Andrew Lovett behind bars for Christmas

[MCG-Unit]

Hope he is confined for a lengthy period - doubtful though.
AL is totally responsible for his own villain status with AFL clubs, and in real life...
Bottom feeder

[shanegrambeau]

There is usually legal aid duty solicitors duty solicitors available to assist and advise turkeys like Lovett on a first up appearance.

Courts themselves would never contact a legal firm on behalf on behalf of a defendant to arrange representation. Simply not their role.

Such tasks are a matter for the turkey or his/her family to arrange if one is not eligible for legal aid.

So a 'legal solicitor' and a 'duty solicitor' are respectively 'the local solicitor' (lawyer in US terms) and a person paid off the public purse and on 'stand-by' for cases that occur around the clock?

[shanegrambeau]

Hope he is confined for a lengthy period - doubtful though.
AL is totally responsible for his own villain status with AFL clubs, and in real life...
Bottom feeder

Which one?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... m%20feeder

[MCG-Unit]

Hope he is confined for a lengthy period - doubtful though.
AL is totally responsible for his own villain status with AFL clubs, and in real life...
Bottom feeder

Which one?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... m%20feeder

From your Link, maybe a combo of Leech, Gutter Sludge & Scumbag.

For Fishtanks, Freshwater Aquarium Snails (my first thought) and various Catfish

[skeptic]

There is usually legal aid duty solicitors duty solicitors available to assist and advise turkeys like Lovett on a first up appearance.

Courts themselves would never contact a legal firm on behalf on behalf of a defendant to arrange representation. Simply not their role.

Such tasks are a matter for the turkey or his/her family to arrange if one is not eligible for legal aid.

So a 'legal solicitor' and a 'duty solicitor' are respectively 'the local solicitor' (lawyer in US terms) and a person paid off the public purse and on 'stand-by' for cases that occur around the clock?

How it works where I am…

There will be 2 solicitors from Legal Aid on duty - usually on-site but Covid obviously has mixed stuff with most things being done over phone/video link
Typically they see people that don’t otherwise have representation or haven’t nominated a solicitor.

Those that have nominated solicitors or have been referred/represented by other solicitors (which will be on the court file), will be referred there.

One will represent the people in the cells that are eligible for legal aid and the other will see the people that are summoned to court that day and request to see Legal Aid and are eligible
They’ll swat away people that either don’t need legal aid or fall into the income category that would otherwise exclude them. Sometimes they just give quick advice and don’t actually act for people.

If VLA have an especially busy workload that exceeds their capacity to act, they’ll usually refer matters to the local firms near the court that regularly act for the court with VLA covering the cost

I would say that in addition to the 5 VLA staff I know…

There’s somewhere between 15-20 solicitors for the courts that I see/ work with very regularly that will have cell matters referred to them by the court

[B.M]

Worth the risk recruiting him though?!

And giving up 1 Million and a first round pick

And he was a lazy c***!!!

On attitude alone shouldn’t have gone near him!!!

[whiskers3614]

Worth the risk recruiting him though?!

And giving up 1 Million and a first round pick

And he was a lazy c***!!!

On attitude alone shouldn’t have gone near him!!!

Ross Lyon- the gift that keeps on giving.
Fancy showing Ball the door for this dirty flog!

[skeptic]

I always thought the first round pick was way overs...

Especially considering they were wanting to move him on

I’ve been reading a bit a realestate as of late... depending on your spot in the market, people are always on the look out for either desperate buyers or desperate sellers. If you find one, essentially you should hold an advantage in the transaction.
In Lovett’s case we were desperate to buy and they were desperate to sell... should have been able to come to a fairly reasonable trade but instead we threw away a first round pick for a talented but highly erratic, inconsistent player with a known bad attitude.

IMO was never worth more then a second rounder

Our attitude to trading at the time appeared to be... if you want it, pay for it

To think we could have gotten Fyfe with that pick

[whiskers3614]

I always thought the first round pick was way overs...

Especially considering they were wanting to move him on

I’ve been reading a bit a realestate as of late... depending on your spot in the market, people are always on the look out for either desperate buyers or desperate sellers. If you find one, essentially you should hold an advantage in the transaction.
In Lovett’s case we were desperate to buy and they were desperate to sell... should have been able to come to a fairly reasonable trade but instead we threw away a first round pick for a talented but highly erratic, inconsistent player with a known bad attitude.

