LeRoux shows her remorse by breaching home detention

Rouxle Le Roux is the young lady who killed 15 year old Nathan
Kraatskow  as he was cycling home through Albany.

In December Le Roux appeared in Court and was sentenced to 11 months’ home detention. There was also an order to complete 250 hours of community work and she was disqualified from driving for two-and-a-half years. Shortly thereafter we had this heartfelt video interview of her apologising and explaining herself.

One of the conditions of her home detention order was that Le Roux must answer the door and present herself to authorities at any given time. On February 20 she allegedly failed to respond to two visits where probation officers knocked repeatedly on the door of her home.

She has been charged with failing to comply with the conditions of her sentence and will appear in the North Shore District Court next month.

So what will happen now? Well I can pretty much guarantee the answer is ‘nothing’. These sorts of breaches, in my experience, only ever result in a telling off from the Judge. There is always a lawyer with the excuse that they really were at home.

And sure enough, the story this time is that not only was Le Roux at home but her Mum was too, and somehow neither of them heard the probation officer pounding on the door on either of the two occasions they visited that day because of, wait for it… Construction noise next door.

I imagine a few of us have lived next to a construction site, but I’m afraid I can’t imagine there would be so much prolonged noise that I couldn’t hear someone banging loudly on my front door. Maybe if that’s the case, she could supply her cellphone number so the probation officer could just give her a call and ask her to come to the door? Or perhaps get a really good doorbell?

Of course we will see if Le Roux turns up to court with some sort of proof from her cellphone company showing that they weren’t down at the Mall. I don’t know of course but I would presume that if she is on Home D, she would be wearing a bracelet which of course can prove where she was at the time.

Although if she was home, perhaps there is another reason why she didn’t come to the door. I don’t know if she is subject to non-consumption of alcohol or drugs while on Home D but maybe the probation dept were there to ask for a test? If that was the case then not answering the door is by far the lesser of the two evils.

At least she should still have the QC appearing for her to convince the Judge to get his damp bus ticket out.