Found Alive Australia - Terence Darrell Kelly, charged w/ abduction, 4 y.o. victim found alive, WA ,16 Oct 2021

[PrimeSuspect]

In Australia, everyone has their right to a fair trial and also the right to face and question any allegations brought against them, but this does not mean that an individual Accused should always make the State prove what is alleged; this is where the Guilty Plea comes in.

If there is a grey area that is not cut and dry (like with the distinction made above between guilt and innocence) then it does not mean you can have the best of both worlds. An Accused in Western Australia cannot effectively say that ‘I am pleading guilty but I didn’t really do it.’ This is ‘traversing’ the plea and is not allowed, going to show that even the simplest premise has to be properly considered.

When faced with multiple charges, lawyers can speak with the prosecutor for you and attempt to enter into plea bargaining, where effectively, you may agree in advance to enter into a guilty plea for the less serious charges in consideration for the prosecutor dropping the more serious charges against you.

Guilty or Not Guilty - Accepting Your Criminal Mistakes

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Upon further searching I have found we have gone down the plea bargain route in Australia.

I usally look at Findlaw and they say we don't have plea bargains, we have charge bargains, plus there are other differences s well.

I've always thought the plea bargain system isn't a very good system and I still don't.

The weird thing is Prime, that the last article I read was the one you just posted, Accepting your criminal mistakes.

Guilty or Not Guilty - Accepting Your Criminal Mistakes

 

[W4ts0n]

DM late to the party again! Maybe we should stop inviting them if they can't be punctual!
<modsnip> 'could have been a living doll in the hands of Bratz collector Terry Kelly' | Daily Mail Online

 

[styzrz]

DM late to the party again! Maybe we should stop inviting them if they can't be punctual!
<modsnip> 'could have been a living doll in the hands of Bratz collector Terry Kelly' | Daily Mail Online

They sure use a lot of words to say very little.

 

[styzrz]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>

I’ve been thinking the same. I don’t think I’d be comfortable knowing he’s back out, even in 10 years time.

Now that the mystery has been solved and CS is safe I’ve been pondering what type of person could actually commit the alleged offence.
To creep into someone’s tent and pick up a member of their family to take home is downright disgusting in itself.

I can’t help but think those two parents have pretty much grieved the loss of their child for 18 days, so they know how that feels. I think they are going to struggle with ever getting back to “normal”.

It really is one of the most horrendous (possibly) non-violent crimes.

Society is no place for people like that.

 

[Mom24]

It is not unusual to deny bail. it really depends on the fiscal comfort of the defendant. Women, in general , get bail,. For Murder, one rarely rarely gets bail. For Kelly's crime, . bail would be refused, on the grounds that the defendant would be safer in prison than out in the community. The community must not be unreasonably provoked.

Kelly will be assigned a highflying solicitor, who instructs an equally high flying barrister, because huge trials go smoothly with clever legal jimmy's on either side of the bar.,

He appears to be unemployed, even though he claimed to be working
'12 hour shifts'.. 12 hour shifts in fantasy land, really. but he is entitled to legal representation.

A word on this . He , well . everyone instructs their lawyer. Except when you are on Legal Aid, a taxpayer funded arrangement. Then, you have to follow the advice given. You are not in the position to instruct your solicitor, in the matter of tactics, plea choice, and presentation. That is done by a panel of lawyers.

To get around this , narcissists will , in the middle of a trial fire the lawyer, and the whole panoply begins over again. I fully expect Kelly to try this on, considering his total refusal to adapt to ordinary rules of behaviour. It seems he is unable to comply to rational laws, rules, expectations, so it won't surprise me if his trial has a lot of rumbling disfunction from his corner and a lot of rulings from the bench.

Re the S'... I am not sure that they will be involved in the trial. They had no interaction with him, they didn't see him, or speak with him, he sent them no note,.. their removal from his circle of influence is unbroken.. They will probably only speak on their set up of the camp, and that will be that. I a almost positive that the little girl will be a part of the trial, in the sense of appearing in court. Video perhaps, .. . not appearing in person, no judge would allow that to happen.

Wow, sounds incredibly like the legal system in the UK.

 

[W4ts0n]

They sure use a lot of words to say very little.

That's the DM way.

Long articles, at least half, mostly more, has already been reported.

 

[AussieEm1984]

Hi all, first time poster here and relatively new follower (discovered WS while looking for information on this case). Love your criminal and psychological insights .

I just wanted to clarify some legal points that have been discussed here. I am a practising Australian solicitor. Although I do not practise criminal law, I was involved in criminal defence work as an undergraduate (worked for a criminal defence firm and volunteered for the Innocence Project) so have some knowledge of the topic.

RE those who receive legal aid and their ability to determine how they plead: it is the accused that instructs their lawyers, not the other way around. Therefore, how they plead will always be their choice and their choice alone. Their legal representatives may make recommendations on how they plead (this is part of giving advice) but they do not ‘make’ them plead a certain way simply because it the government (legal aid) that pays their legal fees as opposed to a private entity.

