A Rallying Cry
1st April 2011

It started within minutes of the High Court decision being announced that I had lost in my fight to end the court-ordered suppression of the names of some of Australian worst serial sex offenders.

The emails and phone messages of support started to come in. The overwhelming message: You have to have another public rally? Back to the steps of Parliament House.

It wasn’t my original plan. And, to be honest, some family and friends cautioned against it. Don’t antagonise the court. Don’t do anything that might upset the magistrate.

[The magistrate being the one I face when I go back for sentencing on May 20 over five charges of breaching suppression orders with maximum penalties of five years jail and/or $60,000 in fines.]

Somebody even suggested holding a rally AFTER the court appearance which I gently pointed out could be a tad late and pointless.

But what flicked the switch, as if I needed much persuasion, was a report that came out last week from the Sentencing Advisory Board virtually claiming that community belief in tougher sentences was a myth.

The media release from the board actually used the word ‘myth’.

That triggered the following editorial on 3AW and on www.hinch.net leading to the announcement that, yes, we are going to do it again.

I hope we can emulate an earlier Name Them and Shame Them rally on the steps of Parliament House when 10,000 turned up. So it is on:

Sunday, May 15th, 2011
Steps of Parliament House
NOON

I hope to get the support of various victims of crime groups and already have the backing of Bravehearts –the national child protection group founded by Hetty Johnston. Hope to see you there.

As I said in the editorial on Friday, April 1:

‘Let’s show the august Sentencing Advisory Council in its ivory tower and the new Baillieu Government that you haven’t lost your anger. Haven’t lost your passion. And, you might not realise it, have not lost your power.’

The Real April Fools
1st April 2011

They have got to be joking. I know it’s April Fool’s Day and for a second I thought I was being had when I read a prominent story in the Herald Sun today about your attitude towards jail sentences for criminals.

They headline was clever, if misleading, for starters. It said: ‘We’re Soft on Sentencing’. Damn right. I thought they were referring to our judges with their abysmal record for suspended sentences and light sentences –especially for rapists, paedophiles and child porn traffickers.

But, no. The story says that a survey by the Sentencing Advisory Council shows that you want softer sentences for criminals. I kid you not. By an overwhelming margin of 74%.

Who the hell did they talk to? The Fitzroy Legal Service? The welter of do-gooder judges and magistrates that Rob Hulls stacked our courts with over the past decade as bleeding heart Attorney-General? A court stacking which you, the community, will still be feeling the effects of 15 years from now.

The report by Dr. Karen Gelb claims you strongly support the increasing use of alternatives to jail for criminals.

She says the Victorian public ‘clearly favours the use of alternatives to prison such as supervision, treatment and community work’.

Well, I don’t know who you’ve been talking to sunshine but certainly not to victims of crime. Not to the increasing number of victims whose heart-breaking emails and pleas for a little justice and respect and compassion fill my Inbox almost daily.

Forget your survey. I could give you container loads of graphic and gruesome stories about rape victims and little kids who have been sexually abused. And the way they, and their parents, have had to fight and struggle to even get their day in court.

Only to be let down by plea-bargaining, and watered down charges and suspended sentences.

At least, the new Attorney-General Robert Clark says the report reminds him of a scene from Yes, Minister.

I am so angry about this that I am going to hold another public rally.Some years ago, at very short notice, 10,000 of you turned up on the steps of Parliament House in support of my Name Them, and Shame Them, campaign.

Let’s do it again. Let’s show the august Sentencing Advisory Council in its ivory tower and the new Baillieu Government that you haven’t lost your anger. Haven’t lost your passion. And, you might not realise it, have not lost your power.

The rally will be at noon on Sunday May 15. Steps of Parliament House. I have been advised by some people close to me not to do it. It will be only a few days before I face sentencing over my campaign to end the suppression of serious sex offenders’ names under a system that has turned Melbourne in to Suppression City.

I face the possibility of $60,000 in fines and up to five years in jail for shouting the names of two of the worst sex offenders in this country on those same parliamentary steps.

The advice is that the rally may hurt my prospects in court. And may not be good for my health.

Well, as somebody said: That’s life. You have to get your priorities right.
I want 10,000 people there at noon on Sunday May 15 on the steps of your Parliament.

So when I ask the question: ‘Who’s looking after the children?’ you’ll be able to say…’ We’re trying to. We’re trying to’.

And maybe the Sentencing Advisory Council could send along Dr. Gelb with some survey questions. Might get some interesting, maybe unprintable, answers.

High Noon
11th March 2011

It’s wasn’t exactly High Noon. It was just after 2.15p.m. on Thursday, March 10, 2011 when the High Court published its decision in my case over the suppression of names of serial rapists and convicted paedophiles.

A bit anti-climactic after the two-day hearing before the Full Bench in Canberra last November.

I could not be in Canberra for the decision because, for medical reasons, I am grounded in Melbourne – restricted to a perimeter 45 minutes from the Austin Hospital while I wait on the liver transplant list for a donated organ.

We thought there would be a video link from Canberra to the High Court Registrar’s office on the 17th Floor of the court building on the coener of William and LaTrobe streets. Didn’t happen.

So I waited with my wife Chanel, lawyers Nic Pullen and Andrew Thompson and a gaggle of reporters until, around 2.25p.m. a manila envelope was pushed across the counter.

There was no summary attached but as I skimmed it in a corner with my lawyers the message was soon clear.

I turned to the room and said two words: ‘We lost’.

The size of that loss was not apparent until after getting through the judgement of Chief Justice French and seeing how many names were on the backup judgement. All six others.

I had expected to lose but had hoped to persuade maybe one or two and go down with a respectable 6-1 or 5-2 decision. Sussing the judges out in court in November, putting their questions and comments through the assessment grinder, I thought we had achieved that. Not so.

The Chief Justice even criticised the ‘febrile rhetoric’ of some of my passionate editorials presented in court.

Anyway, although it was a huge loss, I believe it has knocked a few bricks out of the legal wall on the practice of rubber-stamped court-ordered Suppression Orders. The law in Victoria is bad law. It will change. Maybe not in my [shortened] lifetime but it will change.

The case has shone a floodlight on this insidious practice and fuelled the debate. Couldn’t really have asked for more.

Now I await the knock on the door to see when I go back to the Magistrate’s Court to face a possible five years in jail and up to $60,000 in fines.

The Fight Continues
11th March 2011

So what happens next? The High Court has totally rejected my arguments about suppressing the names of child rapists and I now await sentencing for breaching Suppression Orders at a public rally on the steps of Parliament House and on my website.
Sometime, in the not too distant future, I will appear in the Magistrate’s Court and faces possible sentences of $60,000 in fines and up to five years in jail.

I don’t know when that will happen. I tried to find out yesterday and was told: ‘We don’t know. We’ve never had a case like this before’.

I even asked yesterday whether or not I should be on bail right now.

Presumably, as has happened before, some police officer will knock on my door, hand me a summons, whisper they are on my side, and the court process will kick in.

Meanwhile I want to remind you about what those two men did. The ones I named – and several thousand of you named -- at Parliament House. The ones the courts are protecting. The ones I now possibly face jail over.

Evil men. Cunning, plotting rapists and paedophiles. One of them even plotted with the notorious Mr. Baldy in prison about how they would run a farm with young boys as sex slaves when they got out.

The other sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl in the presence of an eight-year-old only six months after he got out of jail on parole. That was after terrorising Melbourne women in a series of violent sexual attacks through the 1980s. His victims were as young as nine-years-old.

And yet County Court Judge Margaret Rizkalla deemed that the suppression of his identity would best serve the interest of the community.

These are the sorts of men, and there have been dozens of them released into your communities in recent years, about whom the courts have said: you are not allowed to know who they are or where they live or what they look like.

The judge talked about the ‘emotional and psychological effect on the respondent if material is published’. What about the victims – and future victims? What about the motional and psychological effects on them?

Judge Rizkalla also said it could affect this man’s rehabilitation. And High Court Chief Justice French also harped on that aspect yesterday.

In his column in the Legal Affairs section of The Australian today Michael Pelly says the judges see my stance as ‘slanted towards victims, with little concerns for the rights of the accused or a released prisoner to resume a normal life without fear of harassment’.

Damn right my concerns are ‘slanted towards victims’. These scum are the baddest of the bad. The courts can only impose an Extended Supervision Order on them and monitor them after they are released if they believe they are likely to re-offend.

In the case of one of the men I named Police believe he committed many other sex assaults for which he has never been charged. We know that in jail he refused any counselling to aid his rehabilitation. We know that a judge said he was resistant to reform and a psychiatrist warned that if released he would assault girls and women again.

Personally I don’t care about his rehabilitation. His list of crimes, his serial record, is so bad that a mechanism must be found to keep violent predators like this behind bars. Like they now have in New South Wales and Queensland. And if ever released on parole they must be on such a short leash they have no opportunity to attack again.

The community not only deserves it. We should demand it. This law was meant to protect people not perpetrators. It is tainted. And it is fatally flawed. And it must be repealed or amended.

And look at the history of the other man I named. And whose name a judge suppressed. A judge said about him: ‘In over 30 years involvement in criminal law, this case is the worst of its kind I have encountered’.

He was a member of a calculating paedophile ring involving his own wife and the evil Mr. Baldy. Three of them teamed up while in prison. The judge called them ‘depraved and wicked’.

They fantasized about building a prison farm where they would molest the attractive children and use the others as slaves.

Within weeks of his release from Sale prison in 1989, Mr. Baldy began reoffending with help from his accomplices. The wife of the child molesting group had taken some victims-to-be to visit him in jail in the 1980s.

The despicable human being I named was jailed for 23 years but released in 2003. His wife was jailed for three years for holding down a child while her husband raped him.
And they talk about rehabilitation.

Now that I have lost, again, in the courts, the only thing you can do is write to your politicians. The Premier. The Attorney-General. Tell them a bad law must be changed. And a new Government can do that.

Just ask them: Who’s looking after the children?

Hight Court 7, Hinch Nil
10th March 2011

I lost. The High Court has just handed down its decision over a case that started with my Name Them and Shame Them campaign and the news was as bad as it gets. The Full Bench decided seven-nil that the laws covering suppression orders of serial rapists and paedophiles are valid. Are constitutional.

In layman’s language it is business as usual. So I guess Melbourne remains the suppression capital of Australia.

I now will be sent back to the Magistrate’s Court to be sentenced on five charges which carry a maximum penalty of five years jail and/or $60,000 in fines. More than some real crims get.

This all stems from that day nearly three years ago when we held a rally on the steps of Parliament House as part of that Name Them and Shame Them campaign. I gave the then Premier, John Brumby, and Attorney General Rob Hulls a petition signed by more than 7000 people from around the world.

The petition said: WE, the undersigned, demand the Victorian Parliament change the laws so that a judge or magistrate cannot suppress the identity of a serious sex offender unless such identification will also identify a victim.’

I believe, that demand is even more valid today than it was then. On that day I named two notorious sex offenders who had had their names suppressed. Men who had committed such awful crimes I can hardly describe them. Thousands of you shouted the names out too but the DPP chose to prosecute only one. Me.

I was told they would be Magistrates Court charges because they didn’t want too much fuss. Well, they got it.

We took the issue to the Supreme Court and lost and then were privileged to get to the High Court. I argued that the way some of our laws are being interpreted and enforced by our judges, justice is not being done and not being seen to be done. That through suppression orders, our justice system is not being open and transparent – as justice must be in a democracy like ours. That criminals are getting more protection than victims.
I said back then: You, the community, have a right to know. For your sake and for the sake of your kids.

In the High Court judgement today Chief Justice French described some of my arguments, and passionate editorials, as ‘febrile rhetoric’. Well, I’m not ashamed of any of that, if that’s what it takes. To draw attention to a law which I believe will be changed, if not in my life time.

The irony in all this, is that I applauded when the Labor Government appeared to get tough by announcing they were amending the 2005 Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act. It meant the Secretary of the Department of Justice could apply to the County or Supreme Court for a supervision order if a convicted sex offender is assessed as posing a serious risk to the community of re-offending on his release from jail.

And they could then keep tabs on them under an Extended Supervision Order. Where they could live. If they changed their name or their job. Even be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.

Nobody mentioned to us that, in return, some of the worst rapists and paedophiles in this country could have their names and addresses and photos suppressed by law. That they could return to the community incognito and melt back into the community without the public knowing who they are or where they are.

That they could be living next to you, or next to your kids’ school, or your local park. They didn’t trumpet that minor point.

Police Minister Tim Holding said in 2005 ‘The public can be reassured that every precaution is being taken to protect the community against these people.’ And Corrections Minister Bob Cameron said ‘The new scheme will….. result in enhanced community safety.’

Both were speaking rubbish. Dangerous rubbish. These suppression orders have nothing to do with community safety. They are now being used to protect the identity of dangerous criminals. And Melbourne has become Suppression City.

The courts toss them around like confetti.

As the Herald Sun said: ‘We believe in the public’s right to know that the person who may be moving in next door may be one of these monsters.’

I know what I did, and what several thousand of you did, on the steps of Parliament House three years ago was morally right. And I do not regret it. The High Court has decided that I was legally wrong.

So, I now go back to the Magistrates Court for sentencing. I intend to represent myself at that hearing. I know there is a legal saying that any man who defends himself has a fool for a client but I am happy to take that risk.

If I am jailed I will only ask, because of my health, that it is at a prison close to Melbourne because I am on transplant alert. That is why I was not in Canberra for the High Court decision today.

And if I need comfort in this rough time it is through the phrase I have used many times. And never before has this tired and simple old question of mine been so important:
Who’s looking after the children?

