Placeholder Content Image

"Felt like a criminal": Mother and disabled son "kicked out" of Pink concert

<p>A distraught mother has taken to social media to recall the moment her and her seven-year-old son, who has Down syndrome, were asked to leave a concert venue. </p> <p>Vanessa Vasey, 48, spent over $1,000 to take her son Jesse to see Pink in London during her UK stadium tour, but when the pair arrived at the venue, things took a turn. </p> <p>Jesse struggled to stay still in his seat and was soon surrounded by "six security guards" who ordered the disabled boy to sit down, otherwise they would have to leave.</p> <p>She said she tried to explain her son’s condition to the guards but they ended up being “escorted from the premises” just as Pink took to the stage.</p> <p>On Facebook, Vasey wrote in detail about what happened, saying her son had been “robbed” of a special experience.</p> <p>“Music is his life and Pink is one of his absolute favourites,” she wrote.</p> <p>“We successfully saw her perform at BST Hyde Park last year and were thrilled to learn of her return again this year.”</p> <p>Vasey said she purchased more expensive “hospitality tickets” allowing people to move between bars and food outlets during the night “so that Jesse wouldn’t be pressured into remaining in one seat all night, as he gets overwhelmed in busy environments and finds it hard to sit still.”</p> <p>“We spent some time in the bar leading up to the main act, and Jesse was having a wonderful time, until about 45 minutes before Pink was due to come on, they suddenly shut all the blinds, obstructing us from seeing anything,” she wrote.</p> <p>“I tried to consult with the hospitality managers over this, and explained Jesse’s needs, but they wouldn’t budge on it. So not wanting Jesse to stare at a blind all night, we attempted to go into the seating zone."</p> <p>“We couldn’t get him to sit in his seat, but he was happy dancing and singing at the front railings, and even interacting with some of the other guests."</p> <p>“Doing no harm to anyone, or obstructing anyone’s view. This seemed OK for about half an hour or so. Then ... just as Pink dropped from the sky in her opening number, we had six security guards come into the zone and ask us to leave or sit in our seats.”</p> <p>Vasey said the security guards were “abrupt, intimidating and unpleasant”, as they "tried to force us to take Jesse to a sensory room which was soundproof, and watch Pink on a screen.” </p> <div> </div> <p>“Something we could do at home, robbing us of the whole experience, as if my son was some sort of inconvenience, and better off shut in a room out of sight.”</p> <p>When Vasey complained to venue staff, she claims that more security guards appeared and they had no choice but to leave. </p> <p>“We were escorted out of the building like criminals and saw no more of the Pink show. Jesse was utterly devastated, and they showed absolutely zero care or understanding."</p> <p>“Shame on you Tottenham Stadium,” she concluded. “My poor boy deserved so much better than this!”</p> <p>After UK media picked up Vasey's story, Tottenham Stadium released a statement explaining their actions. </p> <p>“Following further investigation, we can confirm that Ms Vasey was offered assistance by our Safeguarding and Welfare teams throughout the night to provide Jesse with a comfortable viewing experience, including access to our dedicated Sensory Room,” the statement read.</p> <p>“The offers of assistance were declined by Ms Vasey and the party chose to leave the event.”</p> <p>Vasey was soon set upon by online trolls who condemned her choice to take Jesse to the concert in the first place, to which she issues a lengthy statement about inclusivity and not singling people out for their disabilities. </p> <p>“Why do we take them [to events]? Because, as parents, we have the same dreams and aspirations for our children as any other parent,” she wrote.</p> <p>“We have the same desires to see our children’s faces light up, as any other parent would. Our children are exposed to the same world as other children, and they enjoy the same things."</p> <p>“They have the same likes and desires. The only thing that’s different is their needs, their abilities and their way of accessing their dreams."</p> <p>“Why should these things deny them of fulfilling these dreams and passions? This is meant to be a world of inclusion. So let’s start including!"</p> <p>“That means adapting, understanding, supporting and most importantly; changing the way we deliver these privileges so that they are privileges for all of us, and not just some of us.”</p> <p><em>Image credits: Facebook/Richard Isaac/Shutterstock Editorial </em></p> <div class="hide-print ad-no-notice css-qyun7f-StyledAdUnitWrapper ezkyf1c0" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: #292a33; color: #292a33; font-family: HeyWow, Montserrat, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;"> </div>

Caring

Placeholder Content Image

New claim from Mexican criminal cartel over murdered Aussie brothers

<p>A member of the Sinaloa Cartel has claimed that they were the ones who handed the robbers accused of <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/i-killed-them-major-twist-in-slain-aussie-brothers-case" target="_blank" rel="noopener">murdering two Aussie brothers</a> and their American friend over to police. </p> <p>The city of Ensenada, near where the murders occurred, is under the control of a faction of the Sinaloa Cartel, and now they have debunked <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/travel/travel-trouble/doesn-t-add-up-new-theory-emerges-in-perth-brothers-deaths" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previous theories </a>that believed the cartel were involved somehow. </p> <p>“They were low-level robbers acting alone,” a member of the group, who chose to remain anonymous, told <em>The Daily Beast</em>. </p> <p>“But we handed them over. We learned that the cops were looking for the gringos and also began looking for those who were responsible. We called the authorities to let them know where to find them.”</p> <p>The cartel member added that the group was afraid of "unwanted attention" from Mexican authorities. </p> <p>Callum Robinson, 33, Jake Robinson, 30, and their friend Jack Carter Rhoad, 30, were all killed in what police have characterised as a bungled robbery while they were camping in the Baja California region during a surfing trip. </p> <p>The trio were reported missing on April 27 after they failed to check-in at their next accommodation. Their bodies were discovered in a well over the weekend with <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/health/caring/tragic-new-details-emerge-over-aussie-brothers-missing-in-mexico" target="_blank" rel="noopener">gunshots </a>to the head, around seven kilometres from where they were killed. </p> <p>Three people have been arrested, with the alleged ringleader charged with “forced disappearance”. He has not yet entered a plea and charges are expected to be upgraded to murder in the coming days. </p> <p><em>Image: Instagram/ 7NEWS</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Matildas captain Sam Kerr to face criminal trial

<p>Matildas superstar Sam Kerr has found herself at the centre of legal proceedings in London, as she pled not guilty to charges stemming from an alleged incident involving a police officer earlier this year.</p> <p>Kerr, aged 30, appeared before Kingston Crown Court via videolink to contest accusations of using insulting, threatening or abusive language towards a police officer in Twickenham on January 30.</p> <p>During the hearing, Kerr confirmed her identity and entered a "not guilty" plea to the charge, which was later confirmed by the Metropolitan Police. The specifics of the charge were outlined in a police charge sheet, citing Kerr for a racially aggravated offence under Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. The incident allegedly occurred during police intervention related to a complaint involving a taxi fare.</p> <p>The trial, slated to commence in February 2025, is expected to span four days, during which two police officers will provide evidence. Meanwhile, Football Australia (FA) has issued a statement acknowledging the legal proceedings involving Kerr, asserting their commitment to support all players both on and off the field. However, due to the ongoing legal nature of the situation, further comments were withheld.</p> <p>“Football Australia is aware of the legal proceedings involving Sam Kerr in the United Kingdom,” the statement read. “As this is an ongoing legal matter, we are unable to provide further comment at this time. Our focus remains on supporting all our players, both on and off the field. We will continue to monitor the situation and provide support as appropriate.”</p> <p>The announcement comes after Kerr's unfortunate sidelining from both club and international duties. Suffering an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury during Chelsea's warm-weather training camp in Morocco, Kerr faces a prolonged period of rehabilitation, ruling her out of action for the foreseeable future. Her absence from the Matildas' lineup is particularly sorely felt, with preparations for the Paris Olympics underway.</p> <p>Despite the setback, Football Australia has not officially ruled Kerr out of contention for the Olympics. However, the typical recovery timeline for ACL injuries suggests a lengthy rehabilitation process, casting doubts on Kerr's participation in the upcoming tournament scheduled to begin on July 26.</p> <p><em>Images: Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Council accused of "endorsing criminals" after statue vandalised