IMO was never worth more then a second rounder

Our attitude to trading at the time appeared to be... if you want it, pay for it

To think we could have gotten Fyfe with that pick

Two wasted first rounders in same draft.
The one we should have got for Ball and the one we shouldn't have wasted on this scumball!

[B.M]

That draft was the beginning of the end for StK

The 2014 draft then thwarted any chance of a rebuild

[shanegrambeau]

That draft was the beginning of the end for StK

The 2014 draft then thwarted any chance of a rebuild

Wasn't that Richo's second year?
Fat chance.

[vacuous space]

To think we could have gotten Fyfe with that pick

Even if we did make that pick, Fyfe was a skinny medium forward from WA. Lyon definitely would have used him as a witches' hat at training until he asked to be traded home.

[skeptic]

I am not opposed to the death penalty but only for those that rape and murder women and innocent children.

That really surprises.

Years ago on this forum, I recall a heated discussion about the death penalty.

This was a year or so after all the Jill Meagher stuff that went on.

At the time, I was working in the forensic system and I was tasked with interviewing a number of people whose offences were in a similar vein...
Now if you think you know darkness... you don’t know anything until you have a discussion with a person like this and go deep into the nitty gritty of what they did, why they did and the step by step thought processes that going into something like this e.g. what they do to subdue a victim, what gives them pleasure etc

Needless to say that mid-late 20s me, walked away deeply disturbed by the conversations and for a period of time, I was overwhelmingly and unequivocally in favour of something like the death penalty in particular circumstances. My feeling at the time was that no good would ever come from people like that thought that way being alive, and if there was ever an example of it being okay to declare someone’s right to life forfeited... these people were it.

When I expressed that on the forum... boy howdy did I cop it. A number of people suggested that that was a monstrous view and another even suggested that such views were a reflection of a cultural background that was more prone to violence and viewed life as more disposal. It was a shocking argument at the time because the above view that I posted, very clearly has nothing to do with culture.
On a little side note... it was either in this thread or a short while later when the same forumite said something to the effect of ‘your type of people believe this’ that I generally stopped engaging in cultural discussions on this forum... but that’s no related to this.

But correct me if I’m wrong Saynta, I do recall that you were among my more vocal critics at the time and were really rather aghast at the concept of the death penalty being a thing here.

I wonder what’s changed that’s led you a little way down this particular garden path... I would say that perhaps in some ways we’re not so different you and I but then ironically my views have gone back the other way. I’ve been well and truly swayed by the argument that this type of thing is not what civilised societies do.

The other considerations that have really moved me are the criminological ones that no no doubt you as a solicitor habit practiced for 30 odd years in different positions in the one firm and having presented at the federal or Supreme Court level as you’ve said before, would be very familiar with...
All research overwhelmingly show that the death penalty doesn’t act as a deterrent to these types of offences in anyway shape or form and certainly equate to reduction in offences/offending. Across the board and fairly consistently, they actually put offenders in a position where they have to really what they have to do to avoid getting court and the end result is more violent/lethal offending with mortality rates amongst victims being higher. The narrative changes from periods of time in prison to risking being killed by the state hence the more adverse outcomes.

It’s hard to see a pro argument that holds up to any scrutiny in practice IMO. I certainly don’t know a single law based professional that harbours that type of view

[saynta]

What an absolute piece of human excreta.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/sou ... 7dfdce3ea5

An extract only.

"Lovett, 39, was charged with at least 88 offences including assault, recklessly and intentionally causing injury, stalking and breaches of bail.

The court previously heard Lovett had allegedly choked, punched, kicked, spat on and even poured a beer over his 36-year-old victim in a series of attacks between February 2020 and December 2021. "

[Ghost Like]

You have to feel for his victim back when he nearly played a game for St Kilda. You also have to suspect there have been others that could not bring themselves to go to police & through the legal process.

[happy feet]

What an absolute piece of human excreta.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/sou ... 7dfdce3ea5

An extract only.

"Lovett, 39, was charged with at least 88 offences including assault, recklessly and intentionally causing injury, stalking and breaches of bail.