Footnote: To get a hearing at the High Court is a privilege not a right. And I was only there because of a legal team that understood the constitutional issues at stake. They all worked pro bono and put in months of work on my behalf on a complex and, I believe, nationally important legal matter. I thank them. David Bennett QC, for ten years the Solicitor-General of Australia, is leading the team. With my barrister, Geoff Slater. And from HWL Ebsworth Nic Pullen and Andrew Thompson.

Court Stuff
4th March 2011

A couple of bits of legal housekeeping today. It seemed appropriate that I was at the Press Club today when new came through that the High Court will had down its decision on my case next week. At 2.15p.m. on Thursday March 10.

This stems from my High Court case which was heard by all seven High Court Judges in November.

I was granted leave to challenge the legality of a Victorian law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

Put simply, I believe that because of the way some of our laws are being interpreted and enforced by our judges, justice is not being done and not being seen to be done. That through suppression orders, our justice system is not being open and transparent – as justice must be in a democracy like ours. That criminals are getting more protection than victims

It is an important case. A very important issue.

It stems from my naming two notorious sex offenders at a victims of crime rally on the steps of Parliament House. Thousands of supporters shouted the names but the DPP chose to prosecute only one. Me. Consequently in the Magistrate’s Court I face five charges which carry maximum penalties of $60,000 in fines and up to five years in jail.

And if the High Court rules against me next week I go back to Magistrate’s Court for sentencing.

The other personal legal news came last night from my lawyers at my book launch on the 89th Floor of the Eureka Tower. Good news from what I call the ‘bunny boiler’ case.

A woman, and I am not even going to name her, was trying to get an intervention order against me in Bendigo – where I have not been for twenty years.

The case was transferred from Bendigo and was due for a hearing in Melbourne this month. She has now dropped it.

It was a malicious, groundless prosecution that should never have seen the light of day. As I said when it was lodged: these are the deluded actions of a vindictive, vengeful, mendacious, disturbed woman who vowed years ago to destroy me.

And while accusing me of stalking – when we have had no contact for about five years—this woman, in recent days, has bombarded the producers at MMM with more than 50 emails trying to get them to run derogatory stories about me.

It’s sad. Sad but dangerous.

Wigs and Words
4th November 2010

I mentioned the High Court proceedings which have occupied my life over the past couple of days. I have been reporting on 3AW over the past couple of days but I just want to go over a couple of things I blogged about on 3AW and on hinch.net.

One was the absence of anybody representing the Victorian Attorney-General. There were seven judges and thirty lawyers in court – four lawyers for me and 26 against. And all major states were represented except Victoria.

And that was noted by several High Court judges as the Western Australian solicitor-general tried to explain the Victorian Constitution which I am challenging as well as the court suppression orders which I believe breach the federal constitution.

As I wrote yesterday: There are torrents of words and precedents and ‘I take your Honours to Page 622 Section 42 sub-section b paragraph 4c….’

These are the wheels of justice grinding exceedingly slowly. But sometimes a whole case, the whole premise, the raison d’etre, even more than ‘the vibe’, can be summed up by a voice far from the cavernous, almost disembodied, tower of glass and concrete in Canberra.

Can be captured by one of those people who can get lost and forgotten in the world of wigs and words. A victim. I received an email from a woman in Queensland that sums up everything I have been fighting for from the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne to the High Court here in Canberra.

The email read in part:

You don't know me, but I have been following your case thru the media & I feel fear every single time I read something or think about the possible outcomes.

My father is one of those protected name suppressed serious offenders who has been protected & looked after every single step of the way, while I have been victimised by police etc.

He is currently residing, unknown to anyone around him in a caravan park that is visited by families with children on holidays, all I can say is, is there any difference to setting him up in the middle of a childcare centre? Convicted perpetrators should be banned from living in places like caravan parks in my opinion.

The court didn't give us any justice with my father, but if you can pave the way for these suppression orders to be removed than having his name publicly listed for all to see as a convicted sex offender, then that will be more justice than most of us will ever realise thru the unjust & unfair courts. Publicly shaming these people will hopefully deter others from committing the same horrendous crimes more effectively than a hushed up plea bargain the night before court is due to finally start after victims have gone thru years of hell to then be slapped in the face with them only receiving suspended sentences & suppressed names.

Now, in even reading that, I had to censor that man’s name.

These orders are wrong. They are so wrong. They apply only to the worst of the worst. The men the courts believe are most likely to re offend. And yet their names are protected.

And so some of the worst rapists and paedophiles in this country have their names and addresses and photos suppressed by law. They return to the community incognito and melt back into the community without you knowing who they are or where they are. They could be living next to you, or next to your kids’ school, or your local park.

Finally: Part of our High Court case was that this is a political issue. Thousands of you shouted out those suppressed names at that rally on the steps of Parliament House.
We want that law repealed. And I urge you to demand of every candidate in this month’s election where they stand on this issue. Labor, Liberal or Green.

The Real World
3rd November 2010

Thirty lawyers in front of seven High Court judges. Torrents of words and precedents and ‘I take your Honours to Page 622 Section 42 sub-section b paragraph 4c….’

Can be captured by one of those people who can get lost and forgotten in the world of wigs and words. A victim.

Overnight, as I prepared for the second and final day of my High Court hearing I received an email from a woman in Queensland that added to the Canberra chill.

It came as that brave heart from Bravehearts, Hetty Johnson, was being savaged about civil liberties and mythical vigilantism on Sunrise on the Seven Network.

And that email sums up everything I have been fighting for from the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne to the High Court here in Canberra. On 3AW and on my hinch.net website.

(And it was a stellar moment when I had seven High Court judges listening intently to my QC, David Bennett, reading aloud some of my unapologetically emotional and impassioned editorials about serial criminals, rapists and paedophiles who are protected by suppression orders).

The email read:
You don't know me, but just between me & you I have been following your case thru the media & I feel fear every single time I read something or think about the possible outcomes.

My father is one of those protected name suppressed serious offenders who has been protected & looked after every single step of the way, while I have been victimised by police etc.

He is currently residing, unknown to anyone around him in a caravan park that is visited by families with children on holidays, all I can say is, is there any difference to setting him up in the middle of a childcare centre?

Convicted perpetrators should be banned from living in places like caravan parks in my opinion.

I wish you all the best, I'm desperately hoping that you win, but in a way I know regardless of the outcome, you have won in one major way you probably haven't even considered... people like me are watching someone (you), finally take a stand, & not be so afraid of the consequences to them that they too become abusers & protectors of abusers.

I could go on & on... but I will simply say Thank You, & hope that the little I have written will somehow portray at least some of what I feel watching your brave fight for us.

The court didn't give us any justice with my father, but if you can pave the way for these suppression orders to be removed than having his name, (CENSORED BY ME) of (CENSORED) caravan park in QLD, publicly listed for all to see as a convicted sex offender, then that will be more justice than most of us will ever realise thru the unjust & unfair courts. Publicly shaming these people will hopefully deter others from committing the same horrendous crimes more effectively than a hushed up plea bargain the night before court is due to finally start after victims have gone thru years of hell to then be slapped in the face with them only receiving suspended sentences & suppressed names.
Who is looking after the children?

Your Honours, I rest my case.

It's the Vibe
2nd November 2010

Whether your name is Daryl or Derryn it is pretty daunting walking up those steps to the towering glass façade of the High Court building in Canberra. And, with life imitating art, some of the media gang and camera crews who played extras in The Castle were there again in real life for my High Court battle today.

That’s where the similarity ended. The battler fighting to retain his home on the grounds that a man’s home is his castle had a suburban lawyer and a QC played by Bud Tingwell against a couple of high-powered lawyers.

In our case there were 30 lawyers packed along two rows. Only four of them were on my side. The other 26 represented most states of Australia and the Commonwealth.

Missing was anybody representing the Attorney-General of the State of Victoria … the state which charged me with five criminals offences that carry total penalties of five years jail and $60,000 in fines.

As I said yesterday: It stems from my naming two notorious sex offenders at a victims of crime rally on the steps of Parliament House. Thousands of supporters shouted the names but the DPP chose to prosecute only one. Me.

Several court challenges led to an appointment in the High Court of Australia where I was granted leave to challenge the legality of a Victorian law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. And that case started today.

Put simply, I believe that the way some of our laws are being interpreted and enforced by our judges, justice is not being done and not being seen to be done. That through suppression orders, our justice system is not being open and transparent – as justice must be in a democracy like ours. That criminals are getting more protection than victims.
In court today – before a Full Bench of seven judges – my lawyer, David Bennett QC stressed the issue of open courts and the need for justice to be open to public scrutiny.
He cast back as far as 1829 and as recently as the House of Lords in 2010 to make the point that ‘open courts were well-established at the time of the establishment of our constitution’.

That open courts had long been ‘indispensible attributes’ of Anglo/American judicial systems.

In pointing out the importance of public access to the administration of justice, he observed that the building we were in ‘has a large public gallery for that reason’. And that is why it is wrong when courts are open to the public but suppression orders make it illegal for anyone to report on what goes on there.

I accept that at times there must be restrictions and evidence and names must sometimes be suppressed. But that should be a rarity and not the norm as increasingly, and ominously, seems to be the case.

Especially when you consider that the recidivist criminals, usually guilty of horrendous sex crimes against children, can only be considered for an Extended Supervision Order at the end of their jail time if a court believes they have a high chance of re-offending.

And these are the monsters who get their names suppressed (virtually forever) and their pictures banned in the media as they get quietly released back into the community and you cannot know, by law, who they are or where they are. That they could be living next to you, or next to your kids’ school, or your local park.

Leading the opposing argument today, from the Office of Public Prosecutions, GJC Silbert QC, said our courts are open to the public. And, he said, the media had the right to appoint counsel to challenge requested suppression orders.

But when it was pointed out from the Bench that these cases were listed anonymously – so how could the media know -- he conceded it was ‘administrative practice’ to ‘anonymise’ such cases.

There is another constitutional issue here too. That is the right to freedom of political communication as part of a political campaign. I have been campaigning not against the courts but against a government that brought down these undemocratic, repressive, secretive laws. Laws that I believe must be repealed or reviewed.

And when I – and more than a thousand other protesters -- shouted out the suppressed names at a rally on the steps of Parliament House it was a protest again these Labor Government laws ushered in by Attorney-General Rob Hulls.

One final point: Outside court today journalists asked me how I thought the case was going. I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to pass an opinion. Seven learned judges will make that decision in four or five months time.

But I can say, whatever happens, I have won. The issue of public interest and open courts and justice being seen to be done is now being debated in the highest court in the land. Questions are being asked.

Whatever happens, the door of secrecy and suppression has been prised open. And some light is getting in. Can’t ask for more than that.

To be continued…..

Now to Canberra
1st November 2010

I broadcast today from our 3AW studio at Parliament House because tomorrow morning I have an important appointment in the nation’s capital. An appointment in the High Court of Australia where I have been granted leave to challenge the legality of a Victorian law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

In the High Court tomorrow, before a Full Bench of seven judges, I am being opposed by the attorneys-general for New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Commonwealth Solicitor-General.

One state is surprisingly missing. Victoria. The state where I allegedly committed this offence on the steps of their own Parliament.

We have just received a letter dated Saturday, October 29 from the Victorian Government Solicitor’s office and signed by General Counsel Alison O’Brien. It says in part:

We refer to the High Court of Australia proceedings and to your notice of a constitutional matter under Section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903. We write to advise that the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria will not be intervening in the proceedings under Section 78A of the Judiciary Act 1903.

I guess that gets filed under the ‘put that in your pipe and smoke it’ category.

The irony in all this, is that I applauded when this Government appeared to get tough by announcing they were amending the 2005 Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act. It meant the Secretary of the Department of Justice could apply to the County or Supreme Court for a supervision order if a convicted sex offender is assessed as posing a serious risk to the community of re-offending on his release from jail.

And they could then have tabs kept on them under an Extended Supervision Order. Where they could live. If they changed their name or their job. Even be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.

That they could be living next to you, or next to your kids’ school, or your local park. They didn’t trumpet that minor point.

Both were speaking rubbish. Dangerous rubbish. These suppression orders are not used to protect the identity of murderers, or tax evaders, or drug dealers.

As the Herald Sun said recently: ‘We believe in the public’s right to know that the person who may be moving in next door may be one of these monsters.’

You, the community, have a right to know. For your sake and for the sake of your kids. And that’s why we are in the High Court tomorrow.

I know what I did, and what several thousand of you did, on the steps of Parliament House was morally right. The High Court will decide if I was legally right. Whatever they decide I am proud of what I did and I am ready for whatever happens.

I have to tell you: I have said this many times before, but never before has this tired and simple old question of mine been so important:

Who’s looking after the children?

Footnote: To get a hearing at the High Court is a privilege not a right. And I am only there because of a legal team that understands the constitutional issues at stake here. They are all working pro bono and have put in months of work on my behalf on a complex and, I believe, nationally important legal matter. I thank them. David Bennett QC, for ten years the Solicitor-General of Australia, is leading the team. With my barrister, Geoff Slater. And from HWL Ebsworth Nic Pullen and Andrew Thompson.

Now to Canberra
30th July 2010

It’s been a long journey and we’ve got a few kilometres to go yet but the next stop is the High Court of Australia. Today I won the right to be heard in the High Court in my battle –in layman’s terms –to make our courts more transparent. To make our courts more open. For evidence to be heard in public and the reasons given in public. To make our courts, especially County Court judges, genuinely consider the public interest when they order the suppression of the name of a serial rapist or a paedophile.