‘Panels of lawyers’ do not tell the accused how to plead or otherwise weigh in on their case. All the panel of lawyers does is compete for legal aid work (of which there is never really short supply). This is how the ‘panel’ system works: law firms and legal practitioners who are willing to do legal aid work (ie have their fees capped in return for having a decent supply of work) sign up to/register to be on ‘the panel’. When someone is charged with an offence and qualifies for legal aid, they choose who among the registered ‘panel lawyers’ they want to represent them, and the government then pays their legal fees. The amount the government pays for various things for example, appearances at the the first mention in a matter, have a predetermined set fee. The law firm the accused has engaged charges that pre determined set fee to the government and the government pays the law firm.

RE televised trials, as some posters have already stated, that doesn’t happen in Australia. Media may be present and report on proceedings (depending on the matter and any orders the court may have made) but they certainly do not televise anything or at least, I do not recall ever seeing that. Some tribunal hearings are televised (like NSW ICAC recently) but tribunals are not the same as court (can list the differences but probably not relevant here). Generally, any proceedings that identify a minor or require evidence from a minor will be closed. That’s the bulk of family law matters and a chunk of criminal matters. Sometimes only the hearing of a minors evidence will be closed but the remainder of the matter may be open. It does vary depending on the jurisdiction and court rules but the basic premise of shielding minors from scrutiny remains.

RE plea bargains, as I think it may have already been determined above, we engage in that practice in Australia. They are an option that is not always open to an accused but the practise certainly exists. Among the factors that will determine whether it’s available, will be the severity of the offence, the criminal history of the accused, the attitude of the accused etc.

 

[Paul B.]

Where could her parents take CS to live away from the stares, whispers, and innuendo?

<modsnip>

 

[Aycheff]

Well said.

<modsnip - quoted post removed>

I’ve been thinking the same. I don’t think I’d be comfortable knowing he’s back out, even in 10 years time.

Now that the mystery has been solved and CS is safe I’ve been pondering what type of person could actually commit the alleged offence.
To creep into someone’s tent and pick up a member of their family to take home is downright disgusting in itself.

I can’t help but think those two parents have pretty much grieved the loss of their child for 18 days, so they know how that feels. I think they are going to struggle with ever getting back to “normal”.

It really is one of the most horrendous (possibly) non-violent crimes.

Society is no place for people like that.

 

[BGirl88]

That's the best coverage I've seen so far of his arrest, the taxi footage and times.

TK has no driver license so no address details on him, they had to question him back at the station. His relatives may have given the address if TK refused to answer questions. The police would have to get a warrant to search his property, takes time, they probably scoped out the house before they pounced in case there was an accomplice inside. jmo

If he had also been in jail before and was known to police, wouldn’t his address already be on file?

 

[Cymro2]

Hi all, first time poster here and relatively new follower (discovered WS while looking for information on this case). Love your criminal and psychological insights .

I just wanted to clarify some legal points that have been discussed here. I am a practising Australian solicitor. Although I do not practise criminal law, I was involved in criminal defence work as an undergraduate (worked for a criminal defence firm and volunteered for the Innocence Project) so have some knowledge of the topic.

RE those who receive legal aid and their ability to determine how they plead: it is the accused that instructs their lawyers, not the other way around. Therefore, how they plead will always be their choice and their choice alone. Their legal representatives may make recommendations on how they plead (this is part of giving advice) but they do not ‘make’ them plead a certain way simply because it the government (legal aid) that pays their legal fees as opposed to a private entity.

‘Panels of lawyers’ do not tell the accused how to plead or otherwise weigh in on their case. All the panel of lawyers does is compete for legal aid work (of which there is never really short supply). This is how the ‘panel’ system works: law firms and legal practitioners who are willing to do legal aid work (ie have their fees capped in return for having a decent supply of work) sign up to/register to be on ‘the panel’. When someone is charged with an offence and qualifies for legal aid, they choose who among the registered ‘panel lawyers’ they want to represent them, and the government then pays their legal fees. The amount the government pays for various things for example, appearances at the the first mention in a matter, have a predetermined set fee. The law firm the accused has engaged charges that pre determined set fee to the government and the government pays the law firm.

RE televised trials, as some posters have already stated, that doesn’t happen in Australia. Media may be present and report on proceedings (depending on the matter and any orders the court may have made) but they certainly do not televise anything or at least, I do not recall ever seeing that. Some tribunal hearings are televised (like NSW ICAC recently) but tribunals are not the same as court (can list the differences but probably not relevant here). Generally, any proceedings that identify a minor or require evidence from a minor will be closed. That’s the bulk of family law matters and a chunk of criminal matters. Sometimes only the hearing of a minors evidence will be closed but the remainder of the matter may be open. It does vary depending on the jurisdiction and court rules but the basic premise of shielding minors from scrutiny remains.

RE plea bargains, as I think it may have already been determined above, we engage in that practice in Australia. They are an option that is not always open to an accused but the practise certainly exists. Among the factors that will determine whether it’s available, will be the severity of the offence, the criminal history of the accused, the attitude of the accused etc.