<p>The Yarra City Council has been accused of pandering to those who <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/captain-cook-memorial-vandalised-ahead-of-january-26th" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vandalised</a> a statue of Captain Cook in the days before Australia Day. </p> <p>In the early hours of the morning on January 25th, a statue of the British colonist was sawn off at the ankles, while "The colony will fall" was spray-painted on the stone column. </p> <p>Now, the Victorian city council will vote on whether to remove the statue for good, with one councillor claiming that replacing it would be a "waste of money".</p> <p>However, a spokesperson for local residents said "giving in" to vandals would only encourage such destructive behaviour.</p> <p>"If you're going to let vandals and criminals win, then you might as well give up altogether," Adam Promnitz, founder of the Yarra Residents Collective, told Melbourne radio station <em>3AW</em>.</p> <p>While Mr Promnitz admitted there were changing conversations around Australia Day in the inner Melbourne are,a he said this was the wrong way to have a discussion about removing the 110-year-old statue.</p> <p>"This isn't the right way to do things," he said.</p> <p>"You don't just get your own way by being destructive and anti-social and causing criminal damage."</p> <p>"How can it be a good outcome for any body when it is basically a green light for vandals and criminals everywhere that we'll let you get away with what you want and you'll get what you want if you behave like this?"</p> <p>Councillor Stephen Jolly said the majority of the council didn't share this view, telling the <em>Herald Sun</em> that replacing the statue would come at a cost that would better spent elsewhere in the community. </p> <p>"Even people who love Captain Cook, who love Australia Day, will see that repairing a statue that costs thousands to fix isn't the most important thing to spend money on," Cr Jolly said.</p> <p>"Residents want better bin services, more childcare services, cheaper swimming pools."</p> <p>"All of these things are a better way of spending the money [than] on a statue that we know is absolutely certain is going to get ripped down again."</p> <p><em>Image credits: 9News</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Even after his death, Rolf Harris’ artwork will stand as reminders of his criminal acts

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gregory-dale-1441894">Gregory Dale</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a></em></p> <p>Australian entertainer and artist Rolf Harris has died at the age of 93.</p> <p>After a prominent career as an artist, particularly in the UK, in 2014 <a href="https://theconversation.com/rolf-harris-guilty-but-what-has-operation-yewtree-really-taught-us-about-sexual-abuse-28282">Harris was convicted</a> of 12 counts of indecent assault.</p> <p>For his victims, his death might help to close a painful chapter of their lives.</p> <p>However, what will become of the prodigious output of the disgraced artist?</p> <h2>Jack of all trades, master of none</h2> <p>Harris developed an interest in art from a young age. At the age of 15, one of his portraits was <a href="https://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/prizes/archibald/1946/">selected for showing</a> in the 1946 Archibald Prize. Three years later, he won the Claude Hotchin prize.</p> <p>These would be among the few accolades he would collect in the art world. In truth, he was never really recognised by his peers.</p> <p>The Art Gallery of Western Australia in Perth, from where he hailed, never added any of his artworks to its collection.</p> <p>Harris rose to prominence primarily as a children’s entertainer and then later as an all-round television presenter. There is a generation of Australians and Britons who grew up transfixed to their TV sets as Harris transformed blank canvases into paintings and cartoons in the space of just 30 minutes.</p> <p>His creativity also extended to music. He played the didgeridoo and his own musical creation, “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobble_board">the wobble board</a>”. He topped the British charts in 1969 with the single Two Little Boys. However, he is probably more famous for the song Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport.</p> <p>Perhaps the ultimate recognition came in 2005, when he was invited to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty_Queen_Elizabeth_II_%E2%80%93_An_80th_Birthday_Portrait">paint Queen Elizabeth II</a>. His audience with the queen was filmed for a BBC documentary starring Harris. His portrait of her majesty briefly adorned the walls of Buckingham Palace, before being displayed in prominent British and Australian galleries.</p> <h2>Criminal conviction and the quick retreat from his art</h2> <p>In 2014, Harris was found guilty of 12 counts of indecent assault against three complainants, aged 15, 16 and 19 years at the times of the crimes. These incidents occurred between 1978 and 1986.</p> <p>Before sentencing Harris to five years and nine months imprisonment, the sentencing judge <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/the-full-statement-from-the-judge-who-sentenced-rolf-harris-to-jail-20140704-3bee0.html">commented</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>You took advantage of the trust placed in you, because of your celebrity status, to commit the offences […] Your reputation now lies in ruins.</p> </blockquote> <p>What followed was a public retreat from his artwork.</p> <p>It is worth asking why this was the public response, when the subject matter of his artwork was innocuous and unremarkable. Among his visual artworks were portraits and landscapes. None of them depicted anything particularly offensive or controversial.</p> <p>Nevertheless, many of those who owned his works felt the need to dissociate themselves with Harris. His portrait of the queen <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28105318">seemed to vanish</a> into thin air. In the wake of his convictions, no one claimed to know of its whereabouts.</p> <p>Harris had also painted a number of permanent murals in Australia. Many these were <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/rolf-harris-mural-in-caulfield-to-be-painted-over-20140706-zsy3n.html">removed</a> or <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-06/rolf-harris-mural-on-theatre-survives-vote-for-destruction/9518358">permanently obscured</a>.</p> <h2>The roles of guilt and disgust</h2> <p>Guilt seems to play a <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:d3f7264">prominent role</a> in explaining why owners remove such artworks from display.</p> <p>Art is inherently subjective and so it necessarily forces the beholder to inquire into the artist’s meanings. When an artist is subsequently convicted of a crime, it is perhaps natural to wonder whether their art bore signs that there was something untoward about them.</p> <p>Some artists even promote this way of thinking. In fact, Harris authored a book entitled <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2883465-looking-at-pictures-with-rolf-harris">Looking at Pictures with Rolf Harris: A Children’s Introduction to Famous Paintings</a>.</p> <p>In it, he wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>You can find out a lot about the way an artist sees things when you look at his paintings. In fact, he is telling us a lot about himself, whether he wants to or not.</p> </blockquote> <p>When facing the artwork of a convicted criminal, our subjective feelings of guilt persist because we have, in some tiny way, shared a role in their rise and stay as an artist. This makes it difficult to overcome the feeling that the artwork contains clues to the artist’s criminality. We can also feel guilty deriving pleasure from a piece of art whose maker caused others great pain.</p> <p>Disgust also plays a central role in our retreat from the criminal’s artwork.</p> <p>Disgust is a powerful emotion that demands we withdraw from an object whose mere presence threatens to infect or invade our bodily integrity.</p> <p>Related to disgust is a anthropological theory known as the “<a href="https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-xpm-2014-feb-24-la-sci-sn-price-of-fame-celebrity-contact-boosts-value-of-objects-20140222-story.html">magical law of contagion</a>”. An offensive person leaves behind an offensive trace that continues to threaten us. It is not based on reason but instinct.</p> <p>In essence, the criminal has left their “negative” traces on their artwork.</p> <p>This explains why Harris’ paintings, although of innocuous images, suddenly became eyesores and their market value dropped. Owners of such artwork might also feel compelled to show their disgust openly, to publicly extricate themselves from the artist.</p> <p>No one wants to be seen to condone the behaviour of a sexual offender.</p> <p>Even after his death, Harris’ artwork will continue to stand as reminders of his criminal acts.</p> <p><em>If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call <a href="https://www.1800respect.org.au">1800RESPECT</a> on 1800 737 732. In an emergency call 000.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206282/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></em></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gregory-dale-1441894">Gregory Dale</a>, Lecturer, TC Beirne School of Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/even-after-his-death-rolf-harris-artwork-will-stand-as-reminders-of-his-criminal-acts-206282">original article</a>.</em></p>