The court previously heard Lovett had allegedly choked, punched, kicked, spat on and even poured a beer over his 36-year-old victim in a series of attacks between February 2020 and December 2021. "

Yes, this is the person that James Hird was happy to give a reference about. I hope GWS knows what they are getting into to.

[saynta]

So there can be no doubt what an arsehole this creep is, I have posted the above article in full.

"Andrew Lovett faces fresh allegations of domestic abuse

New allegations of domestic abuse have surfaced in court after a former AFL star was denied bail over allegedly bashing his girlfriend.
Brooke Grebert-Craig
and
Rebekah Cavanagh
2 min read
January 14, 2022 - 4:23PM
Greater Dandenong Leader

Andrew Lovett faced Dandenong Magistrates’ Court.

A former AFL star faces fresh allegations of domestic abuse as he was denied bail for allegedly bashing his girlfriend.

Andrew Lovett returned to Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on Friday over shocking allegations of a 22-month domestic abuse campaign against his police officer partner.

The 2005 Anzac Day medallist was denied bail again after a magistrate deemed him too high a risk to be freed on bail in December last year.

The bail application on Friday took a turn when prosecution put forward new alleged developments at the start of the one-hour hearing.

“An additional complainant has come forward to police and will tomorrow make a statement which the informant advises, will anticipate to allege further family violence offending committed against her by this applicant,” prosecutor Andrew Sprague said.

Mr Sprague said the allegations were of a “similar nature” and asked for the hearing to be adjourned.

Lovett’s barrister David Grace QC said the alleged offending was “speculative”, “uncertain” and “vague” and argued for the hearing to continue.

Magistrate Jason Ong proceeded with the hearing and ultimately denied bail.

“I consider there is a risk that the applicant will repeat this type of offending, given the nature of the allegations,” he said.


“The alleged offending shows some level of control over the complainant and ... shows a pattern and continuation of violent behaviour.”

Lovett, 39, was charged with at least 88 offences including assault, recklessly and intentionally causing injury, stalking and breaches of bail.

The court previously heard Lovett had allegedly choked, punched, kicked, spat on and even poured a beer over his 36-year-old victim in a series of attacks between February 2020 and December 2021.

In one of the first alleged incidents, he grabbed her so ferociously that he left bruises and finger marks on her arms — all because she was listening to music and he wanted to go to bed, the court heard.

Other times Lovett allegedly threatened to slash her tyres, and claimed he’d have bikies run through her property.

He also allegedly struck her across the legs with an Esky lunch box.

In March last year, after attending an AFL match at Marvel Stadium, the night allegedly ended in a vicious assault where the woman was knocked unconscious.

On another night, after being at an AFL function, the court heard Lovett came home drunk.

He allegedly started spitting in the woman’s face and poured beer over her.

During Lovett’s hearing on Tuesday, Lovett interrupted when prosecution gave evidence about the victim being scared when he allegedly attended her address.

“That’s bulls***!” he said.

“You weren’t there, that is wrong.”

Mr Grace, who also represented Lovett when he was acquitted of two counts of rape following a County Court trial in 2011, said the man was remorseful.

“He realises he can’t continue to behave like this,” he said.

Lovett’s professional football career collapsed in 2010 when the Saints sacked him after he was charged over the rape of a woman at the home of teammate Jason Gram in 2009.

He had only just been traded to St Kilda at the end of the 2009 season after playing 88 games for Essendon between 2005 and 2009.

Detective Senior Constable Talissa Croxford argued that Lovett was an “unacceptable risk”.

Ms Croxford said during the police interview, Lovett referred to the victim as a “sl*t” and “tart”.

She said the victim was traumatised and “severely impacted” by Lovett’s actions.

Lovett was remanded in custody and will return to court on January 25. "

[skeptic]

88 charges over a 22 month campaign!

That’s a hell of a lot of being charged, bailed and summoned over and over again 5-10 charges at a time that were then adjourned/not finalised without him doing an extended run in custody.

Even in covid times where the conditions are custody are meant to be particularly challenging, you wouldn’t expect someone that’s had more than 2-3 sets of serious charges for DV to keep getting bail. Especially if they’re against the same person.

I know people that are into the 50-60s of alcohol or other theft charges… run in, grab whatever and leave, that regularly do 3-6week stretches just because of the sheer frequency of offending is causing a problem in the community even if the risk is essentially to corporations.

