What The Hell Does Changed Circumstances Mean??

For Those Defendant's Who Have Been Slapped With An Intervention Order in a Victorian Magistrate's  Court, when you Try to Revoke or Vary The Intervention  Order, You have to Prove To The Magistrate That There has Been " Changed Circumstance's". Being able to Do This is Extremely Difficult because Nobody appears to be able to Give you a Definition of What "Changed Circumstance's " Really Means.

The First Query I made was to The Melbourne Magistrate's Court Help Service, I Queried with Them as to Where in The Victorian Family Violence Legislation is the Definition Or Guidelines as To What Constitutes, "Changed Circumstances". The Reply I Had from The Court was there was Nothing In The Legislation That Defined what " Changed Circumstances" Actually Means.

My Next Port Of Call was to go to a Solicitor and I Asked them What does " Changed Circumstances" Mean??. They Said Sorry we Can't Help You and said Welcome To The Crazy World Of Intervention Orders.

 I Was None The Wiser but I Thought That Maybe a Magistrate In a Melbourne Court would be Able To Finally Shed Some Light On The Definition of " Changed Circumstances" . To say The Magistrate's were Equally Non-plus is an Understatement.

A Defendant appeared Before Magistrate Greg McNamara and Told The Magistrate that there had been NO Contact by the Defendant with The Appplicant in Over 5 Years and He Wanted The Order Finally Revoked. Well Magistrate Greg McNamara said, Just Because you have had no Contact In Over 5 Years  Does Not Constitute " Changed Circumstances" that merely Means You are Complying With The Order, and Rejected The Defendant's Application.

Well The Defendant Said, If I have absolutely No Contact with The applicant, Then What Do I Need to actually Change to Prove "Changed Circumstances"???. Magistrate McNamara Then said he was not there to Give Legal Advice and Provided no Explanation Whatever as To What "Changed Circumstances" Meant.

Next Time The Defendant went to Court To Revoke The Intervention Order, Magistrate Bolster adjourned The Matter To Magistrate Denise O'Reilly who now worked at The Heidelberg Magistrate's Court. This was Some Time Since The Defendant had appeared before Magistrate Greg McNamara.

The Defendant again Explained To Magistrate Denise O" Reilly that he had NO Contact in Many, Many Years with the applicant and The Order should now Be Revoked. Once again Magistrate O'Reilly asked the Defendant what " Changed Circumstances" had Occurred, The Defendant really Didn't Know What To Say, and Once Again Magistrate O'Reilly Said, The Fact that you have Not Had Contact in Many Years Doe's Not Constitute " Changed Circumstances".

Again The Defendant asked Magistrate Denise O'Reilly to provide an Example of What Constituted "Changed Circumstances" and once again the Defendant received no Explanation.

On The 29th of November 2011 Magistrate Erlich did Give an Example Of "Changed Circumstances" and Her statement was to Move Interstate out of Victoria. Unbelievable!!!!!. Magistrate Erlich's Decision made no sense as Intervention orders are State Based Orders.

On May the 24th 2012, a defendant appeared Before Magistrate Marc Sargent in a Magistrate's Court in Melbourne, The Defendant wanted to Revoke or have an End Date placed on an Intervention order that had been issued in Dec 2001, 10 and a half Years ago, The Defendant had not had any Contact with His Ex Brother-in-law Since Dec 2004, Some 7 And a Half Years ago.

Magistrate Marc Sargent told The Defendant that there was Little Evidence he could give in Court, Because his Ex- Brother-in-law who was Contesting The Application was a Protected Witness. The Defendant had Sought Legal Aid but was Quoted $700 for the Defendant to be Legally Represented in Court. A Fee The Defendant Couldn't afford.

The Defendant Explained to The Magistrate that he had not been a family Member since the Year 2000, when he Divorced his Ex Wife some 12 Years ago, nor was he When The Intervention order was issued in 2001.

The Defendant's ex Brother-in-law said there had been no Breeches of The Order Or reports to Police of any Kind in many Years, and The Defendant explained that the Dispute involving the Use of a Public facility which was around the Corner from His Ex-in-laws No Longer Existed as he Now Went Elsewhere.

