@lyndal1838 wrote:
@imastawka wrote:
"He was in front of a magistrate wanting greater access to Luke and it was actually his lawyer that told the magistrate there were other charges pending, which none of us knew about," she said.
I'm totally surprised his lawyer was stupid enough to raise the issue with the magistrate,
when there was no need.
It could easily have stopped his client from seeing his son. The magistrate would
not have been aware of the charges, why bring them up?
I don't condone any of it, just saying the lawyer was an idiot.
Must have been Legal Aid, from my experience of them.
Do you think perhaps the lawyer may have believed in his heart that his client should not have access to his son?
It was certainly a way to prevent it.....pity the magistrate did not think so too.
Yes, I was taken aback that his lawyer brought it up but maybe the lawyer did think the magistrate should know.
But.. I see it as a worry, in this age of computers, that a person could be facing charges and any magistrate having to make a legal decision about something would not have up to date information about that person.
No one should have had to tell him, in a sensible world he should have known, had the history at his fingertips.
Okay, a person facing charges is innocent till proven guilty but there should be provision for a magistrate to put other legal decisions on hold till an outcome is known, or else put a temporary ban on contact till the case was resolved.
That's what happens in the real world. If you were eg teaching, and facing child porn charges, you would not be able to keep on working till the case had been heard.
Anyone asking for bail or facing fines or wanting access etc should have all the known history available to the magistrate, in my opinion.