Would be interesting to get a bit of a time line as to what happened

I wonder why AL didn’t get the book thrown at him sooner

[Ghost Like]

Skeptic, I think you might find the majority of these 88 charges have come from this incident where he was arrested and remanded. The victim would have given a statement for repeated behaviours / offending / phone records or recordings, medical records, each would generate their own charge. Hence 88 & counting I'm guessing.

Even our Magistrates wouldn't continually bail someone like this, regardless of the current climate.

[skeptic]

Skeptic, I think you might find the majority of these 88 charges have come from this incident where he was arrested and remanded. The victim would have given a statement for repeated behaviours / offending / phone records or recordings, medical records, each would generate their own charge. Hence 88 & counting I'm guessing.

Even our Magistrates wouldn't continually bail someone like this, regardless of the current climate.

Yeah I thought that but I’m not sure that it necessarily holds up... with things like abusive/threatening messages, I don’t think that you get charged for each individual message. He’d get a charge of using a carriage service to harass or stalking or whatever. If for example he was subject to a protection order or family violence order and breaches it by sending 50 abusive messages... he gets charged with breaching it... not 50 charges of breaching it.
The amount of breaches would be taken to account when determining the punishment (e.g. breaching a corrections order can carry a penalty of up to 18mths imprisonment but you wouldn’t get that for a minor breach).

Then to go back 22 months... usually charges are in response to a particular incident. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case at the magistrate level that has been like: the person did this in Aug 17 2020, then this occurred on the 5th of Oct 2020 and again on Dec 4 etc. usually he’d have been charged with those things already but they get brought back before the court if he reoffends before the matter returns.

Not saying it didn’t happen, just seems odd.


At the moment, with COVID situations ppl in custody are are going into full lockdown for the first 2 weeks of arriving or transferring wherever and because of outbreaks, I speak to ppl that have been in straight isolation for 5-6 weeks at a time. Locked in the cell, no outside time, no isolation etc.
Lot of people with psychosis being left untreated, relapsing and being left of their own for weeks/months at a time. Knowing this, the threshold for incarceration is higher than usual at the moment. It’s not unusual for example for people to not speak with a solicitor from the day they are remanded to the day they return to court just due to the sheer volume of video link and phone links needed specifically for court matters.
In the case of Lovett noting that he is both a indigenous and may have had substance issues (noting that alcohol has been mentioned a few times)... seems entirely plausible that the courts took a rehabilitative tact initially and that maybe there have been multiple instances of separate offending.

Damned if I know to be honest.

Am just really blown away by 88 in one sitting. I don’t think I’ve ever seem more than 40 at one time and that’s from repeat offenders that are in and out of custody, accumulated over a year with matters being postponed and adjourned.

What’s clear now is that he’s had his shot at bail with representation so unless some drastic change happens e.g. victim withdraws charges, he’ll be in custody until the matter is resolved through the courts and he’s sentenced.

[Ghost Like]

Your last paragraph is spot on skeptic & personally I hope he gets to enjoy Her Majesty's hospitality for some time.

In reference to number of charges, perhaps we look at dates of offending. If you're a bank robber and rob 30 banks over 18 months, they won't bundle them together and only charge you once as a bank robber.

A sustained series of threats / msgs in an evening will be charged as one, just a number of punches thrown won't be itemised. I tend to think they've loaded him with as much as they can find, not uncommon, each to be proven.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out. I do get a feeling that these weren't charges that he had consolidated because it would have been leaked and we'd have heard about it prior to his current remand. Just summising.

[Trev from the Bush]

The 88 charges would amount to what is known in Police and legal circles as a hamburger with the lot.

[Trev from the Bush]

The 88 charges would amount to what is known in Police and legal circles as a hamburger with the lot.

[skeptic]

The 88 charges would amount to what is known in Police and legal circles as a hamburger with the lot.

Hmmm… you may have a point.

There’s every possibility that should the matter progress to a contest summary, a number of charges may be struck out

[saynta]

Skeptic, I think you might find the majority of these 88 charges have come from this incident where he was arrested and remanded. The victim would have given a statement for repeated behaviours / offending / phone records or recordings, medical records, each would generate their own charge. Hence 88 & counting I'm guessing.

Even our Magistrates wouldn't continually bail someone like this, regardless of the current climate.

Well, I certainly wouldn't.