Art

Placeholder Content Image

Rebel Wilson’s criminal save

<p> While Rebel Wilson has found her forever love with designer Ramona Agruma, it took overcoming a few bumps in the dating road to get there.</p> <p>Speaking on the <em>U Up?</em> podcast, the <em>Pitch Perfect </em>star revealed one of the more notable dating near-disasters she experienced, and how it was her castmates who saved her. </p> <p>“I did go out with one guy I nicknamed ‘The Criminal’,” she told hosts Jordana Abraham and Jared Freid.</p> <p>“I think he was like a legit criminal. Basically, the <em>Pitch Perfect</em> girls saved me from that one.”</p> <p>She went on to explain that her co-stars had managed to find out “some s**t on the internet” about the guy, and warned her to steer clear of the man. She had, apparently, met him on the set of another production. </p> <p>Suspicion arose for them when the man agreed to come to New York to spend the weekend with Rebel, but refused to share the details of his flight with her. Upon pressing him for an explanation, the man confessed that he was not allowed to fly across state lines as he was “under investigation”. </p> <p>And while the relationship had been a “casual thing, so I [Rebel] didn’t get too deep into that situation”, she added that she felt the need to let him down “easy” as she didn’t want to put herself at risk with an alleged criminal. </p> <p>It wasn’t the only story that Rebel chose to share during her appearance, with the 43-year-old also opening up about how she’d actually been “dumped” by a woman before crossing paths with fiancée Ramona Agruma - with whom she shares daughter Royce Lillian. </p> <p>“I met a woman and had, like, feelings for her, which totally came as a blindside,” Rebel admitted. “It wasn’t what I was expecting.”</p> <p>“I said the words, ‘I don’t want to offend you, but are you interested in women?’</p> <p>“I’ve never had a conversation like that [before] because I was dating dudes and never had to talk about sexuality.</p> <p>“She was like, ‘I have feelings for you as well’.”</p> <p>She noted that it was difficult for her to put her feelings into words, but that time they had together was “very important” to her, and that she wouldn’t be naming her partner out of respect.</p> <p>Things obviously “didn’t end up going anywhere”, but the relationship helped her open up to her sexuality, and she met Ramona soon after. </p> <p>And the rest, as they say, is romantic history. </p> <p><em>Images: Getty </em></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

"Gross criminal neglect": Brisbane mum receives sentence for death of daughters in hot car

<p>Queenslander Kerri-Anne Conley has been sentenced to nine years in prison for the deaths of her two young daughters. </p> <p>The 30-year-old woman from Logan pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter - of two-and-a-half-year-old Darcey-Helen and 18-month-old Chloe-Ann - in Brisbane Supreme Court this week, and today received her sentence from Supreme Court Justice Peter Applegarth. </p> <p>Initially, she had been charged with the murder of her daughter under a law that expanded the definition of the offence, including reckless indifference to human life. However, this Tuesday Kerri-Ann gave a guilty plea to the downgraded manslaughter charges, as well as to the possession of dangerous drugs and utensils. </p> <p>In November 2019, Kerri-Ann had taken her daughters Darcey-Helen and Chloe-Ann to her friend’s house, and then made the “deliberate decision” to leave the toddlers in their car seats upon returning home, before going inside to sleep. Both girls died of hyperthermia at their Waterford West home.</p> <p>"Your first, grossly negligent conduct was in deciding to leave your children in that vulnerable place, uncared for, unheard, and unobserved in the dark," Justice Peter Applegarth declared when handing down Kerri-Ann’s sentence. </p> <p>"Not checking on the children and securing their safety at 6am was another aspect of your ongoing, gross criminal neglect of your duty of care as their mother,” he went on to say. </p> <p>"One can only hope that these little girls slowly succumbed to the growing heat of the day much earlier that morning and faded into a deep sleep from which they never returned.</p> <p>"The alternative of them being awake, distressed, and trapped in their seats is too much to bear thinking about for too long."</p> <p>Kerri-Ann allegedly went to sleep at 6am, after spending time on her phone, and came to find the girls nine hours later. It is estimated that temperatures within the car reached up to 61 degrees Celsius through the day, and the children were lifeless as she pulled them from the vehicle. </p> <p>When paramedics arrived, the girls were hot to the touch, covered in blisters, and had skin peeling from them. They were tragically declared dead at the scene. </p> <p>The court also heard that before Kerri-Ann even contacted emergency services, she attempted to dispose of drug paraphernalia. </p> <p>Justice Applegarth was firm in the belief that "no child should have a parent who uses methamphetamine". Kerri-Ann later admitted to the police that she had taken ice the day before. </p> <p>Of Kerri-Ann’s “egregious breach of trust” against her defenceless children, Crown Prosecutor Sarah Dennis stated that “they were left asleep and presumably restrained in their car seats without the ability or means to free themselves or to seek assistance or to protect themselves from the searing temperatures.”</p> <p>“They were entirely dependent on the defendant, their mother, for their basic needs, one being to keep them protected from harm,” she added. “Rather than doing that, the actions of the defendant exposed them to harm.”</p> <p>Sarah Dennis went on to tell the court that the girls’ deaths could easily have been avoided, and that it wasn’t forgetfulness that had been the cause, but instead Kerri-Ann’s carelessness. </p> <p>“Her behaviour,” she said, “represented an apathy to her own children that was callous.”</p> <p>Justice Applegarth noted that Kerri-Ann had been the victim of an abusive childhood, and acknowledged her diagnosis in custody of a depressive disorder and guilt induced psychosocial stress. </p> <p>"I accept you are remorseful and not a day goes by that you don't think about the death of your daughters and the effect this had on others," he said.</p> <p>Ultimately, Justice Applegarth said that Kerri-Ann’s meth use had led to her daughters’ deaths, and that her previous drug convictions had done nothing to inform her parenting. It was reportedly not the first time she had left her children alone in the car. </p> <p>Kerri-Ann has already served over three years on remand - the majority of which was in custody - with Justice Applegarth having declared this as time served, and will be eligible for parole late November 2024. </p> <p><em>Images: 9News</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

New laws prompted by Chris Dawson murder trial

<p dir="ltr">New South Wales is set to introduce new laws making it "impossible" for convicted murders to be released on parole if they refuse to reveal where the bodies of their victims are located.</p> <p dir="ltr">The proposed "no body, no parole" law comes as Chris Dawson was convicted of his wife's murder last month, which happened in 1982. The issue gained attention as soon as the high-profile case gained heavy media coverage – yet the body of Lynette Dawson was never found.</p> <p dir="ltr">NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet said the government's proposed bill would mean offenders must co-operate with investigators and disclose the location of remains for any chance of release on parole.</p> <p dir="ltr">"We will make it impossible for offenders who willfully and deliberately refuse to disclose information about their victim's remains, to be granted parole," Mr Perrottet said.</p> <p dir="ltr">"Being unable to locate a loved one's body is extremely distressing and traumatic for the families and friends of victims and it denies a victim the dignity of being laid to rest appropriately.</p> <p dir="ltr">"These laws are to stop inmates convicted of murder or homicide offences from getting parole unless they co-operate with police to end the torment of families and return to them the remains of their loved ones."</p> <p dir="ltr">"No body, no parole" laws are already in place in other states and territories including Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.</p> <p dir="ltr">Under the proposed laws, the State Parole Authority (SPA) must not grant parole unless it decides the offender has cooperated in identifying the victim's location. Once the law has passed, it would apply to all current and future inmates in NSW.</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

FBI findings cast doubt on Alec Baldwin's claim

<p>A recently-released FBI report has determined that Alec Baldwin could face criminal charges over the shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of <em>Rust</em>. </p> <p>According to <em>ABC News</em>, the gun used on the New Mexico movie set could not have been fired without the trigger being pulled.</p> <p>It means that Baldwin, who has repeatedly insisted that he did not pull the trigger, could still face criminal charges for the devastating incident which killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounded director Joel Souza.</p> <p>The FBI forensic report had been examining the case in great depth to see if any charges could be brought against individuals involved in the incident.</p> <p>It conducted an accidental discharge test and determined the gun used in the fatal shooting of Hutchins “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger,” the report stated.</p> <p>The test showed that when the 45 Colt caliber F.lli Pietta single-action revolver’s hammer was in the quarter and half-cock positions, the gun would not fire without the trigger being pulled.</p> <p>When the hammer was in the fully cocked position, the gun “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional,” according to the outlet.</p> <p>Despite these claims, Baldwin stated in an interview in December that he, who was in possession of the gun at the time of the shooting, did not fire the weapon. </p> <p>“The trigger wasn’t pulled,” Baldwin said. “I didn’t pull the trigger.”</p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Not a ‘relationship’: why the legal language of child abuse needs to change