As it stands a law called an Extended Supervision Order protects criminals more than it protects the community. More than it protects you and your kids. It started out as a good law but it has been corrupted and more than 25 serial rapists and paedophiles are walking around the streets, living amongst you, and you cannot know who they are or what they look like. And this year we had the ludicrous and dangerous situation where a man removed an electronic ankle bracelet and escaped and police could not alert the media or the public until they had received court permission.

I have called Melbourne Suppression City and with good reason. Judges are virtually running secret courts: suppressing names, suppressing evidence, tossing orders around like confetti.

To understand where I am coming from and why I am so passionate about this you have to go back a couple of years to a rally I held on the steps of Parliament House.

Several thousand people were there. And I said at the time:

I looked out over a sea of faces, many tear-stained. Faces, old and young, faces that variously showed pain and anger and frustration and determination and hope.

An unlikely crowd of protesters drawn together by a common, often tragic cause. People like the Halvagis family and the Irwins who had lost daughters at the hands of killers who had been given chance after chance by the legal system.

And others whose children had been raped twice. By child molesters and then by the courts as paedophiles walked free. And some of their children, robbed of their childhood and their innocence, couldn’t take the pressure any more and killed themselves.

There was the case of a woman whose sons were among seven victims of the family doctor. In court his lawyer argued that ‘no actual harm had been done to the boys’. And both her sons committed suicide within 15 months of each other.

There were middle-aged victims who had suffered in silence with their secrets and who had never had a skerrick of justice. They came from a time when you didn’t talk about such things and the local priest couldn’t possibly have done those dirty things to you.

They came to protest against a terrible law that allows convicted rapists and serial child sex offenders to rejoin the community incognito. Their names and images censored by court suppression orders. And more than 7000 people worldwide have signed my petition at Namethemshamethem.com.

And so we now head to the High Court. And just one more thing. This is not about me. This is not case of somebody using legal tactics to avoid a criminal trial. I face five charges that could bring a total of $60,000 in fines and five years in jail. I can handle that whatever happens. That is irrelevant when compared to the big picture: a bad, unconstitutional law that I believe demeans the very courts designed to serve justice and protect the community. A law that inhibits open justice. While it remains on the books justice is not being done and is certainly not being seen to be done.

Footnote: Getting this far in this case has consumed a lot of time and effort and expense by a lot of people. And I want to thank my senior counsel, David Bennett QC, my barrister Geoff Slater and from HWL Ebsworth my long time friend and lawyer Nic Pullen and Andrew Thompson. All working pro bono because they believe in the cause. Heartfelt thanks guys.

Here is what the papers had to say;

Derryn Hinch wins right to bring suppression battle to the High Court

Kate Jones
From: Herald Sun
July 30, 2010

THE Human Headline Derryn Hinch has claimed a victory in his battle against contempt of court charges.

The outspoken 3AW broadcaster was charged with breaching supression orders after naming two sex offenders at a victims of crime rally in 2008 and on his website.

Barrister David Bennett, QC, for Mr Hinch, argued in the High Court today that the suppression orders were constitutionally invalid.

A bench of three justices agreed to hear the matter in the High Court in Canberra, which will see Hinch’s case moved from the Melbourne Magistrates' Court.

Outside court, Hinch said he was hesitant but optimistic.

"It's a small step, we haven't had a win, we've had one step along the way to see if something can be done and that a bad law, which started as a good law, can be changed,'' he said.

"We believe (this case is about) the public interest, which the court say they take into consideration.

"In my view, they do not. A criminal's interest has more clout and power in the courts than the community's interest and we'll test it to see who's right.''

A date for the High Court hearing has not been set.

Derryn Hinch suppression order case to go to High Court

From: AAP
July 30, 2010 1:19PM

DERRYN Hinch will argue before a full bench of the High Court that suppression orders he allegedly breached are constitutionally invalid.

The broadcaster is charged with breaching court suppression orders by naming two sex offenders at a victims of crime rally in 2008 and on his website.

Hinch appeared in the High Court in Melbourne today when his lawyers asked to move his case from the magistrates court to the High Court so he could challenge the orders.

Hinch's barrister David Bennett QC said the orders, made under the Victorian Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005, contravened the notion that courts should be open to the public.

“This is a case where the whole exercise is about constitutionality,” he said.

“It's a very serious attack by the legislation on the fundamental nature of the court system.”

A date for the hearing has not been set.

Outside court, Hinch told reporters the outcome was “very good news”.

“It's a privilege and it's an honour to get to the High Court, which we've achieved today,” he said.

“The whole issue is public interest and I still believe the suppression orders are too strong in the state of Victoria.

“It becomes an issue of freedom of speech, that the criminals get too much attention, that the public's interest is not served.

“This means at least now we get to the High Court to argue that some of the decisions by our courts are wrong,” Hinch said.

“We have situations where police cannot even release the picture or the name of a convicted rapist or pedophile until they go to court and get permission.

“Now that is wrong in any state. It's madness. This is one step along the way to the High Court to see if something can be done.”

.......................................................................................................................................................

Tell Me, Judge
9th July 2010

I’ve got a question for County Court Judge Sue Pullen. You tell me how it is not in the public interest to make public the name of a man who raped a 13-year-old girl during a burglary? Tell me how it is not in the public interest for us to know who this man is and what he looks like when he is released from prison later this month?

I have talked many times before about what I consider to be the ridiculous, and dangerous, practice in our courts to suppress the names and photos of serial sex offenders after they have been subjected to an Extended Supervision Order.

In fact, I go into a High Court hearing on July 30 to challenge five criminal charges against me involving this very issue following my Name Them and Sham Them petition and public campaign.

I raised it again earlier this year when it concerned this child rapist who disappeared from his supervised home outside Ararat Jail. He’d already breached parole conditions within two days of being released from jail. For several days after his escape police did not, could not, tell the public about it because the rapist’s name was suppressed.

They finally went to court, after wasting valuable hours, got the Suppression Order lifted, and within hours the man was found.

But Noddyland continued. After the arrest of this man, his lawyer went back to court and had the Suppression Order reinstated. And the Department of Justice did not object.

This man is being protected even though, while on an Extended Supervision Order, he cut off an electronic ankle bracelet and escaped.

He was arrested outside a country hotel only after police were allowed to publish he name and photo –which we put on the 3AW website and the Herald Sun put on Page One.

Then his name was suppressed again. The newspaper’s lawyers went to court to try to get it lifted, in the public interest, but yesterday Judge Pullen disagreed.

So a child rapist -- a man the courts deemed so dangerous after serving his time that he had to be restricted on where he lived and where he went -- now will remain an anonymous member of your community. It is wrong.

But then I guess you could go on the Internet and find him. The courts are fighting a losing battle there. And rightly so.

Friday, July 9, 2010

.......................................................................................................................................................

COURTING JUSTICE
17th March 2010

Maybe I am too much of an optimist. Maybe it is because I have been fighting this cause for twenty-five years. Maybe it’s because I went to jail over it. And maybe will again. But I am starting to feel that finally something positive is happening in a campaign to make our courts more open. To make our judges more accountable. To make them realize that the community, our community/ their community, no longer believes that justice is being done let alone being seen to be done.

Soon I’ll be in the High Court arguing on behalf of the more than 7000 people who signed the Name Them Shame Them petition that demanded convicted serial rapists and child molesters, who are still a risk to the community, should not have their names suppressed.

Last week the State Government went against its own new sex offender secrecy policy over the naming of a dangerous serial offender who attacked eight women while wearing an electronic monitoring bracelet.

A Justice Department lawyer told the County Court that the department would seek to lift a suppression order on the man’s name when he is arraigned on more sex charges next month.

In the past the Government has fought attempts to name offenders who are subjected to Extended Supervision Orders but have had their identities suppressed.

This latest case shows what a dangerous sick joke these suppression orders are. This man was on a night curfew, with a monitoring bracelet, when he launched a series of sex attacks. Because his name and photo were suppressed he could, and did, approach and stalk unsuspecting victims.

And in another encouraging sign the Geelong Advertiser has launched a petition to reveal the name of a convicted granny killer living in Geelong.

That woman, who was sexually assaulted and murdered was 75-year-old Marie Greening Zidan. Her daughter, Janine, has campaigned tirelessly for the killer’s names to be released since we campaigned for longer sentences for her two killers nearly a decade ago.

Yesterday the newspaper launched a petition. It said ‘The Geelong Advertiser believes it is time for the laws to change and the identities of such brutal killers to be revealed in the interest of public safety. Current laws protect their identities being revealed.

One of the thugs is now living in Geelong and despite being an adult he can keep his violent past hidden from people. He could be living in your street.

Sign this petition <http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FRH3LRM> and we will take the case up with Victorian Attorney General Rob Hulls.’

Although I am optimistic --I’m not that optimistic. I had my petition of 7000 names hand-delivered to both Hulls and Premier Brumby. After about six months of silence I received a note from Hulls’s office saying that he understood the premier had written to me. He hadn’t. Still hasn’t. But in an election year it may be in the post.

Still, I am optimistic that things are changing. Too slowly, but changing.

.......................................................................................................................................................

A COURT WIN
4th March 2010

It was Round 20, or whatever, in my court battles today en route to the High Court to challenge what I believe is a bad law that permits the suppression of the names of convicted sex offenders whom even the courts believe are still a risk to the community.

We went to the Supreme Court to argue that another Magistrate’s Court appearance next week should be set aside while we move forward with a High Court application.

My case was argued by former Australian Solicitor-General, David Bennett QC backed by barrister Geoff Slater and Nic Pullen from TressCox. All working pro bono.

This was how AAP reported it:

Court proceedings against outspoken broadcaster DERRYN HINCH have been formally halted so he can take his fight to the High Court.

HINCH is charged with breaching court suppression orders by naming two sex offenders at a victims of crime rally in 2008 and on his website.

Magistrates Court proceedings against HINCH were due to begin last month, but the Fairfax Radio Network broadcaster indicated he planned to challenge the orders in the High Court.

HINCH will argue the orders are constitutionally invalid.

His barrister DAVID BENNETT QC today applied to the Victorian Supreme Court to have his Magistrates Court proceeding stayed until the High Court case was completed.

Prosecutor GAVIN SILBERT SC didn't oppose the application.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice DAVID BEACH granted the stay until April 23.

.......................................................................................................................................................

SUPPRESSION CITY
2nd March 2010

If you think my campaign against suppression orders in our courts is wrong or exaggerated. If you think Melbourne has not become the Suppression City capital of Australia. If you don’t think our magistrate’s and judges have more sympathy for the rights of recidivist criminals than they do for their victims -- then you haven’t met or heard of Janine Greening.

Ten years ago her 73-year-old mother was sexually assaulted and murdered in her Seaford home while her intellectually disabled brother was in the same house and probably witnessed the savagery.

Marie Greening Zidan’s killers were two teenagers who knew the family. You cannot know who they are because they were underage when the murder took place. Their identities are protected.

While in jail awaiting trial they left obscene and taunting messages on the family’s answering service. They received piddling detention sentences until a public campaign, in which I was involved, prompted an OPP appeal and those sentences were marginally increased.

While in custody at the Juvenile Justice Centre one of the men broke the ankle of a work experience student during a scuffle over a bag of sweets.

Both youths, now in their twenties, were released. Their identities protected… it now seems forever. One breached his parole conditions in 2007 when found wandering the streets in contravention of his curfew.

After their release Janine Greening said the men had shown no remorse.

She has argued that the killers should be named publicly, making an exception to the rule that juvenile offenders remain anonymous and there
there have been unsuccessful legal battles to allow their public identification.

Now it seems that not only are they protected in the community for that brutal death of a defenceless elderly woman… they are protected for any crimes in the future.

The young criminal who breached parole three years ago was released in November. He has appeared in Magistrate’s Court facing fresh charges relating to stolen property and obtaining property by deception.

And his name has been suppressed again. To make it worse, under the new draconian court censorship laws, snuck through late last year and brought into effect in January, I can’t even say what happened in court yesterday. Or why a new gag order was imposed.

And they say justice must be seen to be done. This is legal madness.

.......................................................................................................................................................

HIGH COURT LATEST
2nd March 2010

And speaking of courts I thought I’d bring you up to date on developments in my legal situation and the battle over suppression orders which I believe stem from a bad law that must be changed.

The Greening situation is a scandalous but perfect example.
I was at the doctor’s this morning and he wanted to know the latest. And so did the dry cleaner. And all your support out there is fantastic.

So: Tomorrow we will file in the High Court an application for the removal of my case to the High Court on constitutional grounds.

And we will also request a stay of Magistrate’s Court proceedings here in Victoria.

And I want to thank my legal team acting pro bono for what will be a complex and, I believe, nationally important legal matter. David Bennett QC, for ten years the Solicitor-General of Australia, is leading the team. With my barrister, Geoff Slater. And from TressCox, Nic Pullen and Andrew Thompson.

I’ll keep you posted.

.......................................................................................................................................................

THE BATTLE CONTINUES
18th February 2010

I was back in Magistrates Court today facing five charges of breaching suppression orders by allegedly naming two serial sex offenders whose names were protected under Extended Supervision Orders.

We are now taking the issue to the High Court. Details can be found in my Hinch Says editorials from Feb 17th and 18th.

This is how other media reported the story:

Derryn Hinch to take contempt of court case to High Court, saying charges are 'constitutionally invalid'
Paul Anderson - Herald Sun

RADIO broadcaster Derryn Hinch has taken his contempt of court case to the High Court on the basis the charges he is facing are "constitutionally invalid".

In the Melbourne Magistrates' Court today defence lawyer Geoffrey Slater filed a submission outlining three reasons why Hinch believes he has been unlawfully accused.
In the tendered submission the defence team listed three reason for the High Court application, including a submission that the law is "contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".

