During an intense emotional breakdown in court today, I had to put my arm out to console a Somali-born refugee to Australia weeping half-a-metre away, while protesting her DVO.
It was inevitable that someone would breakthrough Mango's stone-cold exterior to share a moment of vulnerability and helplessness, in open court.
Next time, I'll pull a jar from my bag of tricks to capture the world's sweetness nectar flow: Mango Tears. I still have the snot-encrusted courthouse toilet paper; be there anyone interested.
The mother-of-11 faced Darwin local court for two breaches of a domestic violence and non-contact when intoxicated order.
During the start of proceedings, her defence barrister told the court she was a 46-year-old Somali-born woman who came to Australia as a refugee.
"This is a plea at the earliest opportunity. She has 11 children. She is a loving mother, and a caring mother.
"She had been drinking that day. I am instructed she signed the bail, but she is illiterate in relation to English. She cannot read or write English.
"We accept the technicality of the breach. She accepts she signed the bail your honour. She does instruct that she was unaware of the bail conditions even though she signed them your honour.
"They're both intoxication breaches your honour."
Her defence barrister said there were mostly driving matters in her court history, with one substantial matter, but no convictions since 2017.
"It is open to the court to convict her and take no further action your honour."
The defendant stood as she was given her sentence by the judge: "You plead guilty today for breach DVO and breach bail.
"You don't have any priors for breach DVO but you certainly have a little bit of a record there.
"Make sure you comply with any court orders, ok? It goes to about the 12th May next year. It's in regard to [name]."
Defendant: "That's my husband."
Judge: "Yes I know, but there's a DVO.."
Defendant: "We don't want DVO."
Judge: "There is a DVO. So whether you want one, or he doesn't want one.."
Defendent: "For me, I don't want."
As the defendant broke down her barrister tried to console her, before she asserts loudly: "I don't want to come back into court!"
Judge: "If you comply with the court order you don't have to come back.
Defendant: "I don't want DVO with my husband. No."
Defence Barrister: "Just listen to his honour, please [name]."
Judge: "Well, it's already been made."
Defendant: "How?"
Judge: "You were served on the 13th May. Please comply with it. It doesn't mean you can't be with him."
Defendant: "You give me paper. I want to be free. Where is free for my husband?"
Judge: "If he wants to be with you, you can be with him. But you've got to comply with the order, in particular not being intoxicated around him. Ok?"
Defendant: "And him too."
The judge didn't have DVO paperwork in front of him relating to her husband for the court matter, but re-affirmed the defendant couldn't be intoxicated.
The defendant apologised.
Judge: "It's important to remember that, so you don't have to come back here."
The defendant started to talk in-language very emotionally, in-between sentencing remarks.
Judge: "With regards to breach of bail, you're convicted and fined $200, with a levy of $150."
Defence barrister: "I'll explain all this comprehensively, your honour."
After it was over, I started to get a little upset.
It was difficult sitting in the very front row, but I don't think anyone noticed.
We are The Mango Inquirer.