<p>The ACT government has <a href="https://www.cmtedd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/rattenbury/2022/act-government-strengthening-family-violence-laws" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> plans to <a href="https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/b/db_65584" target="_blank" rel="noopener">change the name</a> of the criminal offence of engaging in a “sexual relationship with child or young person under special care” to “persistent sexual abuse of child or young person under special care”.</p> <p>ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-10/act-bill-change-legal-definition-child-sexual-assault-grace-tame/100817058" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explained</a> this change was inspired by public advocacy by victim-survivors, including 2021 Australian of the Year Grace Tame. The change was made because, for many, the term “relationship” implies the victim was a willing participant in their abuse, adding to the often <a href="https://theconversation.com/review-louise-milligans-witness-is-a-devastating-critique-of-the-criminal-trial-process-148334" target="_blank" rel="noopener">gruelling experience</a> of complainants in sexual assault trials.</p> <p>In 2019, Tasmania made similar reforms in response to <a href="https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/561163/Submission-Knowmore-Renaming-sexual-offences.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sustained</a> <a href="https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/561162/Submission-EROC-Renaming-sexual-offences.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noopener">advocacy</a>. In that case, the government changed the name of the crime of “maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child” to “<a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s125a.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">persistent sexual abuse of a child</a>”. Critics had <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-15/call-for-sexual-assault-laws-overhaul-in-tasmania/11414982" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the original wording “normalised” sexual offending against children and suggested the child was a voluntary participant.</p> <p>These reforms are the latest chapter in law-making efforts, going back to the 1990s, which aim to craft criminal laws that capture this kind of offending.</p> <p>In recent years the Child Abuse Royal Commission reviewed the relevant laws. The commission found the laws in most states and territories were not working as designed. This has renewed attention to the issue and created an opportunity for reform across the country.</p> <h2>Why the language of the law matters</h2> <p>According to journalist and survivor-advocate Nina Funnell, the “sanitised” language of a relationship <a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/the-australian-states-where-raping-children-is-called-maintaining-a-relationship/news-story/d488b5764056c95224fa369f1eda46f2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exacerbates</a> the trauma of survivors, painting them as active participants in a mutual romance.</p> <p>These criticisms are backed by research <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AdelLawRw/2021/1.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">showing</a> that, in some cases, courts have interpreted the crime of an “unlawful sexual relationship” by comparing it to “<a href="https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qca/2014/48" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ordinary</a>” sexual relationships between mutually consenting adults.</p> <p>This has made it <a href="https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qca/2018/213" target="_blank" rel="noopener">necessary to prove</a> there has been consistent, ongoing sexual contact. Cases where abuse is sporadic or <a href="https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qca/2009/181" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opportunistic</a> might not be enough.</p> <p>This is at odds with social science evidence that sexual abuse is often opportunistic. In fact, labelling abuse as a “relationship” mirrors the <a href="https://journals.lww.com/forensicnursing/Fulltext/2008/09000/Cognitive_distortions_in_child_sex_offenders__An.3.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">distorted thinking</a> of many perpetrators.</p> <h2>What about the other states and territories?</h2> <p>The term “relationship” is <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/232485/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">now used</a> in the laws of all states and territories except for Victoria and Western Australia.</p> <p>Although reforms in Tasmania and the ACT change the name of the offence, the words “relationship” or “sexual relationship” still appear in the legislation.</p> <p>In fact, in the past few years, both South Australia and New South Wales have changed their laws from “persistent sexual exploitation” or “persistent sexual abuse” to “maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship”.</p> <p>This reflects the <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/criminal-justice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recommendations</a> of the Child Abuse Royal Commission that all Australian states and territories adopt this language in their criminal laws. This was despite the commission’s <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/final_report_-_criminal_justice_report_-_parts_iii_to_vi.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">acknowledgement</a> this language did not match the “exploitation” of repeated sexual offending against a child.</p> <p>So why did the commission recommend this language?</p> <p>Simply, because it works.</p> <p>Child sexual abuse is one of the most under-punished crimes in Australia.</p> <p>The purpose of the royal commission’s recommendations was to ensure these offences were <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/factsheet_-_criminal_justice_report_-_outline_of_recommendations_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">made more effective</a> by reflecting the way victims remember repeated child sexual abuse.</p> <p>Our legal system normally requires crimes to be charged individually, with specific details like the time and location of an offence. This gives the accused the best possible chance to mount a defence.</p> <p>However, it is very normal for a survivor of persistent sexual abuse to remember the abuse as a whole and not as individual acts.</p> <p>This creates what two justices of the South Australian Supreme Court have <a href="https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/supreme-court-warns-of-law-that-makes-it-harder-to-convict-paedophiles-for-longterm-sex-abuse/news-story/68545fdf9e1c4938d4d97c951a10b6b3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">called</a> a “<a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASCFC/2015/170.html?context=1;query=paradox" target="_blank" rel="noopener">perverse paradox</a>”: that “the more extensive the sexual exploitation of a child, the more difficult it can be proving the offence”.</p> <p>As a result, all Australian states and territories have laws that allow repeated sexual offending against a child to be charged as a single offence. However, in most jurisdictions, juries must still be able to identify and unanimously agree on a minimum number of separate occasions of abuse. This undermines the effectiveness of the laws by requiring complainants to recall details of specific events.</p> <p>At the time of the royal commission, the Queensland law was unique in allowing a jury to convict if they agreed an unlawful sexual relationship existed, even if they did not unanimously agree on specific acts of sexual offending. This overcame the “perverse paradox”.</p> <p>For that reason, the royal commission drafted model legislation using the Queensland wording, labelling the crime “maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child”, and requiring a jury to unanimously agree there was a relationship but not on individual acts of abuse.</p> <h2>Future reforms</h2> <p>Many states and territories have now partly implemented the royal commission’s recommendations, but more work needs to be done. Four states and territories still require evidence of individual acts of sexual offending. This includes the only two states, Victoria and Western Australia, that do not describe the crime as a “relationship” anywhere in their legislation.</p> <p><a href="https://www.thegracetamefoundation.org.au/the-harmony-campaign" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Calls</a> for national reform of these offences using language that accurately names the crime are timely and well justified. Future reforms should tell the truth about this crime: it is persistent sexual abuse of a child, not a relationship. Reform should also create laws that give survivors a chance to secure justice through the courts.</p> <p><em><strong><span id="docs-internal-guid-4fb107f5-7fff-3f11-895e-f8821297a78c">This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-a-relationship-why-the-legal-language-of-child-abuse-needs-to-change-184453" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.</span></strong></em></p> <p><em>Image: Shutterstock</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Ben Roberts-Smith's former "fixer" delivers extraordinary testimony

<p>Amid a series of extraordinary claims, Ben Roberts-Smith’s former private investigator has told a court he triggered a police investigation into an “unhinged” SAS soldier, along with many other indiscretions.</p> <p>They includes watching woman as she allegedly faked an abortion and dressing as a bartender to spy on network Seven employees, all on behalf of Mr Roberts-Smith.</p> <p>When the relationship came to an end, the private investigator told the court he called Mr Roberts-Smith a “weak dog” for compromising him in an alleged plot to threaten former SAS soldiers.</p> <p>Private eye and former policeman, John McLeod has denied leaking information to the media. This was after the court heard he was closely communicating with Mr Roberts-Smith’s detractors who are accused of feeding private information to journalists.</p> <p>Mr Roberts-Smith is now suing Nine and its journalists over a series of articles claiming he committed war crimes in Afghanistan, bullied his squadmates and abused his “mistress”.</p> <p>Mr Roberts-Smith has denied all the allegations. Insisting he only killed enemy combatants within the rules of war, did not cheat on his wife and he abhors domestic violence.</p> <p>High profile private investigator John McLeod, a former fixer for Mr Roberts-Smith, was called to give evidence in the defamation trial on Wednesday.</p> <p>Mr McLeod told the court he met Mr Roberts-Smith and his wife, Emma Roberts, while working security for a five-star hotel in Brisbane.</p> <p>Mr McLeod became a fixer for Mr Roberts-Smith, running errands and organising mundane elements of their lives like concert tickets and repairs to their new home in Queensland.</p> <p>In recent years, Mr McLeod had turned against Mr Roberts-Smith and was in recent contact with the SAS veteran’s ex wife, as well as being accused of leaking to Nine.</p> <p>By the start of 2018, Mr Roberts-Smith has told the court, his marriage was on the rocks and he was dating a woman known as Person 17.</p> <p>Nine claims Mr Roberts-Smith was still with his wife at the time and punched Person 17 after they had gone to a ritzy VIP party in Canberra.</p> <p>The court has heard Person 17 had travelled to Brisbane for an abortion after telling Mr Roberts-Smith she was carrying his child. Mr McLeod told the court Mr Roberts-Smith sent him to surveille the woman as she went to Greenslopes clinic for the termination.</p> <p>Person 17 did not show up at the airport or the clinic but Mr McLeod said he eventually found her at the nearby Greenslopes hospital which he said does not perform abortions.</p> <p>Mr McLeod told the court he filmed Person 17, who looked like “a normal woman”, coming out of the hospital and sent the video to Mr Roberts-Smith.</p> <p>Mr Roberts-Smith in his evidence last year, told the court Person 17 met him in a hotel room minutes later and confessed she did not have an abortion. She had the abortion earlier, she allegedly told Mr Roberts-Smith, and he ended the volatile relationship.</p> <p>“(It) gave me great concern that I was being manipulated so I’d stay in the relationship.”</p> <p>Mr Roberts-Smith’s legal team have claimed his ex-wife and her best friend, Danielle Scott, leaked private information to Nine ahead of a damaging 60 Minutes program.</p> <p>In court on Wednesday, they began probing Mr McLeod’s relationship with Ms Scott in recent months.</p> <p>“Letting you know I’m thinking of you, we’ll have a drink in Bali over this,” Ms Scott said on March 31.</p> <p>A few days later, following the program, Ms Scott again checked in on Mr McLeod who responded, “They will come for me!!”.</p> <p>“Do you think it was enough to wake Kerry?” Mr McLeod added.</p> <p>Mr McLeod told the court it was likely he was speaking about Kerry Stokes, head of Seven and Mr Roberts-Smith’s financial backer, friend and supporter.</p> <p>Mr Roberts-Smith’s lawyers are claiming he worked with Ms Scott to jeopardise the SAS veteran’s relationship with Mr Stokes.</p> <p>The 60 Minutes episode included secret yet legal recordings of a conversation with Mr Roberts-Smith and others. Mr McLeod is believed to be present at the meeting, the court has heard.</p> <p>Mr McLeod told the court he “despises the media” and denied he was a source.</p> <p><em>Image: Nine News</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest launches criminal case against Facebook