Hinch is facing five contempt of court charges. He is accused of publicly naming two convicted sex offenders protected by suppression orders.

Crown prosecutor Peter Kidd requested an adjournment to enable the Office of Public Prosecutions time to consider the application.

He said all Attorneys-General would also need time to consider it.

Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg said he would also need time to digest the submission.
The court heard there was no guarantee the matter would end up before the High Court.
Mr Rozencwajg adjourned the matter until tomorrow.

Outside court Hinch said he hoped Attorney General Rob Hulls was listening and watching.

"It's an election year and law and order is a massive issue in this state," Hinch said.

"It's a bad law (this is) not about Hinch, it's about victims.

"It makes me so angry, I know I'm right."

Derryn Hinch takes legal fight to High Court
Lauren Wilson - The Australian

RADIO broadcaster Derryn Hinch will attempt to fight charges of breaching supression orders and naming serious sex offenders in the High Court.

Hinch, who appeared this morning in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court, applied to have the matter stood down while the Attorney-General considers his request to have the matter heard in the high court on the ground that the charges are “unconstitutional”.

Hinch's barrister, Geoffrey Slater, said in his submissions to the court that the contempt chares faced by Hinch were “contrary to the deeply entrenched common law doctrine of open courts that forms the law of Australia”.

Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg questioned whether the application to remit the matter to the High Court was “fragmenting the proceeding” and “subvert(ing) the processes of the (Magistrates') court.”

The matter was adjourned until tomorrow.

Outside court Hinch said he was fighting the matter at great personal cost because, he said, “I know that I am right.”

“It's a matter of law and constitutional law. What we are talking about here is a bad law,” he said.

“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 supression city of Australia, it's like confetti the supression orders.

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

.......................................................................................................................................................

FACING COURT AGAIN
17th February 2010

Tomorrow I will not be behind the 3AW microphone. I will be in Magistrate's Court facing five criminal charges arising out of what I believe, as do many others, is a bad law.

A good law turned bad. A law I hope to help get changed. A law that seems to me to protect criminals and not victims. A law that suppresses the names of serial rapists and child sex offenders. Some of the worst, recidivist, offenders in this country. Sex offenders who the judges even admit are still a risk to the community as they sign court orders that hide their identities.

I don't do this lightly. I want to change the constitution to preserve open courts in this state. It is vital to justice being seen to be done. This government seems hell bent on changing laws to make our courts even more secret. To make it harder for the media to report on who is getting their names suppressed and why.

As I have said Melbourne has become the Suppression Capital of AustraliThe five charges against me relate to alleged breaches of County Court suppression orders back in May and June 2008 and at a Name Them and Shame Them protest rally I held on the steps of Parliament House.

That day several thousand people shouted the names of two notorious sex offenders. The DPP decided to charge only one. Me.

One police officer told me that the Hinch ‘hot potato’ had gone from the Police up to the DPP before being sent back to the Police Commissioner’s Office and then to the Sexual Crimes Squad. As if they haven’t got more important things to do.

He also said that the decision to make it a Magistrate’s Court issue was because 'they' (whoever 'they' are) wanted to keep it 'low key'. Wishful thinking.

As I said this law involving Extended Supervision Orders is a mad, bad law. Just how crazy was demonstrated a few weeks ago when a child rapist disappeared from his supervised home outside Ararat Jail.

The Herald Sun could not run his photo to alert the public or they'd be in contempt of court. In the following days the suppression order was lifted, the man was caught, the ban was re-instated. Noddyland.

What isn't Noddyland is that if convicted on those five charges I face maximum penalties of up to $60,000 in fines and five years jail.

This law was meant to protect people not hide the identity of child rapists. It is dangerously, fatally flawed. And it must be repealed or amended. The community not only deserves it. We should demand it because you, the public, has a right to know.

That is why my barrister, Geoff Slater, has advised the Attorney General, Mr Hulls, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Jeremy Rapke, who seems to be taking a personal interest in this case, that we intend to immediately apply to the High Court to be heard on a number of constitutional issues including the freedom of speech.

I ask again: Who's looking after the children?

.......................................................................................................................................................

A MAD, BAD LAW
1st February 2010

This is crazy. This was bound to happen. This is what my court case later this month is all about. The ridiculous, and dangerous, practice in our courts to suppress the names and photos of serial sex offenders after they have been subjected to an Extended Supervision Order. It happened last week when a child rapist disappeared from his supervised home outside Ararat Jail. For several days Police did not, could not, tell the public because the rapist’s name was suppressed.

They finally went to court, got the Suppression Order lifted, and within hours the man was found.

But Noddyland continued. After the arrest of this man, who raped a 13-year-old girl during a burglary, his lawyer went back to court and had the Suppression Order reinstated. And the Department of Justice did not object.

Who is looking after the children?

As I said on 3AW on Friday:

What the hell. At the risk of hurting my own court case next month I cannot, in good conscience, ignore what has happened in Melbourne over the past couple of days.

It is further proof of the madness and badness of a law that protects convicted paedophiles in this state.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning a child rapist disappeared from his supervised home outside Ararat Jail. He was considered such a risk to the community that he was under an Extended Supervision Order following his release from prison after serving nine years for the rape of a teenage girl.

He had an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet but it was not equipped with GPS.

In County Court last September a judge suppressed all information about this man’s name, photo, address, everything.

And so today the Herald Sun – reporting on the escape of this dangerous child rapist—could not mention his name or publish his photo.

As the headline said: Madness. And I couldn’t name him or describe him on this program if a court had not belatedly lifted that suppression order today.
And if I had gone ahead and named him in the public’s interest I would face even more charges than the ones I face next month. Charges that could see me in prison.

This is the scenario I predicted. It is why I have campaigned so long and hard against the abuse of this law by the worst sex offenders in Australia.

This is madness. The way these serial rapists and paedophiles are given more legal consideration than their victims is a disgrace. And it’s usually funded by you through Legal Aid.

Surely, while this bad law exists and this legal loophole remains unplugged the courts should be trying to help Police do their job. Surely, the minute a criminal breaches his parole or breaches an Extended Supervision Order the suppression order should be instantly null and void.

It is a disgrace, a sick joke, that, 48 hours after a child rapist went on the run out there, Police looking for him could not seek media help to circulate his name, description and photo.

This child rapist’s name, not incidentally, is (again censored). He was finally arrested, again, this morning.

Who’s looking after the children?

A lot of questions here. The man had fled parole last year and was arrested in Brisbane. Showed what sort of person he was and yet in September he was still granted a Suppression Order. And a few months later he’s breached the terms of his parole.

Did the Department of Justice oppose his suppression application? If not, why not?

Why didn’t the Police Minister go into court for a lifting of the order on Wednesday? That’s when Police Minister Cameron says he knew about the escape. Police say they had a covert operation going. The fact is they didn’t get him until they went public.

And why didn’t the Department of Justice oppose the second suppression application?

This story is not over. This issue is not over. See you in court.

.......................................................................................................................................................

‘SUPPRESSION CITY’
18th January 2010

The following editorial on 3AW and an article by media lawyer Justin Quill shows, yet again, how Melbourne has become ‘Suppression City’ Australia. A dangerous, retrograde piece of legislation slipped through the Victorian Parliament late last year and took effect on January 1, 2010.

Instead of sex offenders cases being heard in open court unless a judge rules otherwise they will now be held in secret unless a judge is convinced they should be held in open court.

This what I said, Friday, January 15, 2010:

I have to be a bit careful with this next issue, a bit of eggshell walking, because it involves the suppression of information about serial rapists and recidivist paedophiles.

I have to be careful because next month I face five charges in Magistrate’s Court of breaching suppression orders involving the names of two of the worst sex offenders in this country. Can’t antagonise or scandalise the court.

But the issue is back in the news today. Late last year a Supreme Court judge ruled that hearings involving such cases should be openly reported. Justice Phillip Cummins agreed with an application by the Herald Sun that two serial sex offenders should be named and their hearings heard in open court because it was ‘in the public interest’.

And because of that decision you could know about the legal twist and turns being attempted by these predators –including Brian Keith Jones ‘Mr Baldy’ and the self-styled sex witch Robin Fletcher.

It seemed like we were making progress. But State Parliament has quietly pushed through news laws –effectively on the first of this month -- that will turn such court sessions into secret hearings.

The government says it is to protect victims. Believe me it is to protect the criminals. It is certainly not in the public interest..

So you will not know if a Mr. Baldy has applied for more unsupervised visits into the community. Or if a Fletcher wants to have restrictions lifted ob where he can live work or travel.

This is a bad backward step. You are being treated like mushrooms. They don’t give these protections to tax evaders or even murderers when they are released from jail. Why protect rapists and child molesters? Especially evil men like Jones and Fletcher…. And the two I am facing court over next month.

Secret justice offends us all
By Justin Quill
Herald Sun <http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/>
January 16, 2010
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.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 Kelly Hazell Quill. He acts for the Herald Sun AND 3AW.

.......................................................................................................................................................

SUPREME COURT TKO
3rd December 2009

Today in the Supreme Court Justice Robert Osborn dismissed my claim against two County Court judges’ rulings that they had not acted legally or in the public interest when they suppressed the names of two serial sex offenders.

To put it simply, I lost on a technicality: that I had not launched my legal action within a specified time limit. But, to be fair, the Judge also ruled that the judges’ suppression rulings were legal. Although, ominously he said there is no requirement for a judge to give reasons for such orders. There should be.

It all stems from the Extended Supervision Orders for sex offenders after they are released from jail. . It was a good law. But clever crims, usually on Legal Aid, are using it to get their names, their photos, their criminal record, everything about them, suppressed.

A law which, instead of protecting the community, is being exploited by some of the worst, most violent and depraved criminals in this country.

That’s why last year I launched my Name Them and Shame Them campaign. There are more than twenty such suppressions in Victoria right now. And I fear it has become a ‘rubber stamp system’.

As one County Court judge said ‘These are orders I seem to be making with some regularity’. It’s not right. It doesn’t apply to murderers or tax cheats.

This law was meant to protect people not perpetrators. It is fatally flawed. And it must be repealed or amended. The community not only deserves it. We should demand it because the public has a right to know.

So what’s next? Well, I now face a trial in the Magistrate’s Court in February on five charges of breaching a suppression order. If convicted, hefty fines and/or jail. Today in the Supreme Court I was ordered to pay the costs of one of the worst paedophiles in this country. And that hurts.

So, if there’s a QC out there who believes in my cause and wants some pro bono work…. Give me a call. I need you.

AAP Reported:

Derryn Hinch loses court battle over naming sex offenders

Hinch loses fight over naming sex offenders
Says he's disappointed by ruling
Went down on a technicality

OUTSPOKEN radio broadcaster Derryn Hinch has lost a legal fight over two suppression orders he allegedly breached by naming two sex offenders.

Hinch challenged the orders made by the Victorian County Court during a civil trial in the Victorian Supreme Court.

It is alleged the Fairfax Radio Network broadcaster breached orders protecting the identities of two accused paedophiles at a victims of crime rally on the steps of the Victorian Parliament in June last year, as well as on his website.

Hinch argued two judges who made the suppression orders failed or wrongly applied a legislative test when making them.
But today, Justice Robert Osborn dismissed his challenge.

Outside court, Hinch said he was disappointed with the ruling. "Disappointed, yes," he said.
"On the bright side I can say we went down on a technicality because the judge ruled that we'd run out of time, that we'd made our case too late.

"But he did also say in fairness that he thought the County Court judges' decision was right."
Mr Hinch said he had no regrets and would continue fighting his case.

"We live to fight another day. We're back in the magistrates court in February. But no, not a great day," he said.

Mr Hinch, who is charged with five counts of breaching a suppression order, said he would decide on his next move once he had read the full judgement.

.......................................................................................................................................................

SUPREME COURT ACTION
23th November 2009

Last year I allegedly broke the law and now face five charges in the Magistrate’s Court. I allegedly breached court orders banning the names of convicted sex offenders being released to the public. It comes in the midst of a Name Them and Shame Them campaign I have been running with a rally on the steps of Parliament House and also on 3AW and on this website.

Several months ago a petition to get the Law changed and signed by more than 7000 people was hand delivered to the offices of the Premier, John Brumby, and the Attorney-General, Rob Hulls. So far there has been no acknowledgement that it was even received.

The charges against me claim breaches of County Court suppression orders protecting the identities of two paedophiles who, among several dozen, have been released from prison.

I am accused of publishing their names on hinch.net and announcing their identities at a protest rally in June last year.

Today I appeared in the Supreme Court to challenge the validity of the orders.

In a nut shell: County Court judges who issued the suppression orders either did not consider the public interest before invoking them or, in one case, decided the rehabilitation of a serial sex offender took precedent over the interest of the community and the public’s right to know.

Whatever happens in the Supreme Court I am due back in Magistrate’s Court on at least one of the charges in February.

It is interesting that last month the Herald Sun went to court and successfully had the names of two serial sex offenders taken off the suppression list. One was the notorious Brian Keith Jones, one of Australia’s worst paedophiles. He earned the nickname Mr. Baldy because he would abduct young boys and shave their heads before dressing them in girls’ clothes and painting their faces.

Jones remains under an Extended Supervision Order but his name is no longer hidden from the community.

The other was an evil man named Robin Fletcher. A self-styled sex witch who spent ten years in jail for sex crimes against two 15-year-old girls. He was also on an Extended Supervision Order.

The Herald Sun went to court and successfully fought Fletcher’s suppression order and Justice Philip Cummins declared the public had a right to know.

That’s the crux of my whole Name Them and Shame Them campaign.

