Derryn, you are one of the most honest blokes in Australia and I applaude you for taking this stand against that pedophile. You can access Derryns website at:
www.humanheadline.com.au/
If the website falls over. I have copy and pasted the story into an internal file on my computer for keepsake. Email me if you want a copy.
What was District Court Judge Ken Taylor thinking when he granted a suppression order? What a load of bollocks, and it truly goes to show how our legal system and judges are out of touch with reality and the expectations of society. They live in a fairy world and apparently don't care much for the victims rights.
Who gives a fuck that the accused will have a reduced ''earning capacity'' when he gets out of jail ? Did anybody ask the victim if she's had a reduced earning capacity after being molested ? NO. District Court Judge Ken Taylor, I think you really should look hard at yourself after granting that supression order. Get your priorities and the rights of the victim in line first, before the pedophile in question. You are supposed to be upholding law and order and be on the victims side.
As for the victim, you have to be strong, as you are indeed a role model for other people in your position. If you continue to cower and hide from this pedophile, even from jail, he has you frightened and in his grasp.
Anthony Bellanto, QC, what can we say... you were under instruction from your client. I'm sure you felt disgusted having to apply for a supression order, but given you were being paid and under instruction, you have no choice in the matter.
As a post script, I love the way that electronic media is changing the unfair ways of the legal system. We had the case in South Australia of Jason Downie who has pleaded guilty to murdering 3 members of the Rowe family at Kapunda. His name was suppressed, but due to the diligence of Facebook and other social networking site members, the unfairness of the supression order was bypassed. I understand that some supression orders are granted so as to not create situations whereby an accused is believed guilty by the public even before it gets to court. The double standard with this is that it tends to be widely reported that ''an offender was arrested with the help of DNA evidence'', and so, given the general public have been brainwashed into thinking that DNA evidence is totally infallible, it's fair to say the general public will automatically assume the accused is guilty. Some of these people in the general public may then end up being on a jury for the accused. Surely this is another way a case can be tainted (in the favour of the prosecution).
I believe there are times when supression orders are allowable but certainly not to protect a pedophile found guilty by a court of law.
Good on you Derryn, keep up the good work. And to the Judges that hear these cases, get real. I would have named the pedophile on this blog myself, and even though I'm not in NSW, I don't want to tempt fate just in case I'm wrong.
www.humanheadline.com.au/
If the website falls over. I have copy and pasted the story into an internal file on my computer for keepsake. Email me if you want a copy.
What was District Court Judge Ken Taylor thinking when he granted a suppression order? What a load of bollocks, and it truly goes to show how our legal system and judges are out of touch with reality and the expectations of society. They live in a fairy world and apparently don't care much for the victims rights.
Who gives a fuck that the accused will have a reduced ''earning capacity'' when he gets out of jail ? Did anybody ask the victim if she's had a reduced earning capacity after being molested ? NO. District Court Judge Ken Taylor, I think you really should look hard at yourself after granting that supression order. Get your priorities and the rights of the victim in line first, before the pedophile in question. You are supposed to be upholding law and order and be on the victims side.
As for the victim, you have to be strong, as you are indeed a role model for other people in your position. If you continue to cower and hide from this pedophile, even from jail, he has you frightened and in his grasp.
Anthony Bellanto, QC, what can we say... you were under instruction from your client. I'm sure you felt disgusted having to apply for a supression order, but given you were being paid and under instruction, you have no choice in the matter.
As a post script, I love the way that electronic media is changing the unfair ways of the legal system. We had the case in South Australia of Jason Downie who has pleaded guilty to murdering 3 members of the Rowe family at Kapunda. His name was suppressed, but due to the diligence of Facebook and other social networking site members, the unfairness of the supression order was bypassed. I understand that some supression orders are granted so as to not create situations whereby an accused is believed guilty by the public even before it gets to court. The double standard with this is that it tends to be widely reported that ''an offender was arrested with the help of DNA evidence'', and so, given the general public have been brainwashed into thinking that DNA evidence is totally infallible, it's fair to say the general public will automatically assume the accused is guilty. Some of these people in the general public may then end up being on a jury for the accused. Surely this is another way a case can be tainted (in the favour of the prosecution).
I believe there are times when supression orders are allowable but certainly not to protect a pedophile found guilty by a court of law.
Good on you Derryn, keep up the good work. And to the Judges that hear these cases, get real. I would have named the pedophile on this blog myself, and even though I'm not in NSW, I don't want to tempt fate just in case I'm wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment