Are our Laws from Hitler’s Germany?
This I would believe would have happened in Germany in the 30′s as Adolph Hitler wound back democracy. These bleeding heart judges (who have been elevated from defence barristers) have decided, in their own little cartels, to tell us that the philosophy of “Justice must not only be seen to be done but must be done” is now dead and buried.
Over the ten years of Attorney General Rob Hulls’ term of office I have witnessed our legal system slowly taking away victims rights in favor of the criminal’s.
One that really got to me is the leanency shown to ex Hells Angel Terry Tognolini. Now as I did my rounds over the past year this scumbags kept appearing in different County Courts with different judges on different charges. One thing that stood out like a dogs tail was that jurys were not allowed to know about his Hells Angels past, yet if the victims had a past it was made loud and clear to the jury!
Tognolini was convicted and sentenced recently for standover crimes. In addition to sexual offences for which he was already serving time, he got another lousy 18 months!
Bring on the elections, the sooner the better.
Secret justice offends us all
Justin Quill
From: Herald Sun
January 16, 2010 12:00AM
THE Victorian Government should be congratulated for making serious sex offender laws tougher on paedophiles. But it should be damned for passing new laws suppressing information about their court hearings.
From January 1, court proceedings that determine the future of paedophiles once their sentence nears completion became virtually secret, unless a judge decides otherwise.
This undermines our system of open justice – indeed our entire democratic system.
Australia’s already pathetic standing in the world press freedom ranking is set to plummet.
The public should be outraged. The Government should explain.
Does it have anything to do with ensuring less scrutiny or criticism of the Department of Justice, or of the Government?
Secret justice is suspicious – especially if it means the public can’t be told important information about serious sex offenders that could help them protect themselves.
No one could argue with that. Or could they? It seems the Victorian Government thinks it’s a great idea.
These laws – passed without proper public consultation – mean that the public will now be told virtually nothing about our worst paedophiles going out into the community.
THE public will be left in the dark – left to trust the authorities that they will protect us.
These laws apply to paedophiles due for release but found to pose an unacceptable risk of reoffending. Many of them are groomers.
They move in next door, gain your confidence, and then when you ask them to take your young son or daughter to school or to mind them while you pop down to the shops, the offending starts. This is why the public must have the full facts. How else can the public properly protect themselves against this sort of vile behaviour?
IN 2005 the Victorian Government passed laws to allow courts to impose continuing restrictions on paedophiles who had served their sentences but whom the courts consider are likely to reoffend. A big tick for the Government.
Then last year it increased those restrictions to keep these paedophiles in prison after they’ve served their time. Another big tick in my book – but not when it’s done in secret. It’s an enormous power to give a court and it therefore should be exercised with the utmost transparency.
The adage “justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done” is applicable here.
Do we want to live in a society where people can be locked up but the public can’t be told why?
You might think I’m being too hard on these paedophiles and that they deserve their privacy after they’ve served their time.
If so, you might be more persuaded by this argument: that you shouldn’t lock someone up in secret. It’s hard to imagine a more draconian law. It sounds like the Cold War USSR.
Media organisations, often led by the Herald Sun, regularly fought for the public’s right to know the full story about these paedophiles. The law was always that the media could report the cases, unless a judge was satisfied it should be kept secret.
Effectively, the law was on the media’s side. And the sex offenders or the Department of Justice had to come up with some good arguments why the public should not be informed about a particular case.
But Mr Brumby’s new laws mean that all the evidence in these cases will be kept secret unless a judge can be convinced there are exceptional circumstances. Suddenly, the law is against the media. And that means the law is against the public.
So why pass these laws?
Last October the Herald Sun won a landmark ruling in the Supreme Court allowing it to publish important details about the case involving sex witch Robin Fletcher.
Justice Philip Cummins refused to suppress Fletcher’s case, despite being told that his therapy could be affected by publicity.
“In my view the public interest clearly is in favour of open process in a case such as this or other like cases where the community is entitled to know what the courts are doing in relation to offenders,” his Honour said.
In the days after, the Herald Sun followed up by winning the right to publish important details about the extended supervision order case involving notorious paedophile Mr Baldy.
BUT only weeks after those court wins, the Government introduced proposed new laws into Parliament suppressing the very material that a very experienced and well respected Supreme Court judge considered to be in the public interest. The media was never consulted. Sneaky? Devious?
The Government says it’s for the benefit of victims. But victims’ rights groups don’t want it.
Victims’ champion Noel McNamara said this week: “The public is entitled to know who lives next door to them. It’s outrageous and disgusting that they should put these paedophiles and sex offenders before the courts and the whole thing will be a secret.”
In 2005 the Herald Sun exposed the fact that Mr Baldy was placed by the Department of Justice near schools. The Government was red-faced and he was promptly moved.
With this new legislation in force there’s likely to be far less media scrutiny of these serious sex offender cases. And that will mean the public won’t be told about offenders living next door to them or to the schools of their children.
So the Mr Baldy-type revelations probably wouldn’t come to light. That means less criticism of the Department of Justice and the Government.
Could that be the real reason this legislation has been passed?
Justin Quill is a Melbourne media lawyer with boutique law firm Kelly Hazell Quill. He acts for the Herald Sun.
on this subject maybe you should go and redo your maths he has 8 yrs from date of sentence or are you just believing all the hype from the papers and the police it is sad that the education system let you down with your counting
Who got the eight months Hitler, Baldy, the ex hells angel or you?
You idiot was their a full moon when you put that rubbish in drop kick
I think the offender as to many rights while in jail and after they’re realeased.
I have three children who are a survivors of child sex offences, and another three younger children who are biological children of the offender. He thinks he has rights to be a part of his childrens lives!!
He has the audacity to gain free legal representation while in jail to remind me to send him copies of kids school reports..
I gained full custody after long battles in courts and he still continues to gain more!!
I will not adhere to any of the conditions of the order which state that he is entitled to copies of reports, allowed to write letters/cards on their birthdays (which they never receive as they go straight in the bin) and after being released can apply for supervised visitation!! The kids will be 15, 13, and 11 so hopefully a judge will listen to them when they say they don’t want to see him!!!
I guess I’ll just have to cop the consequences be it a fine or ehatever for NOT adhering to court order!!
I’ll become the criminal and he the victim!!
Absolutely no justice there!!!!!