<p dir="ltr">Billionaire mining magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest has <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-60238985" target="_blank" rel="noopener">launched</a> a criminal case against Facebook over allegations the company failed to prevent scams from using his image, in what he says will be the first criminal case the social media site has faced globally.</p><p dir="ltr">He claims that Facebook breached Australian anti-money laundering laws in relation to the spread of cryptocurrency scams.</p><p dir="ltr">Meta, the company that owns Facebook, has not commented on Dr Forrest’s case but said it was “committed to keeping those people [scammers] off our platform”.</p><p><span id="docs-internal-guid-bfa67ebe-7fff-4f49-77f6-c0b40062082a"></span></p><p dir="ltr">The scams that use Dr Forrest’s image - and those of other celebrities - promote bogus investments that promise rich returns.</p><p dir="ltr"><img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/02/d334da2d4f26441a3bb885ecbd284461-e1643840552644.jpeg" alt="" width="468" height="624" /></p><p dir="ltr"><em>An example of the scams circulating on Facebook using Andrew Forrest's image. Image: <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/02/03/andrew-forrest-sues-facebook-over-scam-ads-in-world-first-action/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Crikey</a></em></p><p dir="ltr">Although the platform bans these kinds of ads, many still appear.</p><p dir="ltr">Dr Forrest, the former CEO of Fortescue Metals who has a PhD in Marine Science, has alleged that Facebook had been “criminally reckless” in not doing more to stop the ads which first began appearing in early 2019.</p><p dir="ltr">He said he had also written an open letter in November 2019 addressed to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, urging him to take action.</p><p dir="ltr">“I’m concerned about innocent Australians being scammed through clickbait advertising on social media,” Forrest said in a statement on Thursday.</p><p dir="ltr">“I’m acting here for Australians, but this is happening all over the world.”</p><p dir="ltr">Under Australian law, the consent of the attorney-general is needed in order to privately prosecute foreign corporations for alleged offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.</p><p dir="ltr">“The Attorney-General has given her consent to the private prosecution against Facebook in relation to alleged offences under subsection 400.7(2) of the Criminal Code,” Stephen Lewis, the principal of Mark O’Brien Legal which will be representing Mr Forrest, told <em><a href="https://www.afr.com/technology/andrew-forrest-sues-facebook-over-scam-ads-20220203-p59tlw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AFR</a></em>.</p><p dir="ltr">Dr Forrest has also filed a civil lawsuit in California, where Facebook’s headquarters are located.</p><p dir="ltr">According to <em><a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/andrew-twiggy-forrest-takes-on-facebook-in-court-lobbing-worldfirst-criminal-charges-at-the-tech-giant/news-story/bf74fe229f470253ffa8d94abbbb5688" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Australian</a></em>, he is alleging in that suit that Facebook “knowingly profits from this cycle of illegal ads.</p><p dir="ltr">Citing court documents, the newspaper reported that one victim had lost $940,000 ($1 million NZD) because of a fake endorsement featuring Dr Forrest.</p><p dir="ltr">In a statement to media, the social media company said scam ads violated its policies and that it takes a “multifaceted approach” to stopping them.</p><p dir="ltr">“We work not just to detect and reject the ads themselves but also block advertisers from our services and, in some cases, take court action to enforce our policies,” a Meta representative said.</p><p dir="ltr">Dr Forrest’s case in Australia will be heard in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia from March 28.</p><p dir="ltr">If he is successful, the social media platform could face a maximum penalty of $126,000 ($135,000 NZD) on each of three charges.</p><p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-089583bc-7fff-7c35-d766-b26af1b226a2"></span></p><p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

10 of the dumbest criminal moments of all time

<p><em>Image: Getty</em></p> <p>1. Caught-Caught</p> <p><span>Police in Ossining, New York were called to a mini-mart, where they found Blake Leak, 23, trying to break in. They chased Leak through the streets until both cops took a tumble. Seizing the opportunity, Leak sought refuge on the grounds of a large building. The building was the Sing Sing Maximum Security Prison, where he was promptly nabbed by a guard.</span></p> <p><span>2. The case of the liquor store lothario </span></p> <p><span>Scottish shoplifter Aron Morrison was picked up after pinching a bottle of vodka from a bottle shop. It didn’t take Sherlock Holmes to find Morrison, though. His name and phone number were left with the sales assistant – after asking her out on a date.</span></p> <p><span>3. The lowest high there is</span></p> <p><span>For a trio of drug thieves, it was their lucky day. They broke into a home in Silver Springs, Florida, and discovered three jars of cocaine. They took it home and snorted the contents. That’s when they discovered that the jars were in fact urns and that they were snorting the cremains of the victim’s husband and two dogs.</span></p> <p><span>4. The case of the not-so devoted dad</span></p> <p><span>Bring Your Child to Work Day is a long-honoured tradition that allows children to see what goes on in the business world while also getting the chance to watch their parents ply their trade. One crook brought his young son along with him on a job, which happened to be robbing a pet shop. He was caught soon after, minus something important. His son.</span></p> <p><span>5. Watch where you're going</span></p> <p><span>As two men waited in line at the coffee shop to pay their bill, a third cut in front of them. He threw a drink at the cashier and demanded all the money from the cash register. Temporarily surprised, the men quickly recovered and handcuffed the crook. Apparently, in his rush the criminal didn’t notice they were police officers – in full uniform.</span></p> <p><span>6. P.S - Nobody move</span></p> <p><span>It’s the worst possible time to faint – in the middle of robbing a bank. But that’s what happened to this thief. The teller called emergency services and asked for medics. But you have to applaud the man’s stick-to-it-iveness. While the ambulance was en route, the suspect handed a note to the teller demanding all her cash.</span></p> <p><span>7. IOU</span></p> <p>Graham Price of South Wales ripped off the bank where he worked, but he wasn’t completely duplicitous. He left a note in the safe: ‘Borrowed, seven million pounds’– signed ‘Graham Price.’</p> <div id="page7" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide listicle-slide"> <div class="slide-description"> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time">8. No one likes a tattler </div> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time"></div> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time"><span>A Good Samaritan noticed an elderly man being robbed, so he jumped in and punched the thief. The thief was so upset, he called the police to complain.</span></div> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time"></div> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time"><span>9. Can you read me now?</span><span></span></div> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time"> <div id="page9" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide listicle-slide"> <div class="slide-description"> <p>When police in Vancouver, Canada, asked to search Jason Pauchay’s apartment for drugs, he was not a suspect – in fact, they were looking for someone else. That all changed when they got a look at how his name was listed on his mobile phone: ‘Jason Pauchay Drug Dealer.’</p> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time">10. The back to jail special </div> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time"> </div> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time"><span>Two men decided a back-to-school event at an office supply store would be the perfect time to do some shoplifting. After all, sales assistants would be busy helping an influx of shoppers. The sale happened to coincide with the annual ‘Shop with a Cop’ day when about 60 police officers show up to help children pick out school supplies.</span></div> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time"><span></span></div> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time"><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/meet-the-22-dumbest-criminals-of-all-time">Readers Digest</a>. </em></div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="advertisement"></div> </div> </div> </div> </div>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

What does 'beyond reasonable doubt' mean in criminal law?

