.
And Mr Cowdery may not be so poplular with the Coalition....'high priest of a religous cult' I think was one quote. And when it comes to law and order, politics, religion or any other subject, today's 'rational' is tomorrow's 'old' and 'stale'.
Dont you think that the more we, as a society, lean to the left, the more those with hidden agendas and criminal dispositions are likely to topple us over?
"What happens when you set someone up to fail?" The answer is that people set themselves up to fail. Toms was not set-up to fail... he went out a deliberately chose to drink in breach of his bail conditions.
It is the same with people who drive whilst disqualifed... they make choices too. I won't comment on the boxing trainer because, as the first poster has pointed out, you have given selective information.
People need to be accountable for their actions- Actions have consequences- Maybe you can tell this to some of your clients?
What is with the judge?
Was he schooled in the same place as the one who said sometimes no means yes?
Who judges the judges?
Emotions cloud judgement and have no place in forming public policy especially law and order. It's only the grubbiest of politicians who seek to play up to our weakest emotions. David Campbell is a good example, Mayor of Wollongong when it was the most corrupt council in the country, now he is a tough talking, tub thumping Police Minister. David Campbell wouldn't be out of place in the loonie Liberals.
Politics has been moving to the right for last 20 years, both Labor and the Coalition. If you believe it's been going the other way, you're either deluded or pulling a fast one. As politics and politicians have moved to the right of the political spectrum, society has been getting worse.
Nicolas Cowdery as a Public prosecutor is well placed to see what is going on especially with law and order. The fact he gets up the nose of self serving politicians both Labor and Liberals, shows his plain speaking and down to earth views have a lot of merit.
Lets not forget that the Coalition are the party that covered up $300 million of bribes paid to Saddam Hussein, it's understandable down to earth prosecutors wouldn't be popular with people who are that morally corrupt. Echoes of Pig Iron Bob.
Oh wait, I remember reading something about a country evicting criminals...
they sent them all off to work on some remote Southern island...
Oh, that's right. This IS the remote Southern island.
I think Darkknight is an accomplished devil's advocate - very good at finding the flaws in an argument, probably a brilliant debator... but please, the issue is not the misplacement of a decimal point so don't disappoint fans of the art of persuasion with cheap tangent tactics!
Moving on...
Everybody is different, every crime 'unique', therefore different bail requirements should theoretically be considered.
But there has to be a standard - like there is a standard curriculum at schools, a standard skills requirement for a job - you can't tweak everything because everyone will have a complaint "it's not fair - he got she got I didn't get!"
You can never please everyone, so don't try!
People know when they're breaking the law: there are non-criminals who live unjust and torturous lives for doing nothing wrong but living.
If you break the law, just deal with the non-life-threatening, non-health-hazardous, non-emotionally-destabilising effects of your actions.