Another Adjournment

There was a most welcome calm on my walk this morning, but plenty of evidence of yesterday's wild wind storm with the roadside and gardens littered by sticks, twigs and leafy branches. A branch of mistletoe came down in our garden, taking the phone line with it. I climbed a ladder and hooked it back up but the phone is out, although I can still use the internet.
I was doing that yesterday, posting in some detail, on Gord's court case on Friday, when the power went off and I lost all that I'd written. Frustrating hey! I dread going over it all again, but here goes.

When I rang the solicitor at 5.00pm last Thursday he'd not heard from the police in response to his request that they drop the 'intent to steal charge' and offer a diversion on the 'trespass'. He said he'd be leaving the office shortly and he'd see us tomorrow at the Dandenong Magistrates Court at 9.45am. He suggested that as he'd learned the informant, Leading Senior Constable Frank Bodor, was working a 3-11pm shift, I could keep trying to ring him at Pakenham police station and ask him what was to be offered us, if anything.
I did this and spoke to a policewoman who told me he was out on the road and she would pass on my phone number and my request that he ring me at home later in the evening. I had left a meeting of the Emerald museum committee to make these calls in a work room. When I sat down again at the meeting I was gripped by the severe pain of a back spasm which was the last thing needed.
Bodor didn't ring, and I, distracted by agonizing back spasms at regular intervals, didn't ring him again, accepting we were going to court in the morning and would find out then, que sera sera.
After a fairly quiet trip down in the morning during which Gord and I made small talk about the first one day cricket final between Australia and England to be played that day/night but little else, we met solicitor Chris at the appointed time in the foyer. The police had faxed through to Chris's office the DIVERSION NOTICE the evening before but not early enough for us to be aware of it till the actual Friday. Chris gave me the diversion notice to read and suggested Gord and I go for a coffee for 20 minutes while he attended to another client he was representing in court that day.
Addressed to Gordon it said-
IN RELATION TO THE FOLLOWING CHARGES AGAINST YOU;
1.BURGLARY 2.TRESPASS
In this case the Victoria Police will recommend to the court that you be granted a Diversion Order.
There was some more detail about diversion orders then it concluded- IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE DIVERSION OPTION YOUR MATTER WILL BE DEALT WITH AS INDICATED IN THE CHARGE DOCUMENTATION.
Under this was a NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT filled out by a Sgt. of police saying "This person is suitable for a Diversion Order. I suggest that the following Program Conditions be considered:
1. Monetary Donation in the amount of $150 to the Royal Children's hospital.

It didn't seem much of an offer to us, despite the court co-ordinator explaining after we were called in to his office, that if Gord admitted to 'the facts', (that he was a burglar as well as a trespasser) the charges would not to be proceeded with in court, the matter would be all over today, and Gord would not have a criminal record, ie. there would be no convictions recorded against him. Mind you, I supposed Gord would also feel good about a donation of $150 to the Children's hospital.
While we had the coffee Gord and I had decided that we liked the word burglary less than we liked 'trespass with intent to steal' and had decided to take the line of 'what if' we don't accept the diversion, for the reason that Gord was not guilty of burglary. The co-ordinator said that it was burglary because he was in the building, by the definition of burglay, even if he hadn't taken anything. If he had taken something he would have been charged with burglary and theft.
I replied that I had never looked into the definition of burglary, and was unaware until today that Gordon was charged with burglary because the charge and summons referred to 'trespass with intent to steal'. We had requested through our solicitor as early as November to have this charge removed as he had no intent to steal, but had not had a response from the police until the day of the court proceeding, and we had supporting letters from two pshychologists who knew Gordon professionally and said his actions on the night in question were not consistent with a person intending to steal. We went round and and round this for a few minutes, I think I repeated myself but he maintained and repeated that Gord was trespassing by being on the premises and burglaring by being in the building, despite the door being left open and there being no forced entry.
I asked what now, as we don't like it, and he said he would go and see the police prosecutor and see if the burglary could be dropped. He came back some 15 minutes later and said the prosecutor had contacted Bodor who had agreed to drop the burglary charge, but this could not be done today, it involved paperwork and there would have to be an adjournment and another hearing date and the case is now listed for CONTEST MENTION on the 13 March.
We have to go back again but at least Gord won't have burglary on his police record which is what would be the case if we'd taken the expedient offer, which I'm sure was expected of us. Let's hope there's no suprises on Mar 13.

I wondered from the very beginning why Gord was charged with intent to steal when it was obvious to me that there wasn't any. This quote, from an article in the Weekend Australian recently on deaths in custody and the Qld. police uproar, stood out like a shag on a rock. Shows you how sensitive you can get.
"Every day of the week they present, for prosecution, cases that are utter rubbish because the evidence is not there. Your individual police officer does not give a damn about justice when pushing for these prosecutions, they just want notches in their belt for promotional purposes."

In no way, of course, do I suggest this happens in Victoria.