It’s why I was in the Supreme Court today.

Footnote: Click here to go to NameThemShameThem petition.

This is how AAP reported the story today:

By Melissa Iaria

MELBOURNE, Nov 23 AAP - Outspoken radio broadcaster Derryn Hinch is fighting suppression orders he allegedly breached by naming two sex offenders.

Hinch's civil trial began in the Victorian Supreme Court on Monday, where he is challenging the orders made by the Victorian County Court.

It is alleged the Fairfax Radio Network broadcaster breached orders protecting the identities of two accused pedophiles at a victims of crime rally on the steps of the Victorian Parliament in June last year, as well as on his website.

Hinch's barrister David Gilbertson told the hearing the two judges who made the orders failed or wrongly applied a legislative test when making them.

In particular, he said the judges failed to consider whether the orders they were making were in the public interest.

Mr Gilbertson also argued his legal team did not receive written notification about the content of the suppression orders until it was too late to fight them.

He also argued that Hinch did not have the "standing" to personally challenge the orders, as other media outlets did.

But John McArdle, QC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said if Hinch wanted to challenge the orders in court, he could have in his capacity as a professional journalist, but he did not take that step.

"They weren't there. They made no application at any stage to change the order," he said.

Michael Pearce, representing a sex offender known only as GT, said Hinch only challenged the order after he breached it.

"The plaintiff has always had standing to challenge the order in the manner in which he now does," he said.

"There's overwhelming evidence he knew about the order and didn't challenge it until he contravened it."

A second sex offender, who is also the subject of the suppression orders, was not represented in court.

Justice Robert Osborn said the case raised questions of public significance and matters of obvious importance to Hinch.

He will deliver his judgment at a date to be fixed.

Hinch is charged with five counts of breaching a suppression order and the criminal case against him in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court has been adjourned while his civil action is under way.

.......................................................................................................................................................

NAMED AT LAST
20th October 2009

Robin Fletcher is an evil man. A self-styled sex witch who spent ten years in jail for sex crimes against two 15-year-old girls. In his so-called religion he believes he believes that sex with children is his right. While still in jail he wrote letters to villagers in Africa offering to pay them to find young women to be his disciples. In one letter he asked for girls under 20 but said he preferred primary school aged girls and said that under his ‘religion’ children should witness sex even from a young age. And children should be flogged.

Fletcher boasts ‘I will never change my views on these issues’.

On his release from jail in 2006 Fletcher was ordered to live inside Ararat Prison boundaries but won a legal challenge to live outside. But he has been under an Extended Supervision Order restricting where he can work, live and travel.

If it hadn’t been for the Herald Sun you would not know that Fletcher has been in court trying to have those restrictions lifted. You see, under the way these Extended Supervision Orders are being abused, sex offenders are getting their names suppressed. You can’t know their names, their addresses, what they look like, what their criminal records are.

The Herald Sun went to court and successfully fought Fletcher’s suppression order and Justice Philip Cummins declared the public had a right to know.

Hallelujah. This is an issue I have been fighting for years. It is why I am facing criminal charges in the Magistrate’s Court and the Supreme Court next month.

You do have a right to know.

That is why I held a rally on the steps of Parliament House last year.

There are now more than 20 serial paedophiles who have been released on Extended Supervision Orders. How many have re-offended? We are not allowed to know.

The sick irony is that I applauded when the Government appeared to get tough. When they announced they were amending the 2005 Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act, so the Secretary of the Department of Justice could apply to the County or Supreme Court for a supervision order where a sex offender is assessed as posing a serious risk to the community of re-offending.

Nobody mentioned to us that they could return to the community incognito and melt back into the community without the public knowing who they are or where they are. They didn’t trumpet that minor point.

That is rubbish. As the Herald Sun editorial says today:

‘.. we will challenge the practice of allowing some of these paedophiles to remain anonymous. We believe in the public’s right to know that the person who may be moving in next door may be one of these monsters.’

I know what I did last year on the steps of Parliament House was morally right. The courts will decide if I was legally right. Whatever they decide I am proud of what I did and I am ready for whatever happens.

I just hope more judges take Judge Cummins ruling yesterday as a precedent and follow suit. These suppression orders are wrong. Child abusers are now abusing our courts.

Footnote: The Herald Sun had another victory on our behalf when a suppression order was also lifted on the notorious ‘Mr Baldy’ who had his Extended Supervision Order extended for another three years.

.......................................................................................................................................................

A WHITE BALLOON TRIUMPH
9th October 2009

A judge banned White Balloon Day in the Victorian town of Wangaratta in September 2009. A brave young woman, herself a victim of sexual assault as a child, held a white balloon aloft that day and was arrested, bundled into a paddy wagon taken to court and fined $2000. Her named was Jennifer Pietsch. A month later I took my radio program to Wangaratta to broadcast it and interviewed Jennifer and the founder of Bravehearts Hetty Johnston. The locals turned out with 4000 white balloons.

Here are two of my reports:

I broadcast my 3AW Drive program today from radio station 3NE in Wangaratta. And to understand why, I have to flash back a month to when I was talking about Melbourne being the Suppression Capital of Australia. Sixty Minutes was banned from showing a program on teenage suicide. Channel Seven was banned from showing a story about convicted multiple murderer Peter Dupas and a man was acquitted of murder recently and I cannot tell you his name.

As I said we are bombarded daily with streams of suppression orders from Magistrate’s Courts, County Courts and the Supreme Court. Some even threaten us if we even mention that the order even exists. And that’s why trials go merrily along in secret, like in some Police state, and you are not even allowed to know the name of an accused murderer or drug dealer or child rapist. I thought justice not only had to be done but had to be ‘seen to be done’?

And then along came a judge in Wangaratta with the craziest ban of all. Bizarre. County Court Judge Michael McInerney banned people from carrying white balloons as part of White Balloon Day. Banned any newspaper, radio station or TV station from covering White Balloon Day on September 8.

White Balloon Day is a national day to focus attention on the victims of child sexual assault. It was started some years ago by Hetty Johnston, the founder of Bravehearts. They are a fantastic group of committed people and I have been proud to be guest speaker at their annual luncheon in Brisbane.

Judge McInerney ruled that allowing people to hand out flyers or hold balloons, or report on the day, could affect an ongoing sexual assault case that was being heard in the area.

As I said at the time, I guess if a soldier happened to be up on a charge on April 25 we should ban Anzac Day. Or if a footballer was on a charge (which is pretty likely these days) we should ban the Grand Final. And isn’t there a danger that TAC ads will affect a jury in a culpable driving case?

One woman, Jennifer Pietsch, did carry a white balloon that day in September and had copies of my Hinch editorial –which the judge described as ‘bile’. She was arrested, bundled into a paddy wagon, charged and fined $2000.

The judge also questioned my intelligence and said ‘a small minority put the 4th estate into disrepute’. I guess that’s me.

Anyway, we decided to hold a White Balloon Day here in Wangaratta today – a month late. Jennifer Pietsch came. The founder of Bravehearts, Hetty Johnston, came from Brisbane. And the good people of Wangaratta with white balloons. More than 4000 of them through out the town.

We may be a month late but the cause remains strong. And the message is the same one I have been posing for 25 years –both inside and outside of jail: Who’s looking after the children?

.......................................................................................................................................................

It’s ironic, that the reason I am bringing you the Drive program from Wangaratta today is because of the blinkered, I believe undemocratic, decision by a judge to ban White Balloon day in this city.

To shut down what is usually an annual, meaningful, national day of focus on the shameful issue of child abuse.

And to slap a $2000 fine on a woman, herself a victim of sexual child abuse, for having the temerity to carry a white balloon in Wangaratta on that day last month.

That County Court Judge, Michael McInerney, described my editorial on that issue as ‘bile’ even while making much of the fact that he hadn’t read it.

He also questioned my intelligence –yep, I did leave school at fifteen -- and said ‘Unfortunately, persons who profess intelligence, and I stress the word profess, impact on this community’.

Well, speaking of the impact on the community, I reckon it’s time that some of our magistrates and judges started thinking about the impact they are having on our community with some of their wooly-headed, namby pamby, stuff the victims, rehab is paramount, give ‘em a tenth chance, decisions.

And surprisingly, Attorney-General Rob Hulls agrees. Sort of. He told a Judicial College of Australia conference today that the law needs to ‘descend from its lofty view of itself as a detached and immutable system.’

That’s why it is ironic that I am broadcasting from Wangaratta today as part of a delayed White Balloon Day here.

Attorney-General Hulls said judges needed to be ‘out in the community, explaining the principles behind decisions without having to make excuses, bringing the population with them.’

That would be a start. I’d love to hear Judge McInerney explaining his blanket ban on White Balloon Day here in Wangaratta.

.......................................................................................................................................................

THE BALLOON IS UP
21st September 2009

The judge who banned White Balloon Day in Wangaratta had a woman dragged before him because she deigned to fly a white balloon ( and another one with the Australian flag on it ) in that town.

The young woman, 29-year-old Jennifer Pietsch, herself a victim of child sexual assault, was fined $2000. County Court Judge Michael McInerney in fining Pietsch also had a swipe at me along the way. Said my hinch.net website editorial was ‘bile’ and said I brought the media into ‘disrepute.’

Here’s how Crikey.com.au covered it:

No white balloons for the city of Wangaratta

Crikey gumshoe Eleri Harris writes:

Early this month, 29-year-old musician Jennifer Brooke Pietsch was arrested on the main street of Wangaratta in Victoria for handing out white balloons and copies of Derryn Hinch’s latest blog post. She was charged with contempt of court and 10 days later entered a guilty plea and on Friday was fined $2000 without conviction.

So since when did giving out white balloons become illegal?

For the past two weeks, Wangaratta has been subject to a suppression order after Judge Michael McInerney banned the presence of Braveheart’s annual White Balloon Day from the city for fear it would prejudice a ongoing trial.

County Court Judge McInerney felt the distribution of material, designed to raise awareness of child abuse, could prejudice the jury of a child-abuse trial taking place in Wangaratta.
Indeed, following Pietsch’s actions, an application was made to discharge the jury. Judge McInerney rejected it, but expressed concern that an appeal could succeed and see the victims subjected to a retrial.

When delivering Pietsch’s sentence, Judge McInerney said Pietsch showed "flagrant disregard of the court order" and said her actions were "dangerous", pointing out that the fliers were distributed less than 10 metres from the court and the café where the jury ate lunch.

Judge McInerney took into consideration Pietsch's emotional state at the time, for she was a victim of child abuse and was due to face her perpetrator in court today.

Pietsch’s lawyer Ashley Halphen described his client’s disappointment with the legal system and said: "She is a kind and gentle person who acted out of character."

He said Pietsch, who lives on a disability support for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, had been spurred to action by Hinch’s blog.

In the blog post, Hinch says:

Is this a democracy or not? I’m off on sick leave next week for a minor operation but I’m tempted to get out of my sick bed and carry a white balloon down the Main Street of Wangaratta on Tuesday. This is Noddyland.

In court Judge McInerney criticised Hinch, describing his blog as "bile" and adding "a small minority put the 4th estate into disrepute".

"I accept the emotional fragility you must have been in," McInerney said to Pietsch, "And I understand you would be disappointed by the legal system. But your flagrant disregard of the court order must be punished."

White Balloon Day has been celebrated nationally for 13 years, raising awareness and funds for victims of child s-x abuse, but its symbolism is hardly well known.

Lawyer Sandip Mukerjea represented Braveheart founder Hetty Johnson in appealing the ban on September 7 and says the ban was unwarranted. Mukerjea says the issues of domestic abuse, child abuse and sexual offences are discussed in public every day and every day there is a trial regarding them somewhere in the country.

"But what the courts acknowledge is, to a large extent, so long as the public agitation of these issues is done in a general way and is played out as an overarching discourse on this issue and is not brought home to bear on the specifics of the particular trial, then the court will not stand in the way of that ongoing public discourse.

"I would have thought the same reasoning would have applied in Wangaratta, but the judge in that case was particularly sensitive to the risk of prejudice.

"Really flying a white balloon is no different to an article on the front page of The Age."

.......................................................................................................................................................

A SICK FAMILY RIDDLE
6th September 2009

I want to talk about Geelong’s Christian College and what went on there one recent Saturday night and ask how come? How come a convicted paedophile, Gary John Riddle, attended a teenage debutante ball at the weekend?

How come a convicted child molester, whom a judge said was a calculating predator who indecently assaulted nine girls, some as young as eight, got to sit at the same table as the school’s principal?

We know part of the reason. The college principal is his brother Daryl. It was a real family affair apparently at the Year 11 function.

The school has confirmed that Gary Riddle was seated at the event with wife Janine, a teacher at Christian College junior school, Daryl's wife Debbie, also a teacher at the junior school, his brother Stephen Riddle, who is principal of the junior school and his wife Heather, an administration assistant at the private school's middle school campus.

What a jolly lot. Forget about the message that sends to the parents of Riddle’s victims and to the victims and their brothers and sisters. ‘What Mr. Riddle did couldn’t have been too bad. Look there he is with the principal, laughing and joking and having a good time.’

The school’s Associate Principal, Glen McKeeman, said the event went ‘without incident’ and was a ‘wonderful family occasion'. Yeah, sure.

He wouldn’t comment on whether his superior had acted inappropriately by allowing Riddle to attend the event or whether he felt the school had breached a duty of care. Which it has.
Some parents are understandably angry.

As one said in a letter to the Geelong Advertiser ‘Daryl Riddle needs to answer why he allows a convicted paedophile to attend Christian College events.’