Do you think that we'll ever find out whether or not he harmed CS while he kept her hostage? I'm guessing it might never be disclosed (not that we have a right to know anyway).

 

[Rumination1]

@Angeline......Yeah because It was close to midnight, and something evil was lurking in the dark under the moonlight.

Anyway if this crime wasn't abhorrent enough. He spent at least 11 years making 30 profiles with stolen images of other peoples children . Let that sink in!.... This would send a a tingle up any parents spine in regards to how careful you have to be in protecting your children on socials. The children's images he stole wouldn't be children anymore, young adults and they have to deal with this also . I've seen posts from family members of the images he stole who are so upset about this.

The 11 years thing is what freaks me the most.
Or the sheer amount of kid groups like fans of frozen/bratz/princesses which contain fake profiles

 

[Okapi]

They actually have a group of men online who collect "My Pretty Pony"

Five generation of doll collector's We have dolls from Germany from after the war. Also Madame Alexander made money on us.

That said we don't collect baby dolls. Only my grandmom did. She had a doll room. Prams, high chairs the works. IMO that's weird. Like my mom said it's easier than babysitting and Grandmom mom don't have to get up at night.

That's true. It makes me wonder how fast TDK would have tired of Cleo. Dolls can't ask for things. They don't get hungry, they don't answer ya back.

JMO them Bratz dolls creep me out with them big alien eyes. Now all the dolls have them eyes.

My husband worked with a man years ago whose wife collected baby dolls, she had a room like your grandmother did, full of life-like infant dolls in cots and prams. The first time I visited, I remarked afterwards to my husband how bizarre and unsettling it was. He pointed out that this lady had endured multiple miscarriages and was unable to bear children. So that did utterly change my understanding of why some people collect dolls. There’s an element of loss.

 

[peanutJelly]

That sounds incredibly time consuming.
Deep fantasy life.
How was he supporting himself and able to buy all those dolls?

I’m feeling like that about following this thread, work just gets in the way!!

 

[Okapi]

My husband worked with a man years ago whose wife collected baby dolls, she had a room like your grandmother did, full of life-like infant dolls in cots and prams. The first time I visited, I remarked afterwards to my husband how bizarre and unsettling it was. He pointed out that this lady had endured multiple miscarriages and was unable to bear children. So that did utterly change my understanding of why some people collect dolls. There’s an element of loss.

Sorry, just edited to remove ghost replies and references from yesterday.

Does anyone know how to activate the clear text editor, as this is an ongoing problem for me? I delete or don’t post, but the next time I attempt to reply, the rogue text has reloaded automatically. Apologies for derailing

 

[Commoner]

Do you think that we'll ever find out whether or not he harmed CS while he kept her hostage? I'm guessing it might never be disclosed (not that we have a right to know anyway).

I expect that parts of the trial willl be in camera, or subject to very heavy reporting restrictions, because of lifelong privacy for the child victim. JMO

 

[peanutJelly]

That’s interesting to know, we call it Council Housing here in Scotland and I believe the Right to Buy was scrapped around 2016 to protect housing stock.

Only scrapped for new tenants, existing have preserved rights

 

[Gardenista]

Sorry, just edited to remove ghost replies and references from yesterday.

Does anyone know how to activate the clear text editor, as this is an ongoing problem for me? I delete or don’t post, but the next time I attempt to reply, the rogue text has reloaded automatically. Apologies for derailing

This is how I do it. First, delete all of the text inside the comment box, Then hit the little icon that looks like a floppy disk and click delete draft.

 

[Trooper]

I expect that parts of the trial willl be in camera, or subject to very heavy reporting restrictions, because of lifelong privacy for the child victim. JMO

The judge, don't know who, who ever comes up on the roster, is the person who decides if the little girl testifies. He will speak with her privately, without mum or dad, and make the decision as to whether she is capable, and discerning enough to be questioned. The defendants barrister also will be under tremendous constraints if she is in the witness box, nothing more alienating to his client than him scaring the kid all over again.

To my knowledge, it isn't a matter of the parents not allowing the child to appear. If she is issued a subpoena ( a writ ordering one to court ) that's how it plays. It comes down to the judge, when all is thrashed out.

If she is to appear , it is taken into consideration that the Defendants Barrister is also allowed to question .. and this is where the sticking point may arise, or.. as I suspect in this case, no sticking point at all.

Children as young as 3 or 4 have appeared in court, .. it is a part of the Family Court proceedings, for example, and has happened in criminal trials in AU.. not that it happens every day, but it does happen. Happens all around the world, in one form or the other.. There is provision for it. There is protocol for it, and procedures that oversee the child's welfare at every stage of the matter.

That part will most likely be held in camera..

This bloke is already shouting at people, so it's possible he might be put behind the glass window throughout his trial. Always a possibility.

 

[Commoner]

Whether or not CS gives evidence in person, there may be restrictions on what can be reported for any/all of anyone's testimony concerning her over the whole period from exit from tent to rescue by police.

The judge will be the one who balances CS's right to privacy against the public good of open justice