<p>When you are charged with an offence by the police, they are required to be able to prove that charge “beyond reasonable doubt”.</p> <p>Under the common law tradition, it is not the responsibility of the accused person to prove his or her innocence; in other words, “the onus of proof” is never rests with the defence.</p> <p>Rather, the prosecution is required to prove all elements (or ingredients) of the alleged offence to a standard of proof known as beyond any reasonable doubt.</p> <p>The defendant, on the other hand, is presumed to be innocent until and unless the prosecution is able to discharge its onus of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.</p> <p>So, what does all this mean?</p> <p><strong>What is a standard of proof?</strong></p> <p>The standard of proof is the degree to which a decision-maker is convinced that an offence has occurred; a decision-maker including a magistrate in the Local Court, or a jury or judge-alone (in <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/when-can-a-defendant-be-granted-a-judge-alone-trial-in-nsw/">judge-alone trials</a> or cases) in a higher court such as the District or Supreme Court.</p> <p>In civil law matters, which include cases where individuals or companies commence proceedings against others for damages, compensation and the like, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”.</p> <p>This means the decision-maker must be convinced it is more likely than not that the person making the claim – such as the applicant or plaintiff –  has established its case.</p> <p>Expressed in another way, it means the case has been established by more than 50%.</p> <p>This civil law standard of proof is embodied in section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).</p> <p>Criminal cases are where the state prosecutes an individual or company for a criminal offence, such as an assault, drug offence, theft or the like.</p> <p>In these cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.</p> <p>This standard is higher than the civil law standard of proof as it is an attempt to both rectify the unequal power imbalance between the state and an individual as well to reflect the seriousness of the consequent loss of liberty if found guilty (as opposed to mere monetary cost in civil cases).</p> <p>But the courts have made clear that phrase ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is to be understood only by its ordinary meaning, not by any codified test, whether based on separate criteria or not.</p> <p>The Honourable Justice Newman in the Court of Criminal Appeal case R v GWB [2000] NSWCCA 410 said at [44] that:</p> <p><em>“judges should not depart from the time honoured formula that the words ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ are words in the ordinary English usage and mean exactly what they say”.</em></p> <p>Although the prosecution must always prove each element of their case beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant might make a positive case in their defence – that what is alleged happened differently or had a legal justification, for instance that an act of violence was in self-defence.</p> <p>If the defence raise a case they must prove, it is to the lower standard of on the balance of probabilities.</p> <p>These criminal law standard of proof is embodied in section 141 of the <em>Evidence Act 1995</em> (NSW).</p> <p><strong>Where does the standard of proof come from?</strong></p> <p>Our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence.</p> <p>Again, this means that a person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent of that crime until and unless that person is found guilty in a court of law.</p> <p>This presumption has become an essential part of our system of justice to ensure fairness.</p> <p>Roman law had the maxim <em>ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat </em>or “proof lies on him who says, not on him who denies”.</p> <p>The concept also can be found in the traditions of Jewish and Islamic religious laws. This concept was brought into the English common law in the early Renaissance through influence from the Catholic Church and its canon law, which is based on the ancient Roman system.</p> <p>In 1791, the concept was pithily phrased by the barrister Sir William Garrow as “presumed innocent until proven guilty”. This statement ties together the two key legal concepts of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof; accordingly it has since become known as the ‘golden thread’.</p> <p>William Blackstone writing on English laws a generation before Garrow stated the philosophy that underpins both the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof being beyond reasonable doubt: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”</p> <p>The United Nations has also enshrined the importance of the presumption of innocence and burden of proof in international law under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.</p> <p><strong>Who decides if a charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?</strong></p> <p>In criminal law cases, most matters are resolved in the Local Court, which is termed “summary prosecution” in legal lingo.</p> <p>The Local Court is presided over by a Magistrate, who is a local court judicial decision maker. This is an independent legal professional who oversees local court matters at all stages, from beginning to end. In cases being decided by the local court at hearing, the Magistrate is the decision-maker for both questions of fact and questions of law.</p> <p>More serious cases are dealt with “on indictment”, which escalates the matter to the District Court and entitles the defendant to a trial by jury.</p> <p>A jury trial means that the jury are the decision-makers for questions of fact, while questions of law are decided by a District Court Judge.</p> <p>However, in certain cases a defendant can forego their right to a jury in favour of a judge-alone trial, where the judge is decision-maker for both questions of fact and questions of law, like a Local Court Magistrate.</p> <p>The most serious cases the indictment is dealt with in the Supreme Court, in a trial by jury overseen by a Justice of the Supreme Court. Similarly, in certain circumstances a defendant can forego a jury in favour a judge-only trial presided over by a Supreme Court Justice.</p> <p>So, this decision as to whether a charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt is a matter for a magistrate, a judge, or jury members to decide depending on the case.</p> <p><strong>Can an innocent person be found guilty?</strong></p> <p>Deciding whether an alleged offence is proven beyond reasonable doubt is a subjective decision, about which reasonable minds may differ.</p> <p>Both the defence and the prosecution can be unhappy about a decision made and there is recourse to appeal that decision to a higher court.</p> <p>This means the hearing or trial will be reviewed and the judge will assess whether there was or was not reasonable doubt.</p> <p>The most recent high-profile case on reasonable doubt was the decision of the full bench of the High Court of Australia in the case of <em>Pell v The Queen </em>[2020] HCA 12.</p> <p>The key issue in the case was that, to quote the judgment summary, although:</p> <p><em>“the jury had assessed the complainant’s evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt in relation to the offences.”</em></p> <p>But it is indicative of how difficult this question can be to answer that it first went through the Chief Judge and a jury in the County Court of Victoria, and then before three justices on appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.</p> <p>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/what-does-beyond-reasonable-doubt-mean-in-the-criminal-law/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers</a> and is written by Patrick O'Sullivan. </p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Grace Tame shares heartbreaking moment

<p dir="ltr">Grace Tame, the 2021 Australian of the Year, has applauded the<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/australian-of-the-year-grace-tame-makes-heartbreaking-admission/news-story/07264d728cc1a88c94d4434196055ff2" target="_blank">recent decision</a><span> </span>the ACT made to raise the age of criminal responsibility while making a tragic admission of her own.</p> <p dir="ltr">The territory will be the first jurisdiction in Australia to raise the criminal age of responsibility from 10 to 14, with the legislation set to be introduced to parliament next year.</p> <p dir="ltr">The youth justice system will also go through a complete overhaul which has been endorsed by an independent review.</p> <p dir="ltr">Currently, children aged 10 or older across Australia can be held criminally responsible for their actions and sentenced to juvenile detention.</p> <p dir="ltr">31 UN member states have called on Australia to raise the age of responsibility to be in line with the 2019 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.</p> <p dir="ltr">Taking to Twitter, Ms Tame described the decision as a “bold” step for the territory.</p> <p dir="ltr">“A bold forward step by the ACT, raising the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14. Locking up kids - many of whom are disabled, First Nations children and/or have experienced traumas including sexual abuse - solves nothing,” she said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Here’s hoping this will lift the national standard.”</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">Pictured above is me, aged 10. I was camping with my family on the East Coast of Tasmania. It was on this very trip that I first disclosed to my older cousin that I’d been molested as a 6-year-old.<br /><br />Abused and disadvantaged children deserve to be supported, not punished ❤️</p> — Grace Tame (@TamePunk) <a href="https://twitter.com/TamePunk/status/1447354879488368643?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 11, 2021</a></blockquote> <p dir="ltr">In a follow-up tweet, the 26-year-old shared a photo of herself when she was 10, which was the first time she disclosed the assault she experienced as a six-year-old.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Pictured above is me, aged 10. I was camping with my family on the East Coast of Tasmania,” she explained in the tweet.</p> <p dir="ltr">“It was on this very trip that I first disclosed to my older cousin that I’d been molested as a six-year-old.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Abused and disadvantaged children deserve to be supported, not punished.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Ms Tame shared the heartbreaking image days after she was the recipient of criticism from Janet Albrechtsen, a journalist at<span> </span><em><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/grace-tame-is-surrendering-her-position-to-dirty-politics/news-story/a3757c7858897464a0df415cdb820a26" target="_blank">The Australian</a></em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">Ms Albrechtsen claimed Ms Tame is “dividing the country” and “surrendering” to “dirty partisan politics” after the activist shared her views on the controversial interview Jessica Rowe conducted with senator Pauline Hanson.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">Criticism is par for the course. You dish it, you take it. Nuanced conversation is crucial. Yesterday’s hit piece is ultimately another mark of progress. Just a few short years ago, survivor voices barely registered. Now we’re perceived as a powerful, influential force.</p> — Grace Tame (@TamePunk) <a href="https://twitter.com/TamePunk/status/1447031549371641856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 10, 2021</a></blockquote> <p dir="ltr">Ms Tame became known for her activism after she participated in News Corps’ Let Her Speak campaign, following her win in the Supreme Court of Tasmania case that allowed her to publicly identify as a rape survivor.</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: @TamePunk / Twitter</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Can I be refused entry to a premises if i am unvaccinated?