It’s worthwhile remembering what Gary Riddle did. He was charged with 14 counts of indecent assault against nine girls aged eight to 16, between 1971 and 1989, and was sentenced to five years in prison in 2002. The assaults took place in his role as a primary school teacher, sports coach and church youth group leader. The ultimate betrayer of trust.

He also worked as a contract gardener at Christian College from late 1995 to early 1999 before his position was terminated when rumours of a police investigation popped up. In 2002, the school said it regretted Gary Riddle's employment.

But not regrets enough to ban him from a school debutante ball. The message this sends to the victims is appalling. It’s no riddle what should happen to the principal, Daryl Riddle, who is on long service leave. He should be sacked.

HINCH SAYS: I interviewed the Chairman of the school Board Of Governors, Chris Golden who virtually said no law was broken and he could not stop Riddle attending. Couldn’t see why Riddle’s brother, the principal, should either. Forget about duty of care. The board also said on a statement that no parents had complained. A view contradicted in this email.

.......................................................................................................................................................

Derryn

You may be aware of the STORM occurring in Geelong. Ref Geelong Advertiser Friday 4/09.

Recently, the Christian College school principal had his brother (a convicted paedophile) attend my daughters debutant ball.

My daughter and my family were very distressed to learn of this.

The school board members are backing his decision saying “NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS” have been received. Which is an outright lie as I, as have, many, many other parents, complained formally “in writing” and receipt of such complaint has been acknowledged by the school.

They sent out a form letter to parents and have shown no remorse or consideration over the incident.

Just that Garry John Riddle (the convicted person) has committed no offence in attending the sanctioned school debutant ball. As it wasn’t on school grounds, where he is a prohibited to go.

Riddle has a history with regards to Christian College, he was employed as a gardener until a complaint from a parent discovered he was a convicted paedophile and was prohibited from being any near a school, yet alone employed by them. How he passed the mandatory police check has never been explained by the school.
Several relatives hold employment at the school several campuses… quite a case of nepotism.

(He was actually dismissed as a gardener before his conviction. Ed.)

September 6, 2009

.......................................................................................................................................................

THIS IS SUPERVISION?
28th July 2009

On the surface it looked good. The Herald Sun headline said: More Prison for sex fiends.

And the story read: ‘Victoria’s worst sex offenders will be held in custody beyond their maximum jail terms under new laws being introduced this year by the State Government.

In a toughening stance against sex predators, the Government this week will also unveil laws to compel sex offenders to inform Police of their internet passwords, chatroom logons and passport details.’

And that is good. This follows the government’s much-vaunted Extended Supervision Orders which enable authorities to impose curfews, restrict travel and enforce other restrictions. But the ESOs are full of loopholes that are being exploited by serial rapists and paedophiles.

And today’s newspaper report unwittingly proves that. The devil is in the detail as they say.

The story said: ‘A serious sex offender, who can’t be named, is one of the first rapists charged with committing fresh offences while subject to an ESO.’

Read that again. ‘A serious sex offender who can’t be named’. And therein lies the problem.

I have to be a bit careful here because I still face five charges of breaching suppression orders and naming several serial sex offenders.

But until our courts get serious on this matter of suppression then the rest is window dressing. There are more than a dozen serial sex offenders out there – serial rapists and child attackers – who cannot be named. Protected by the courts. A newspaper or TV station cannot name them or show their picture. Even when one has re-offended while having his identity hidden by an Extended Supervision Order. And how much supervision was he actually under if he could attack again?

They’ve got a Megan’s Law to expose such creatures in most American states. It is criminal that we don’t have one here.

.......................................................................................................................................................

BEWARE THE DRUMS
13th July 2009

I went to a rally in the Melbourne CBD yesterday. Not the colourful Harmony Rally that featured people in national dress and slogans of peace and love and accompanied by African drums and a highland pipe band playing swirling Waltzing Matilda. And the Premier, John Brumby.
I went to a much smaller rally. Not much more than 100 people on the cold windswept steps of Parliament House.

Brumby was invited. He didn’t even respond. A small gathering of people whose personal suffering –and later their abuse by our legal system – ironically was the trigger for the harmony march after the recent spate of racist bashings.

The rally on the steps of Parliament House was organized by the indefatigable Noel Mcnamara from the Crime Victims Support group. He’s been betrayed many times by the politicians who marched in harmony yesterday.

Been betrayed by Bracks and Brumby and Hulls. Had tea and scones with them in the building behind where we stood yesterday while being promised that suspended sentences were a thing of the past. That judges and magistrates would start implementing new, tougher, longer maximum sentences.

That home detention would only be used for minor crimes. That the extended supervision orders would protect the community, protect children. When in fact, they have been exploited by serial rapists and child molesters to keep their identities and photos and addresses secret from a long suffering public.

I looked around at those now familiar faces yesterday and wondered how they keep going. How they must dread every morning picking up the newspapers and reading about another molesting priest given a suspended sentence –which is no sentence at all. Another rapist of a little girl getting two years in jail. When the maximum is twenty. A child pornographer walking free. Another killer given bail while the wheels of so-called justice grind so slowly that they will observe two or three or four grieving Christmases in the absence of a dead son or daughter –while the killer still walks the streets awaiting a tactically delayed trial.

I talk again to people like George Halvargis, whose daughter was stabbed to death in a cemetery as she tended flowers on her grandmother’s grave. Killed by a sadist who should not have been out of jail.

And Shirley and Allan Irwin. Their two daughters were raped and stabbed to death by a violent man who should not have been out of jail and whom the do-gooders moved anonymously, and fatally, into their neighbourhood.

And I look at them and increasingly find it hard to find words of encouragement.

One asks me when we’ll get new magistrates. When will judges start making the punishment fit the crime? And I think of how Rob Hulls, over a decade, has appointed about 60% of all judges and magistrates to the bench. Not many of them resign after bodgying up a speeding ticket. Change will take ten years.

So I say to Premier Brumby and the Attorney-General. We heard the drums yesterday at your Harmony rally. Beware they don’t beat for you.

.......................................................................................................................................................

Spoke Too Soon
15th June 2009

A couple of telling developments in recent days have shown me –yet again – that I spoke too soon last month when I praised a Melbourne Court for finally handing down some strong sentences against child molesters.

The latest were in Melbourne and Adelaide. Meanwhile my Supreme Court action continues over those five criminal charges against me for allegedly naming two serial sex offenders. There will be appearances in both the Supreme and Magistrate’s Courts later this year.

On 3AW I said:

Ok. I’ll admit it. I spoke too soon. My faith was misplaced. Last month on the program I was talking (again) about our legal system and lenient judges whose penalties handed down do not fit the crimes committed.

But on this occasion I was commending judges after an Appeals Court got tough. It overturned two lenient sentences against two child sex offenders and increased their jail terms.

In one case, the original County Court judge told the offender the sexual offences against a three-year-old girl and a six-year-old girl were ‘extremely serious’. As they were. Their attacker was a predator who met his victims’ parents at a parenting class and ingratiated himself with the family.

The maximum penalties for sexual penetration of a child under ten is 25 years jail. The maximum for an indecent act with a child under 16 is 10 years.

The judge gave the man 2-1/2 years with a minimum of 15 months. The Appeals Court increased that sentenced to six years with a minimum of four.

But what was most encouraging was what was said by Justices Chris Maxwell, Robert Redlich and Ross Robson.

They said one sentence was ‘so disproportionate to the seriousness of the crimes as to shock the public conscience’. I made the point at the time that
the public conscience has been shocked and battered for years. It’s their judges who need a jolt.

Well, I spoke too soon. Two more cases dealt with in the past 48 hours show that judges are still out of touch. They talk tough from the Bench. And then they hand down sentences that would be laughable if they weren’t so sick. Glenn Wheatley spent more time in jail on tax charges than a child rapist gets. Go figure.

A child molesting priest, Desmond Gannon, was in court for the fifth time for offences committed over twenty years. He pleaded guilty to five counts of indecent assault on an 11-year-old boy. When Gannon was a Catholic priest in Kilmore he assaulted his victim in a car, on a bush track, in a pool. Even in a church.

Judge Frank Gucciardo damned the serial paedophile for his lack of remorse. He said Gannon’s absence of contrition ‘displays a turpitude of character that borders on the scandalous and is offensive to morality and the law.’ And no compassion for his victim.

Them’s fighting words. So what does the scandalized judge do? He jails Gannon for 25 months with a minimum of 14 months. Go figure.

And then there was the case of Jeffery Alan Brown. He moved in with a friend who had separated from his wife and was looking after his sons aged 11 and 13. Brown, who was also one boy’s football coach, indecently assaulted them and raped one.

Judge Barbara Cotterell said the abuse was very serious and ‘deplorable’.

‘Your behaviour meant that two very young boys were unable to feel safe or even comfortable in their own home.’ The offences occurred twenty years ago and the judge made much of the fact that Brown, now living in Queensland, had ‘accepted his wrongdoing, expressed disgust and remorse, and is prepared to face the consequences’. Only after he got caught.

For this deplorable behaviour Judge Cotterell sentenced Brown to two and a half years in jail. And then suspended all but nine months of it.

I spoke too soon. Who’s looking after the children?

And in Adelaide Now came the bizarre news that a Family Court Judge has granted custody of four young children to their father – a convicted paedophile and rapist.

The mother of the four youngsters, all aged under 15, requested custody at a recent Family Court hearing in Adelaide.

The unsuccessful application was made not long after the children's father was found guilty in the Adelaide District Court of multiple sex offences against a minor.

A transcript of the Family Court hearing shows the presiding judge was aware of the father's convictions and that he was on bail awaiting sentencing.

Further details, including the names of the family, cannot be legally reported. The mother and her current husband also both have criminal records.

However, child support groups have condemned the idea that a convicted pedophile could be granted custody of any child.

Victim Support Service SA said the community would be "alarmed" at a situation where a pedophile was allowed to care for children.

"Our organisation would be worried too about that, and we would want to know about the reasoning and rationale behind such a decision and what steps are in place to protect any child in such circumstances," the service's chief executive Michael Dawson said.

"I would think it is inappropriate for someone with a previous history - through conviction of crimes against children - to be provided with the opportunity to supervise children.

"From my personal experience, I've never heard of any such case before."

The Australian Childhood Foundation also expressed serious concern about the risks pedophiles pose to children, particularly in an unsupervised environment.

"Convicted pedophiles can't work as a teacher, be a foster carer or footy coach, because society recognises that past behaviour is the best indicator of future risk," foundation chief executive Joe Tucci said.

"So as a matter of principal, children shouldn't be in unsupervised contact or custody of an adult with convictions for sexual assault against children."

Mr Tucci said courts should err on the side of caution and treat convictions of sexual assault against children as a "red light" when deciding what is in a child's best interest.

A spokeswoman for the Family Court said judges could only award custody of a child to those parties who applied for it.

"If a judge has concerns about a child's welfare, they cannot make an order that a child be put in the care of the state," the spokeswoman said.

"A judge can ask but not compel a state welfare department to intervene if they believe a child is at risk of abuse or neglect."

The Department of Families and Communities said the Family Court may advise it of any "child protection concerns (the court has) about a child".

"Families SA assesses the notification like any other and takes action if necessary," a department spokesman said.

"Also, the Family Court may make a formal request that the Department of Families and Communities become a party to a case.

"If DFC accepts the request and becomes a party, it then makes representations to the court about what is in the best interests of the child or children."

You can sign the Name Them and Shame Them petition on Namethemshamethem.com.

.......................................................................................................................................................

Magistrates Court Again
29th April 2009

What should have been a fairly straight forward court appearance, to request another adjournment while matters were fought out in the Supreme Court, changed when the DPP decided to push for one of the five charges against me to be dealt with pronto. We finally got an adjournment until November –by which time the Supreme Court challenge should be on.

This is how it was reported today:

Derryn Hinch takes his legal fight to Supreme Court
Article from: AAP
Daniel Fogarty
April 28, 2009

DERRYN Hinch has gone to the Supreme Court in his fight against charges that he breached court orders by naming sex offenders.
A criminal case against the outspoken broadcaster, 64, was adjourned in the Magistrates' Court today while he seeks in the state Supreme Court to have two suppression orders set aside.

Lawyers for the Fairfax Radio Network broadcaster will argue County Court judges failed or wrongly applied a legislative test when making those orders.

It is alleged Hinch named sex offenders whose names were suppressed at a victims of crime rally on the steps of the Victorian Parliament in June last year, and on his website.

Hinch's lawyer David Gilbertson applied to the Magistrates' Court today to adjourn the criminal charges until the Supreme Court matter was heard. He said orders relating to three of Hinch's five charges would be challenged.

Mr Gilbertson said it would be argued a further charge was made in error. There would be no submission made challenging the fifth charge, he said.

Prosecutor Kim Swadesir opposed the adjournment, arguing Hinch's criminal matter must take precedence over the civil Supreme Court application.

The court heard it could be six months before the Supreme Court heard the application.

Magistrate Sarah Dawes said prosecutors were put on notice about the possibility of Supreme Court action at the first mention of the case.

"I don't think it is appropriate for this matter to be dealt with, with these other matters on foot," she said.

Ms Dawes adjourned the case until November for a contested hearing expected to take three days.

Hinch was not in court for today's hearing.

Speaking after a hearing last year he indicated he would strongly defend the charges.

"I have said before what I did, what I have done, I think is morally right and it is up to the courts to decide whether I am legally right or wrong," Hinch said.

Hinch fights contempt charges

Sarah-Jane Collins
April 28, 2009 -

Lawyers for Derryn Hinch say the outspoken radio host should not be facing contempt of court charges because some of the suppression orders he allegedly breached by naming convicted pedophiles should not have been made.

