THE BATTLE CONTINUES
 
I was in court today but at times I was almost preoccupied with events in another venue 24 hours earlier.  I’ll get to my Magistrate’s  Court versus High Court jurisdiction battle in a minute but first the other case which – in so many ways –  again proves the point  over what I’m fighting for.
 
I have described Melbourne as Suppression City. I believe more names and court proceedings are suppressed in Melbourne than in any other major city in Australia. And it’s getting worse.
 
(It’s even reached the stage where a Melbourne Magistrate suppressed all legal argument in a road rage case against Sam Newman yesterday because of the possibility of prejudicing proceedings. So much for the open court policy that the High Court cherishes.)
 
But it was in VCAT yesterday that we saw Suppression City at its worst.
 
It concerned a psychologist who sexually assaulted a brain-damaged 17-year-old rape victim.
 
The 33-year-old psychologist assaulted his young patient twice after she revealed major psychological traumas including rape, sex abuse and injuries from an accident.
 
On one occasion he put his hand inside her underpants and close to her vagina. It was bad enough that The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal only banned him for 12 months from seeking registration to work again and  found the assaults on the traumatised and vulnerable teenager were ‘ not of the most serious kind’.
 
VCAT members then granted his application to have his name suppressed so potential patients will be unaware of his criminal conviction.
 
(The man was convicted of assault and indecent assault in October 2008, was fined $1000 and sentenced to six months jail, suspended for two years).
 
I would have though potential patients would want to be aware of this man’s past. Especially if you have a teenage daughter with psychological problems.
 
But then VCAT did say that he was ‘an honest witness and genuinely remorseful’. Makes all the difference.
 
In my own case today, Magistrate Charlie Rozencwaig was asked to adjourn five charges against me while we made an application to the High Court. The Crown Prosecutor admitted we had a prima facie case and consented to a 14-day adjournment so all State Attorneys-General could consider the issue. The magistrate demurred.
 
He said the case against me – for allegedly naming two sex offenders protected by suppression orders – was listed to go ahead for three days and he’d make up his mind tomorrow.
 
The High Court challenge includes such issues as freedom of speech, open courts and civil rights under the Constitution.
 
Outside the court I said:
‘It's a matter of law and constitutional law. What we are talking about here is a bad law. I just hope the Attorney-General Mr Hulls is watching and listening and knowing this is an election year and law and order is a massive issue in this state and it makes the public angry that the courts are paying more attention and giving more leeway to criminals.

‘Melbourne is becoming the suppression city of Australia. It's like confetti with all the suppression orders.

‘Criminals are given more protection that the people of Victoria and it's just plain bloody wrong.

‘It’s a bad law. This is not about Hinch… it’s about victims.’

Thursday, February 18, 2010

See Name Them and Shame Them

© Copyright Derryn Hinch 2010