<p>NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian<span> recently </span><span>announced </span>that once 70% of residents in the state have both doses of a COVID-19 vaccination, certain ‘freedoms’ will be handed back to them– including travelling intrastate and attending restaurants, bars, weddings, funerals, gyms, sporting events and theatres, subject to physical distancing and capacity limits.</p> <p>The Premier made clear that these liberties would not be available to those who have not received both doses of a COVID-19 vaccination.</p> <p>Many are of the view that while both Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Ms Berejiklian<span> </span>claim that COVID-19 vaccines are voluntary, the fact that many cannot without vaccination continue with their employment, or will soon be prohibited from certain liberties enjoyed by the vaccinated, means that in practical terms,<span> </span>being vaccinated is compulsory for anyone who wishes to live a semi-normal life.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Public Health Orders</strong></p> <p>The prohibitions in our state which purport to protect residents against the spread of COVID-19 are primarily made under the<span> </span>Public Health Act 2010<span> </span>(NSW).</p> <p>The Act empowers state officials to make a range of enforceable directions and orders with a view to dealing with public health risks, and the discriminatory prohibitions proposed by Ms Berejiklian will be decreed under the provisions of this piece of legislation.</p> <p>The power to deal with health risks is contained in section 7 of the Act, which provides that where the health minister considers on reasonable grounds that a situation has arisen that is, or is likely to be, a risk to public health, the minister may take such action or give such directions that are necessary to deal with the risk and its possible consequences.</p> <p>The section makes clear that actions and orders can be made in order to:</p> <ul> <li>Reduce or remove any risk,</li> <li>Segregate or isolate inhabitants, and/or</li> <li>Prevent, or conditionally permit, access to areas.</li> </ul> <p>The section says that such an order must be published in the Gazette as soon as practicable after it is made, but that failure to do so does not invalidate the order.</p> <p>Similar legislation applies in other states and territories.</p> <p>Section 10 of the Public Health Act provides that a person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with such a direction faces a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison and/or a fine of 100 penalty units, which is currently $11,000.</p> <p>Any continued failure to comply is punishable by a fine of 50 penalty units, or $5,500, for each day the offence continues.</p> <p>The Act also empowers ‘authorised persons’, including police officers, to issue infringement notices to those suspected of<span> </span>failing to comply with a public health order.</p> <p><strong>Current Challenges to the Public Health Act </strong></p> <p>Four separate legal challenges are currently before the Supreme Court of New South Wales which assert that the Public Health Act was never intended to, and does not, give the state’s health minister the power to breach the bodily integrity of individuals by making orders that, for all intents and purposes, mandate vaccines.</p> <p>Three of the cases are brought on behalf employees who have found themselves unable to fulfil their employment obligations as a result of deciding not to be injected with a COVID-19 vaccination. One of these is a construction worker (Al-Munir Kassam), another is a<span> </span>police officer (Belinda Kay Hocroft)<span> </span>and the third is a person who resides in a Local Government Area of concern (Natasha Henry).</p> <p>The fourth application is by unrepresented plaintiff, Sergey Naumenko.</p> <p>Supreme Court Justice Beech-Jones recently joined all four of the cases, and they are listed on 30 September 2021 for determination of an application by the NSW government to summarily dismiss them.</p> <p>During a recent directions hearing, the barrister for Al-Munir Kassam, Peter King, told the court his client’s case was about a “simple excess of power”.</p> <p><em>“It’s a question of the power of the minister to make the actual order under section seven of the [Public] Health Act,”<span> </span></em>the barrister submitted.</p> <p><em>“And we say read consistently, with the principle of legality set out by the High Court, it is not authorised.”</em></p> <p>The NSW government is strongly opposing the challenges, with its lead barrister, Jeremy Kirk SC, remarking of one of them:</p> <p><em>“There are so many problems with this case it’s difficult to know where to start.”</em></p> <p><em>“There is no named defendant, there is no articulated legal claim. Rather there are just sort of aspirational orders which to a significant extent are entirely misconceived such as, for example, proposed order two that the plaintiff and his immediate family be exempted from microchipping.”</em></p> <p>It is unclear whether these challenges will be decided in favour of the workers and, if so, whether the decisions will be narrowly constructed to apply to them only, or to a class of classes of workers, or whether they will contain broader declarations regarding the powers of the health minister generally.</p> <p>In any event, the unsuccessful party may apply for leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision to the High Court of Australia – which is the highest court in the land.</p> <p><strong>Challenges to COVID-19 Orders to Date</strong></p> <p>It should be noted that all the<span> </span>challenges made in the courts so far<span> </span>against COVID-19 orders and directions<span> </span>have been unsuccessful, with the judiciary finding that there are no constitutional protections, or other common law or embedded rights, which prohibit governments from passing such rules.</p> <p>For many,<span> </span>these cases highlight the need for constitutional protections<span> </span>and/or a national Bill or Charter of Rights in Australia.</p> <p>There have also been<span> </span>three challenges<span> </span>in the Fair Work Commission of New South Wales by workers claiming they were unfairly dismissed after refusing to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination. All of these have also been unsuccessful.</p> <p><strong>Current State of the Law</strong></p> <p>As a result, it can be said there is has been no judicial finding which expressly prevents the NSW state government from making public health orders which essentially discriminate between those who are vaccinated and those who are not – including those relating to entering specific categories of businesses.</p> <p>There is also<span> </span>no general prohibition against a person who owns or manages a business from refusing entry<span> </span>to a prospective patron.</p> <p>However, the above is subject to the outcome of the pending challenges, as well as exceptions contained in legislation which prohibit certain forms of discrimination in our state, and indeed nationally.</p> <p><strong>Anti-Discrimination Legislation</strong></p> <p>The Ant-Discrimination Act 1977 is the main piece of state legislation which prohibits certain forms of discrimination in New South Wales.</p> <p>The heads of discrimination that are unlawful under the Act are:</p> <ul> <li>Racial discrimination,</li> <li>Sexual harassment,</li> <li>Sex,</li> <li>Transgender status,</li> <li>Marital or domestic status,</li> <li>Disability,</li> <li>Responsibilities as a carer,</li> <li>Homosexuality,</li> <li>Compulsory retirement on grounds of age,</li> <li>HIV/AIDS vilification, and</li> <li>Age.</li> </ul> <p>These heads cover discrimination in a range of areas, including employment, education and the provision of goods and services, and the Act contains a range of exceptions which make it lawful to discriminate in certain circumstances.</p> <p><strong>Disability Discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977</strong></p> <p>The most relevant proscribed head of discrimination for present purposes is disability.</p> <p>In that regard, there is an argument that a person for whom a COVID-19 vaccination is inappropriate for medical reasons would be discriminated against on grounds of disability if the person were to be refused entry to a premises on grounds of being unvaccinated.</p> <p>So, on its face, there is an argument that a person who is medically exempt from having a COVID-19 vaccine could not be refused the ‘freedoms’ afforded to those who are vaccinated, such as the ability to enter premises.</p> <p>However, this argument may be rebutted by<span> </span>section 49P of the Act, which is titled ‘Public Health’ and provides that:</p> <p><em>“Nothing in this Part renders unlawful discrimination against a person on the ground of </em><em>disability</em><em> if the </em><em>disability</em><em> concerned is an infectious disease and the discrimination is reasonably necessary to protect public health.”</em></p> <p>This exception gives rise to an argument that a person with a COVID-19 vaccination exemption could potentially be refused entry to a premises<span> </span><u>if</u><span> </span>this were considered necessary to protect the health of those within the premises.</p> <p>And here’s where it gets hairy.</p> <p><strong>Is Discrimination against those who are medically exempt lawful?</strong></p> <p>Health experts concede that those who receive COVID-19 vaccinations are able to both contract and spread the disease.</p> <p>Advocates of vaccination focus, instead, on findings that vaccinated persons are less likely than those who are unvaccinated to experience severe symptoms.</p> <p>That being the current state of the (ever-changing) advice, there is an argument that those who do not receive a COVID-19 vaccination are no more likely to pose a risk to others than those who are vaccinated.</p> <p>If that argument is accepted, it appears that businesses would fall foul of the law if they were to refuse entry to persons who hold COVID-19 vaccination exemptions, if the refusals were based on the persons not being vaccinated.</p> <p>A contrary, and perhaps tenuous, argument is that it is generally necessary for the population to receive COVID-19 vaccinations in order to reduce the impact on the public health system of those suffering from severe symptoms, and it may therefore be permissible for business owners to refuse entry to persons who are not vaccinated, despite their medical exemptions.</p> <p>But, again, this is a tenuous argument which, taken to its limits, could result in enabling conduct which undermines the objectives of the Act itself.</p> <p>Another potential contrary argument, for which the medical evidence is unclear, is that those who are not vaccinated are more likely to contract and/or spread the virus to others.</p> <p>But, again, the evidence for this is unclear. In fact, there is an argument that because those who are vaccinated are less likely to be symptomatic, or at least less visibly or severely symptomatic, they could be more likely to spread the virus as they are less likely to be aware they have it, and are therefore more likely to venture out.</p> <p>On the balance, the stronger argument appears to be that business owners who refuse entry to those with a medical exemption would be acting in contravention of the Act, if that refusal were on the grounds of being unvaccinated.</p> <p>It should be noted that the ventilation of these arguments inside a courtroom would require the adducing of medical evidence, and we are certainly not medical experts.</p> <p><strong>Disability Discrimination Act 1992</strong></p> <p>The main piece of legislation which prohibits discrimination on grounds of disability across Australia is the<span> </span>Disability Discrimination Act 1992<span> </span>(Cth).</p> <p>There is some overlap between this Act and the New South Wales legislation.</p> <p>Under the Commonwealth Act, it is unlawful to directly or indirectly discriminate against a person on grounds of disability in a broad-range of areas including<span> </span>access to premises, employment, goods, services, facilities and accommodation.</p> <p>Like the New South Wales Act, the Commonwealth legislation contains a public health-type exception. However, the exception in the latter is considerably more narrow.</p> <p>That exception is contained in<span> </span>section 48 of the Act. It is titled ‘Infectious Diseases’ and provides that:</p> <p><em>“</em><em>This Part does not render it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s disability if:</em></p> <ul> <li><em>The person’s disability is an infectious disease; and</em></li> <li><em>The discrimination is reasonably necessary to protect public health.”</em></li> </ul> <p>The exception makes clear that discrimination may only be lawful if it is reasonably necessary to protect public health in circumstances where the person who is discriminated against suffers from an infectious disease.</p> <p>As it cannot be said that a person suffers from COVID-19 simply because he or she is not vaccinated for it, a business owner would be acting unlawfully if he or she were to refuse entry to a person with a COVID-19 vaccination exemption, if that refusal were on the grounds of not being vaccinated.</p> <p>Written by Ugur Nedim. <em>Republished with permission of<span> </span><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/sydney-police-post-pictures-of-work-party-on-social-media/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers.</a></em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Police officer charged with 98 criminal offences