Hinch's legal team have applied to the Supreme Court to have the suppression orders prohibiting the identification of two Victorian sex offenders struck out, on the grounds that the County Court judges who made the orders either did not properly consider the test required, or misapplied it.

If the application is successful, three of the five charges against the radio shock jock will most likely be dropped, the Melbourne Magistrates Court heard today.

Hinch was charged last year after he allegedly named on air two pedophiles who's identities were suppressed. He also allegedly published their names on his website and announced their names to a rally on the steps of parliament house.

Yesterday, David Gilbertson, for Hinch, applied to the Magistrates Court to have the criminal charges against his client adjourned until the Supreme Court had dealt with the application to overturn the suppression orders.

He said that if Hinch's Supreme Court challenge was successful the first three charges would almost certainly be dropped.

Magistrate Sarah Dawes agreed that the Supreme Court matter should be heard before the criminal charges proceeded and adjourned the further hearing to November.

Hinch, a prominent campaigner against the suppression of the names of pedophiles, was jailed for 12 days in the 1980s for naming a pedophile priest.

.......................................................................................................................................................

A Rare Court Victory
17th April 2009

I was back in court today which is not rare. But what is rare is that I had a win. I was in County Court before Chief Judge Michael Rozenes for his judgement on my lawyers’ request for the handing over of other County Court Judges’ documents affecting my case in the Magistrate’s Court.

It’s been a long battle to get hold of court documents, supposedly public documents, to help in my defence. Initially, the Department of Justice and the Office of Public Prosecutions tried to thwart us.

In the Magistrate’s Court I’m facing five charges of breaching a suppression order in my campaign to stop convicted serial rapists and paedophiles from having their identities legally hidden from the public.

Last year I started a Name Them and Shame Them campaign designed to get what I think is a really a bad law overturned. A law called an Extended Supervision Order which, instead of protecting the community, is being exploited by some of the worst, most violent and depraved criminals in this country. Our petition goes on. You can sign it: Name them shame them.com. One word.

In court today Judge Rozenes ordered that the documents be handed over –on the proviso they are used exclusively for my defence when we go next to the Supreme Court to try to prove the original suppression orders were invalid and therefore no crime has been committed. I just have to keep remembering it’s all about protecting children. Keep you posted.

.......................................................................................................................................................

County Court Latest
27th March, 2009

Back in court today. This time the County Court (again) over charges that I identified serial sex offenders protected by court imposed suppression orders.

It’s been a long battle to get hold of court documents, supposedly public documents, to help in my defence.

At a County Court hearing earlier this month the Department of Justice and the Office of Public Prosecutions – so keen to prosecute me – didn’t even bother to turn up. To the surprise of the Chief Justice, Michael Rozenes.

They were represented today and, encouragingly, neither department opposed our application for those documents. The only lawyers to offer some opposition, surprise, surprise, represented the two paedophiles whose names and address have been suppressed.

The Chief Justice in the County Court, Judge Michael Rozenes, reserved his decision. And, if we eventually get his green light, we head to the Supreme Court to argue that those suppression orders were invalid.

.......................................................................................................................................................

Now, County Court
3rd March, 2009

I was back in court today. This time the County Court over charges that I identified serial sex offenders protected by court imposed suppression orders.

We’re still trying to get hold of court documents, supposedly public documents, to help in my defence. I’m back in court at the end of the month.

Perhaps, indicatively, the Office of Public Prosecutions and the Department of Justice – so keen to prosecute me – didn’t even bother to turn up in court today. To the surprise of the Chief Justice, Michael Rozenes.

The two paedophiles, at the centre of the case, were legally represented of course. By you -- the taxpayer. Their expensive lawyers paid for by Legal Aid.

Go figure.

.......................................................................................................................................................

Court Battle Continues
20th February 2009

I was back in court, yet again, Friday, February 20, for another Magistrate’s Court adjournment in a spinoff from my attempt to have a bad law overturned. The Extended Supervision Order law that protects and suppresses the identities of convicted serial rapists and paedophiles. Keeps their names and even photographs legally hidden from the public.

Next stop an appearance before the Chief Justice of the County Court, Michael Rozenes, to try to get some court transcripts released for my defence on five charges of breaching a suppression order.

The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow—and frustratingly and expensively but we will get there and letters like this one make it worthwhile:

Hello Derryn,

As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse I would like to thank you! Nobody stood up for us 25 years ago. Nobody spoke about Pedophilia back then and my parents moved next door to one unknowingly. If we had people like you, who spoke up and took a stand to protect society against these people then maybe what happened to my Brother and myself may never have come to pass.

I want you to know how I feel because by creating your Name them, Shame them campaign you are not just protecting and speaking up for the children of today and tomorrow but finally someone is standing up for the children of yesterday. You are standing up for me!!! Thank you so much!

What happened to me was many years ago but the pain, fear and anger are still in me. If I let myself, I still see the film I have in my head of everything that happened and I was only 4 years of age. All these do-gooders who think Men and women who do these atrocities need protecting need their heads examined. Protect the innocent... That is all that matters.

You have my full support on this matter. Good luck in court.

Natalie

As I said in my opening editorial on 3AW after that last court appearance:

Well, I was back in court again today. I’m facing five charges of breaching a suppression order in my campaign to stop convicted serial rapists and paedophiles from having their identities legally hidden from the public.

My case in the Magistrate’s Court is being hampered because I have still not been able to get hold of some County Court transcripts on which the charges against me are based. The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly. And it sometimes seems like a joke. That’s what I told the media outside court today: If this wasn’t so serious and didn’t have the potential of $60,000 in fines and/or 12 months jail it would be a joke.

Anyway, we now have a hearing before the Chief Judge of the County Court Michael Rozenes next month and then back to the Magistrate’s Court and probably end up in the Supreme Court.

I wish they’d spend as much time and energy chasing real criminals. Not somebody trying to stop them.

And then you look at cases like the one I covered this week. The case of convicted paedophile Jamie Armstrong. Earlier this month the 28-year-old pleaded guilty to 33 charges of sexual assault on children. Over 12 years he sexually assaulted little boys and girls. The youngest was two. The oldest was eleven.

He already had a previous conviction for indecently assaulting a little girl in a swimming pool. He got a minimum sentence of 18 months jail. Go figure.

If common sense, or morality, or community protection came into this issue I wouldn’t be in court at all. But, of course, the law’s the law. Forget about who’s looking after the children.

This was how the newspapers reported it:

Herald Sun

Hinch in court on five counts of breaching suppression orders
Paul Anderson
February 20, 2009

MEDIA commentator Derryn Hinch made a brief appearance in court today regarding five counts of breaching suppression orders.

The County Court suppression orders protect the identities of two pedophiles who have been released from prison.

Hinch, 65, is accused of publishing the names on his website and announcing their identities at a public rally in June last year.

At today’s hearing, Hinch’s lawyer, Peter Faris QC, said he was awaiting the release of documents crucial to the defence case.

The matter regarding those documents will be heard before the County Court on March 3.

Hinch’s case, pending a County Court ruling, was adjourned until March 23.

Outside court, Hinch remained defiant and said he had done nothing wrong.

He said the fight to secure the documents was a frustrating hiccup, costing money and time.

“I was just sitting there thinking if it wasn’t so serious, it would be a joke,” Hinch said.

“The wheels (of justice) grind slowly.

“We will get them (the documents). They are a very large part of the defence in my case.”

Hinch vows to keep fighting
20th February 2009

Broadcaster Derryn Hinch has vowed to continue defending charges of breaching suppression orders by naming alleged pedophiles.

The 65-year-old radio talk show veteran appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court today, where his lawyer, Peter Faris QC, asked magistrate Sarah Dawes for the case to be adjourned for a month.

Mr Faris said an application would be made to the County Court for transcripts relating to one of the suppression orders.

It is alleged the Fairfax Radio Network broadcaster breached the orders protecting the identities of two accused pedophiles at a victims of crime rally on the steps of the Victorian Parliament in June last year, as well as on his website, Hinch.net.

Hinch is charged with five counts of breaching a suppression order.

Outside court, the shock jock said the wheels of justice "grind slowly".

"I was sitting there thinking if it wasn't so serious it would be a joke," he said.

Hinch said the court was reluctant to hand over transcripts of the hearing but he was confident he would get them.

Hinch is due to next appear in court on March 23.
AAP

Coincidentally, this scary story appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser the following day.

MP blasts soft sentences

JOANNA VAUGHAN, SEAN FEWSTER
February 21, 2009

NOT a single rapist, child pornographer or killer driver received a maximum sentence in South Australia last financial year.

Figures obtained by The Advertiser show that offenders convicted in 2007-08 of assault, rape, producing child pornography and drug trafficking received sentences significantly lower than the maximum prescribed by law.

Even those who caused death by dangerous driving – for whom the Rann Government created a new maximum sentence of life in prison – escaped with an average of only 2.7 years' jail.

The figures were a response by the Government to a question on notice in Parliament by Family First MLC Dennis Hood.

"Clearly, the Parliament has shown that many crimes warrant much harsher penalties than the courts are currently prepared to issue," he said.

"Therefore, clearly the courts are not, in some cases, operating in line with the will of the Parliament.

"In terms of violent crimes, penalties are, and should be, very harsh and yet the courts refuse to pass the maximum penalties allowed to them by legislation."

Mr Hood said the Government's supposed "tough on crime" stance was not mirrored by the figures.

But Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said maximum penalties were reserved for the "very worst of the worst" offenders.

"I am thankful that the vast majority of offences in court in 2007-08 were not at the extreme end," he said.

Commissioner for Victims' Rights Michael O'Connell said he had been working to allow victims to have more of an impact on sentencing periods.

"There is currently legislation before Parliament that will give a victim more of a role in sentencing," he said.

"I believe this will give victims a better voice and help them come to terms with what has happened.

"But there is the view that not all victims want tougher sentences," Mr O'Connell said.
Mr Atkinson said the crime rate had declined since the Government increased penalties.
"The Rann Government has increased maximum penalties across the spectrum of criminal offences, including providing tougher penalties for drug offences, dangerous driving, sex crimes against children, rape and sexual assault, juvenile crime, property damage and violence-related charges," he said.

"At the same time, the crime rate has dropped by 33.6 per cent since 2002."

A breakdown of the statistics shows that of the 20 people convicted of rape, a crime with a maximum penalty of life in prison, the average sentence was seven years.

One person was sentenced to 17 years in jail, but eight others received suspended sentences.

The five people found guilty of producing child pornography, which has a maximum penalty of 10 years, received an average sentence of 3.75 years.

Of the 1015 people convicted of trafficking drugs, only 8 per cent were jailed immediately and the average sentence was 2.7 years.

Of the 2149 people who were guilty of assault, 6 per cent were jailed immediately, 20 per cent received suspended sentences and the average jail time was 24 weeks.

Additional information supplied by the Government shows that five people did receive a maximum penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse.

Mr Hood said the Government's policy of continually increasing the maximum penalty for offending "is nonsense because judges virtually never impose maximum penalties".

.......................................................................................................................................................

BACK TO COURT
20th November 2008

Well, it was back to court today in the next round of my continuing Name Them and Shame Them campaign. Another Magistrate’s Court hearing to face charges of breaching a suppression order.

As I said on 3AW today:

I was in court again today facing five charges of breaching a suppression order in my campaign to stop convicted serial rapists and paedophiles from having their identities legally hidden from the public.

A Name Them and Shame Them campaign designed to get a bad law overturned. A law called an Extended Supervision Order which, instead of protecting the community, is being exploited by some of the worst, most violent and depraved criminals in this country. Our petition goes on. You can sign it: Namethemshamethem.com. (We now have more than 6400 signatures from across Australia and round the world)

My case in the Magistrate’s Court was adjourned until February next year because I have still not been able to get hold of the Police brief of the charges against me. Nor the details of the very suppression orders I have allegedly breached. The wheels at the Department of Justice grind exceedingly slowly. But as I told the TV news reporters ‘That’s life’.

Earlier this month I attended a victims of crime rally in King’s Domain, just behind the Police Memorial. I told the families of victims that I am confident the Extended Supervision Order law –which currently protects criminals and harms the community –will be changed. I fervently believe that. And every time I am dragged into court is a reminder of the absurdity of these actions.

This is how the story was reported today:

HERALD SUN

Derryn Hinch in court to fight charges he allegedly breached court orders

By Georgie Pilcher
November 20, 2008

BROADCASTER Derryn Hinch appeared in court this morning as he continues his fight against charges of breaching suppression orders.

The case has been adjourned until February next year to give the prosecution time to compile a brief of evidence against Hinch.

(Actually it was for the defence to obtain material to compile our brief. DH)

Prosecutor Kimberley Swadesir this morning applied for an adjournment to allow sufficient time for the suppression order, which Mr Hinch is accused of breaching, to be varied so the brief of evidence could be served.

Hinch, 64, is facing five charges which relate to alleged breaches of County Court suppression orders protecting the identities of two pedophiles freed from prison.

The controversial 3AW drive-time host is accused of publishing their names on his website, www.hinch.net, and announcing their identities at a protest rally in June.

Hinch said outside court things were moving very slowly.

"The wheels of justice grind slowly and getting material out of the Department of Justice is a bit slow," he said.

"We still don't have the police brief or materials from the DPP.

"That's life," Mr Hinch said.

He will next appear at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on February 20 2009.

He was supported in court by partner Chanel and victims of crime.

THE AGE

'That's life': Hinch court case delayed

By Reko Rennie
November 20, 2008 -

Broadcaster Derryn Hinch's legal battle against five charges of breaching suppression orders by naming two pedophiles has suffered a setback due to legal delays, a Melbourne court heard today.

