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

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.

 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.                                                  

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.

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.                                                   

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