A burglar asked to be sent to gaol because his probation appointments were at 10am and they were interrupting his sleep.... Of course we're invited to hate the guy;
Shameless Batchelor told the judge he failed to attend the meetings because they were too early in the morning - despite being at 10AM.The courtroom conversation is dutifully reported in full by the Daily Telegraph;
"I'd rather go to jail and get it out the way, come out and get a fresh start, and not have to do probation and things like that."And fair enough, he's a burglar. So my sympathy is limited. But he's got a job, working nights and doesn't finish until 6am, so he's clearly got a chance of "going straight". And under those circumstances, 10am probation seems unreasonable. Yet we, the taxpayer have to pay for gaol? Once again, the convenience of the bureaucracy trumps the convenience of those using the "service" and the costs are completely ignored. And someone who knows, agrees: probation officer and blogger, Jim Brown:
Mr Herbert asked Batchelor: "Have you given up on the order?"
He replied: "Yes."
Matthew Barnes, prosecuting, told the court: "He has told me that he has insufficient motivation to attempt to comply with the order.
"He is resigned to the suspended sentence being imposed."
it's the supervising officer who should be being pilloried, not the client. In my humble opinion a young man has needlessly gone to prison, not as a result of any new offences, but because of piss-poor practice. In all honesty a case like this takes my breath away. I can only contemplate as to the content of the Breach Report. What on earth was the Barrister doing to earn his or her money? Why didn't the Judge use some initiative and demand to speak to the Probation Court Duty Officer? Had I been the said CDO, there is no way I would have allowed this case to proceed without intervening.The papers lie to you, often by omission or sleight of hand. I didn't notice that he had a job until the second time I read the piece. You're being manipulated, people.