The Melbourne Magistrates Court heard the legal delay involved the Department of Justice and could take four weeks for a police brief of evidence to be served to Hinch's lawyers.
Last month the court heard that the Department of Justice needed to apply to the County Court to have suppression orders against Hinch varied, so the case could proceed.
Hinch was charged with naming sex offenders at a public rally in June and in an article on his website.

Hinch intends to fight the charges.

Magistrate Sarah Dawes adjourned the case until February 20 to allow Hinch's lawyers to be supplied with the police brief.

Outside court, Hinch said "the wheels of justice grind slowly".

"Getting material out of the Department of Justice is slow and a bit hard, they've adjourned the magistrate's proceedings until February," he said.

"In the meantime we still don't have the police brief, we still don't have the material from the DPP and until we get that, we can't launch our defence.

"It is annoying but that's life."

.......................................................................................................................................................

AND SO TO COURT
29th October

Today, October 29, was my first appearance in the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court on five charges stemming from the Name Them and Shame Them campaign which I started six months ago.

The charges, for allegedly breaching County Court suppression orders on several serial rapists and recidivist paedophiles, evolved from our Name Them and Shame Them rally on the steps of Parliament House and from my editorials here on hinch.net.

If convicted those penalties provide for fines in excess of $12,000 on each charge and up to 12 months in jail.

Today’s case was adjourned until November 20. As I said on 3AW, it’s complicated but basically the Office of Public Prosecutions hasn’t yet provided us with the Police brief on the case because that would involve them identifying the criminals I identified. Even though the Police themselves named those people in the summons served on me. We also plan Supreme Court action about the validity of the suppression orders and the issue of public benefit and my freedom of speech.

All of this results from my attempts to change a law. A law that was designed to protect the community but instead protects serial offenders. The Extended Supervision Order.

Six months I launched a campaign to have that law overturned. A law which thousands of people think is a bad law. On the surface it sounds good for the community. Sounds like it is protecting the community. Extending the supervision of serial rapists and recidivist paedophiles after they leave jail. It’s not good. It’s bad. It actually helps sex offenders hide their identities after they are released back into society.

I said at the time: Murderers don’t get their names suppressed when they complete their sentence and leave jail. Why should rapists of women and children?

It prompted our rally and the Name Them and Shame Them petition which has now been signed by more than 6000 people from Australia, New Zealand, England, Russia, the United States and Turkey. It says quite simply:

‘WE, the undersigned, demand the Victorian Parliament change the laws so that a judge or magistrate cannot suppress the identity of a serious sex offender unless such identification will also identify a victim.’

You can still sign that petition at namethemshamethem.com.

Again today I was asked by journalists: Did I think I was morally and legally in the right. My answer? I know I was morally right. Whether or not I was legally right is for the courts to decide. And that’s the way it should be. And that’s the way it will be. Next court date November 20.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

This was how various newspapers and news agencies covered today’s story.

THE AGE:
Hinch to launch Supreme Court challenge over charges
By Steve Butcher

Derryn Hinch and his wife Chanel (left) outside the Melbourne Magistrates Court. Photo: John Woudstra

Broadcaster Derryn Hinch plans to launch a Supreme Court challenge against five charges of breaching suppression orders by naming two pedophiles.

Hinch's barrister Peter Faris, QC, told a Melbourne court today his client would challenge the validity of the suppression orders made in the Supreme Court.

Mr Faris said Hinch would claim the law under which he had been charged was in breach of Victoria's charter of human rights and responsibilities.

Hinch would also claim it had removed his right of freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and to the system for open courts.

Hinch was charged after he named the sex offenders at a public rally in June and named them in an article on his website.

Police later charged Hinch with having published or cause to be published material which identified an offender in contravention of suppression orders made in 2007 and this year.
Mr Faris described as "somewhat farcical" that the Department of Justice would now have to apply to the County Court to have the suppression orders varied so the case against Hinch can proceed.

Prosecutor Lisa Mendicino told Melbourne Magistrates Court that the Director of Public Prosecutions was not a party to the making of the suppression orders and therefore could not vary them.

Hinch said outside court he believed that what he had done was "morally right" and that the court would decide whether he was legally right or wrong.

Magistrate Sarah Dawes adjourned the charges until November 20 to allow Hinch's lawyers to be supplied with the police brief.

AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS

Vic: Hinch to fight charges for naming sex offender Hinch Nightlead (Pix available) By Daniel Fogarty

MELBOURNE, Oct 29 AAP - Defiant broadcaster Derryn Hinch said he was morally right to name and shame sexual offenders and will fight charges of breaching court orders.

Hinch, 64, today appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on charges of breaching five Victorian County Court suppression orders.

It is alleged Hinch named the offenders at a victims of crime rally on the steps of the Victorian parliament in April and on his website.

Outside court, Hinch said he did the right thing by naming the offenders.

"I have said before what I did, what I have done, I think is morally right and it is up to the courts to decide whether I am legally right or wrong," Hinch said.

"We think we have a case in the Supreme Court on how the suppression orders were worded and how they were served."

His lawyer Peter Faris QC told the court Hinch would challenge the validity of the suppression orders in the Victorian Supreme Court.

Mr Faris said suppression of names of sexual offenders was not in the public interest and breached the broadcaster's human right of free speech.

"It is our intention to apply to the Supreme Court to challenge the validity of the suppression orders, we say they weren't made according to law," Mr Faris said.

Earlier, the court was told Hinch's legal team was having trouble accessing documents about the charges against him, because prosecutors felt handing over the documents would breach the suppression order.

The court heard the Department of Justice would seek to have the orders varied to allow the case to proceed.

Hinch, wearing a blue suit with no tie and stripy blue and white shirt, had several supporters in court, including his fourth wife Chanel Hayton and victims of crime advocate Noel McNamara.

Mr McNamara, who was also at the April rally, questioned why he had not been charged.

"There are 300 of my members waiting for their (court summons) to come in the post," Mr McNamara said.

"Everyone that was there said the names that we are not allowed to mention."

Hinch, who requested the court withhold his address from publication, was jailed in 1987 for revealing on radio the past convictions of a paedophile priest.

He faces up to one year in jail and fines in excess of $12,000 on each charge if convicted.

Magistrate Sarah Dawes adjourned the case for further mention on November 20.

HERALD SUN
I was right to out paedophiles, Derryn Hinch tells court

By Elissa Hunt
BROADCASTER Derryn Hinch says he was morally right to publicly name pedophiles despite facing criminal charges for it.

Hinch today faced court for allegedly breaching court orders banning the names of convicted sex offenders being released to the public.

His lawyer Peter Faris QC told Melbourne Magistrates’ Court his client would take his fight against the five charges to the Supreme Court.

The charges allege breaches of County Court suppression orders protecting the identities of two pedophiles that have been released from prison.

He is accused of publishing their names on his website www.hinch.net and announcing their identities at a protest rally in June this year.

Mr Faris told the court he would be launching a Supreme Court challenge to the validity of the orders his client is charged with breaching, saying they were not made in the public interest.

He said the charges were a breach of the Human Rights Charter as they removed his client’s right to free speech and the openness of the courts.

Hinch was supported in court by wife Chanel and crime victims’ advocate Noel McNamara.

Outside court Hinch said he felt what he had done was morally right but it was now up to the courts to decide if it was right or wrong.

Magistrate Sarah Dawes adjourned the case to November.

.......................................................................................................................................................

PETITION LATEST

Dressing Gown Dressing Down
7th October 2008

On Monday morning, October 6, I received a knock on the apartment door. It was two police officers to serve a Summons on me for five offences related to the Name Them and Shame Them campaign and rally. I was tempted to say ‘What took you so long?’

The five charges, which I must face in Melbourne Magistrate’s Court on October 29, 2008, relate to alleged breaches of County Court suppression orders back in May and June and to the rally I held on the steps of Parliament House on June 1.

I suppose I could ‘thank heavens for small mercies’. The charges were out of the Magistrate’s Court and not the Supreme Court which meant they were not indictable offences and I could be charged on summons rather than be arrested. One police officer told me months ago that the Hinch ‘hot potato’ had gone from the Police up to the DPP before being sent back to the Police Commissioner’s Office and then to the Sexual Crimes Squad. As if they haven’t got more important things to do.

He also said that the decision to make it a Magistrate’s Court issue was because ‘they’ (whoever ‘they’ are) wanted to keep it ‘low key’. Wishful thinking.

Maybe that’s why, having been told I would be served at 3AW last Friday, Police were turned off by the bevy of TV cameras and reporters outside the station and waited until Monday morning for a home visit.

I have been swamped with e-mails of support and for that I thank you. Many supporters had been to that rally at Parliament House. And the renewed interest has brought a surge of additional signatories to the petition. Believe me, eventually, when all this is over, that bad law will be overturned.

This is how the Herald Sun reported the latest news:

Derryn Hinch defiant on naming fiends
By Paul Anderson

DERRYN Hinch was defiant after being told by police he would be charged for publicly identifying two sex offenders.

The man known as the Human Headline expects to be charged with five counts of breaching a suppression order - three times on his website and twice at a crime victims' rally on the steps of Parliament in June.

Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 12 months' jail and a $12,000 fine.

It is not the first time Hinch has faced the prospect of jail for naming sex monsters.

In 1985, Hinch was jailed for identifying a pedophile priest on criminal charges.

Hinch told the Herald Sun yesterday news of the latest charges came as no surprise.

On air during his afternoon radio program, he went further, maintaining serious sex offenders should be named after their release from jail.

"Six months ago, I launched a campaign to have a law overturned. A law which thousands of people think is a bad law," he said.

"It actually helps sex offenders hide their identities after they are released back into society.
"There's a postscript concerning that law and my campaign to have it repealed. A short time ago, I was told by police I would be served a summons to appear in Melbourne Magistrates' Court on five criminal charges for allegedly breaching County Court suppression orders by identifying two offenders.

"I've been asked did I think I was morally and legally in the right? My answer is I know I was morally right. Whether or not I was legally right is for the courts to decide."

In 1985, he was convicted of contempt of court for identifying pedophile priest Michael Charles Glennon, who was on criminal charges at the time.

Hinch was jailed for 12 days and fined $15,000.

"I felt I had a bigger responsibility to the community at large than I did to Father Glennon," Hinch said during that contempt hearing."

.......................................................................................................................................................

July 1, 2008

Our Name Them and Shame Them petition has now reached 4900 . I have signatures and comments from all over Australia. From Hong Kong. Singapore. From Blackpool and Surrey. From Turkey and Sweden.

When it gets to 5000 names—all collected since our rally on Parliament House steps a few weeks ago – I will submit the petition to the Victorian Premier John Brumby and Attorney-General Rob Hulls.

You can still sign it by going directly to namethemshamethem.com.

The petition reads:

WE, the undersigned, demand the Victorian Parliament change the laws so that a judge or magistrate cannot suppress the identity of a serious sex offender unless such identification will also identify a victim.

I received the following e-mail:

Hi Derryn,

I have followed the progress of www.namethemshamethem.com ‘gopetition’ and checking tonight, I see you have over 4900 signatures. Well done. Here is some information for your interest and at the time of writing:

On the most 100 active internationally, it currently rates number 32.

Also at the time of writing I see it is number 92 out of over 17,000 petitions world-wide. This includes 75 countries.

Thought you might be interested in the stats. I have also noted that there are many many ‘blogs’ (written by individuals) out there naming the petition, so people are spreading the word it seems and it is coming up on the major search engines.

Cheers Derryn and take care

Robert M Gardner AFAIM
Shenandoah
Enfield Victoria Australia

Online petition - Name Them and Shame Them

.......................................................................................................................................................

WE NAMED THEM AND SHAMED THEM

Several thousand protesters massed at the Parliament House steps on Sunday to demand the Victorian Government pass a law that prevents serial rapists and child sex offenders from being released incognito back in the community.

The Name Them and Shame Them rally stemmed from my campaign on 3AW and on the Internet protesting against what I believe is the misuse of new Extended Supervision Orders.

Notorious repeat offenders have used the laws to request suppression orders that forbid publication of their names, photos and even the names of accomplices. And our courts have been granting those requests—putting the criminals ‘rehabilitation’ ahead of community safety. They have been giving protection and privileges to paedophiles and rapists that are not afforded to convicted murderers.

At today’s rally, attended by victims, victims’ parents, grandparents and just concerned citizens, there were demands for the introduction, in Australia, of a Megan’s Law, similar to national legislation in the United States where any citizen can punch in a post code and find out the names, photos, addresses, crimes and time served of sex offenders.

For me, today was a case of ‘ sweet and sour’. Sweet – because so many concerned and angry and frustrated parents came out in the fog to add their support. Sour – because they shouldn’t have had to do it. Our political leaders should be leading the campaign.

A law banning the suppression of these degenerates’ identities is just common sense. The community deserves no less.

Some moving memories from today: Moving through the crowd, talking to tearful victims, young and old, many who have never seen a skerrick of justice.

And listening to a brave woman, Shirley Irwin --whose two daughters were raped and murdered by a violent serial rapist, whose past crimes and identity were hidden from the community when he moved in next door, She said “Enough is Enough”.

I thought of a time, 35 years ago, when another man stood on the steps of Parliament House in another city and shouted ‘Maintain the Rage’.

I repeated those words today. And our rage will be maintained until this law is changed.

Our petition grows by the hour. On namethemshamethem.com we now have more than four thousand names from all over Australia and New Zealand as well as England, Turkey, Dubai, Hong Kong and the United States.

HERALD SUN I was right to out paedophiles, Derryn Hinch tells court

HERALD SUN
I was right to out paedophiles, Derryn Hinch tells court