Despite this Evidence, Magistrate Marc Sargent Then rejected The Defendant's Application on The Grounds that having The Order remain in Place created " No Impediment " to The Defendant's Day to Day Life.

So with Magistrate Marc Sargent's Decision, if you have no Breeches or No Contact with the applicant even though it may be 7 and a half years or More, If The Intervention Order Doesn't Create any Impediments to your Day To Day Life, Then you cannot Vary or Revoke the Intervention Order.

How Unjust and Draconian is This Decision Handed Down by Magistrate Marc Sargent on the 24Th May 2012. He also told the Defendant, If He Didn't Like it, Then Appeal to The County Court.

If The Defendant decided to Appeal to The County Court, Unless he spent a large amount of Money for a legal Representative, The "Protected Person" Provision still applies.

What Makes Magistrate Marc Sargent's Intervention Order Decision Even More Ridiculous is These Cases He Handed Down a decision in.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Granny basher jailed for two months.

A WOMAN who bashed an 82-year-old pensioner to steal $40 has been jailed for two months.

Julianne Gansberg, 40, attacked the pensioner because of her frailty and age, Magistrate Marc Sargent said, sentencing her to four months' jail, half of which was suspended for a year.

The pensioner told the court, "I don't feel that my life is safe any more and it makes me feel sad in my twilight years I feel like this."

The elderly victim said in her victim impact statement to Ringwood Magistrates' Court that she used to enjoy going out, but now felt the streets were unsafe and had become a prisoner in her own home.

"I hate sitting home on my own," she said.

Crime Victims Support Association president Noel McNamara said Parliament should set minimum terms for violence and the sentence in the Gansberg case should have been two years, not two months.

The court heard the victim was attacked as she walked from her home to nearby Eastland shopping centre, a trip she took each day, on May 29 last year.

Gansberg knocked her to the ground and tried to wrestle away her handbag, dragging her along the footpath in broad daylight, before making off with $40.

The court heard passing motorists saved the elderly victim from further attack.

"She used to laugh a lot but she doesn't now," the magistrate said, reading the victim's impact statement. He told Gansberg, "She won't ever get over it".

Prosecutor Leading Sen-Constable Fiona Calkin had called for an immediate custodial sentence, saying the court needed to take a stand against a spate of attacks on the elderly late last year and early this year.

"The elderly feel unsafe in the community," she said. Gansberg had initially lied to police about her identity, denied the attack and failed to show remorse.

"She has not pleaded guilty until a fairly late stage in the proceedings," she said.

"The victim was an easy target who was unable to protect herself. She was old and frail."

Mr Sargent said Gansberg, who pleaded guilty to robbery and assault, would have received twice the sentence if she did not suffer from an acquired brain injury as a result of a car accident.


Magistrate Marc Sargent also handed down This Sentence.

Man pleads guilty plea on car blaze

A LOWER Templestowe man has pleaded guilty to torching a Doncaster East teenager’s car after a dispute over a girl escalated into a “tit for tat” between two groups of youths.

Magistrate Marc Sargent sentenced Adam Galli, 21, to a six-month intensive corrections order for dousing 19-year-old Travis Harrison’s 1992 Holden Commodore in petrol before setting it on fire on February 2.

The dispute, spanning several weeks and involving Galli and Harrison’s respective friendship groups, included verbal and physical confrontations and saw tyres slashed, eggs thrown at cars and expanding foam sprayed into an exhaust pipe.


So How Does Magistrate Marc Sargent Justify his Decision of The 24th May 2012 in a Non Violent Intervention Order Case!!!!!.

WHAT IS THE POINT IN HANDING DOWN LENIENT SENTENCES IN SERIOUS ASSAULT & ARSON CASES AND THEN HAND DOWN A LONG INTERVENTION ORDER DECISION WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT SEEN THE APPLICANT IN 7 AND A HALF YEARS!!!!!!.

 THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF CRAZY INTERVENTION ORDER CASES IN VICTORIAN MAGISTRATE"S COURT"S.