here is the decision of the supreme court regarding my appeal for bail:
to explain the quite confusing circumstances surrounding this: when i was being a brat, refusing to promise to magistrates that i wouldn’t ‘reoffend’ and breaking any bail conditions that i was given when i was bailed from a police station, i unsurprisingly found it hard to get bail from a magistrate.
i was refused bail in the magistrates’ court and kept for 72 days at the melbourne remand center before appealing for bail to the supreme court and basically arguing that i’d been kept on remand for longer than i would be sentenced for even if found guilty, so even if i refuse to sign on to bail with conditions that i not reoffend, i should be bailed anyway.
it was kind of silly of me to not want to lie to magistrates about my intention to ‘re-offend’ but then sign bail agreements at the police station which i would then break.
signing for bail at the police station, it was explained to me, is like a promise to the courts not to ‘re-offend’ or break any conditions, so i was trying to not lie or break promises in one circumstance (when speaking to magistrates) at the same time that i was lying and breaking promises in another circumstance (by signing bail at the police station) because i wasn’t thinking straight and probably just wanted to sign bail to avoid jail for another couple of days.
the supreme court judge still imposed conditions on the bail that he granted me, despite my intention at the beginning of the day to only accept unconditional bail, but during the day of the hearing it was explained to me by my lawyer that i was still bound by another bail agreement for other charges to not reoffend until the date that all charges went to sentencing.
that other bail agreement meant it didn’t matter whether the i had conditions for the supreme court bail or not, i was bound similarly by existing bail agreements, so it made no sense to refuse this bail or to push for unconditional bail.
i decided to just sign the thing and once all charges were finalised i would just never sign a bail agreement with any conditions i planned to break.
i don’t know if what i wanted, and will want in the future, is even possible, to be granted bail that you could sign for with the expressed intention of ‘re-offending’ and not be breaking a promise when you did ‘re-offend’ – to be bailed is ‘on your own undertaking’ which i think implies you won’t break the law for the period of bail.
the charges all finalised just before christmas, i was planning on painting again after spending christmas and new years with family and friends, waiting as long as i would have to to get bail without declaring that i wouldn’t do it again, then appeal for bail and paint again, and wait again etc.
i then re-thought this as if i was planning on taking a human rights argument to the highest courts, it might help to show respect to the courts by ceasing to ‘re-offend’, giving the courts a chance to make a decision before dismissing them as business-class enforcers, and at least entertaining the possibility that the court could do something great and rule in my favour (if that was going to happen it wouldn’t make much sense to sit in jail up until that point).
this is a link to an article the herald sun wrote on the case:
the herald sun reporter tried to talk to me but i refused because i don’t want to communicate through any capitalist media, only through what i consider to be truly liberal.
the reporter said to my housemate that i’d made a mistake because i was just going to sound stupid, to which he replied ‘well, i’m sure you can guess what he’s on about’, to which she replied ‘oh we can’t spin it!’.
she ended up saying it was a protest against commerce – yes, money should not exist, no one should be able to exchange goods and everyone should only consume things they didn’t create entirely by themselves if it is a gift they have absolutely no obligation to repay, that’s exactly what i meant.