<p><em><strong>Sensitive Content Warning </strong></em></p> <p>A former Victorian police officer has faced the Melbourne Magistrates court, charged with 98 criminal offences including rape and stalking, which were allegedly committed while he was a serving officer.</p> <p>41-year old Brett Johnson is facing 98 charges including three counts of sexual assault, three counts of indecent assault and one of stalking.</p> <p>Amongst the allegations he faces is one that he raped a woman at a police station and had intimate relationships with a person who was either a victim of crime or a vulnerable member of the community, also that he concealed these relationships from his supervisors.</p> <p>Prior to resigning from the force, Mr Johnson was a Leading Senior Constable. He also faces charges of misconduct, including that he used a Victoria Police database to conduct unauthorised checks on a person. He will return to court in November.</p> <p>It is rare for a police officer to face criminal prosecution in Australia.</p> <p><strong>Police accountability </strong></p> <p>In New South Wales, the Police Force itself is primarily responsible for investigating complaints involving officers.</p> <p>The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, (LECC) tends to focus its attention on more serious cases of misconduct and maladministration. The body is both chronically underfunded and has no power to bring charges or otherwise discipline officers.</p> <p>As a general guide, misconduct is defined as conduct that could result in prosecution for a serious offence – being an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of 5 years or more – or serious disciplinary action, such as termination of employment.</p> <p>Because, in the first instance, police generally investigate any complaints made against officers, it effectively allows police officers to investigate their own.</p> <p>As such, there have long been calls to change the system to one that allows for more impartiality.</p> <p>This current system leaves many victims feeling unsatisfied and aggrieved, and they choose to make a civil claim against the NSW Police Force.</p> <p>These civil proceedings can be extremely costly, stressful and prolonged – and are therefore rarely pursued.</p> <p><strong>“The cost of doing business” </strong></p> <p>Early last year, information released by the former head of the LECC in New South Wales showed that since 2016 NSW police had reported paying more than $238m in legal liability. Former LECC Commissioner, Patrick Saidi, accused the NSW Police of treating this as ‘the cost of doing business’.</p> <p>Mr Saidi called for an investigation into the “systematic failure” of law enforcement to address the number of civil cases filed against officers for misconduct, saying that the sums paid by taxpayers as a result of lawsuits brought against police provided “misinformation” about the way the organisation handled complaints and legal cases.</p> <p>Part of the reason figures and accurate information is so hard to obtain with accuracy is that ‘out of court settlements’ with government departments generally include gag orders, or ‘confidentiality agreements’ which stop parties from discussing any aspects of the case or the settlement.</p> <p>Other obstacles to obtaining the full financial picture include the fact that data is not held solely by NSW Police — sometimes it is held within other departments. Additionally, of course, the NSW police force is insured so some costs for liability may be covered.</p> <p>But later in 2020, documents obtained by the NSW Greens, showed NSW Police had spent $24m on legal settlements in the previous financial year, including settlements for serious misconduct claims including battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.</p> <p>The documents also showed that Police defended and settled almost 300 civil claims against officers during the same period.</p> <p>Justice advocates have long criticised the lack of transparency surrounding civil legal cases against NSW police, not just the outcomes for victims, but how the police officers involved were disciplined by the force.<strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>NSW officers facing criminal charges </strong></p> <p>Police are rarely held fully accountable for crime, corruption or other forms of misconduct.</p> <p>Even in the face of serious allegations, criminal charges or civil action, many are often allowed to remain (some with full pay) on the force until court processes are complete, others are demoted or moved to different areas within the organisation.</p> <p>But, there are dozens of examples of police officers who have committed serious criminal offences, using their trusted position to assist in the perpetration of crimes.</p> <p>Last year, two Sydney police officers were arrested and charged with sexual offences against a 17-year old schoolgirl.</p> <p>The financial cost aside, the failure of police officers to abide by the laws they are meant to enforce creates a real sense of mistrust between communities and authorities. The lack of confidence in police has become so pronounced in the eyes of many that victims will often fail to report offences committed against them.</p> <p>This distrust has been growing in New South Wales for some years, because of increasingly aggressive arrests, strip searches, and the prolific use of tasers and batons, which in many instances have amounted to police brutality.</p> <p>Yet, NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller has regularly defended offending officers, including those who illegally strip search children and young women, and has even been given substantial pay rises, for his efforts, including a time when there is a hiatus on pay rises for all other government employees.</p> <p>It has to be asked whether these continual raises in remuneration are any real incentive to actually change the culture of the force, or to implement strategies to improve public relations and restore the public’s faith in its police officers, a service which costs more than $3.4 billion a year to run, a cost that is funded by taxpayers.</p> <p><em>Written by Sonia Hickey. Republished with permission of </em><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/former-police-officer-charged-with-98-criminal-offences/"><em>Sydney Criminal Lawyers.</em></a></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Pauline Hanson sparks outrage after branding George Floyd as a “criminal and dangerous thug”

<p><span>Pauline Hanson has labelled George Floyd a “criminal and dangerous thug” while slamming the protests his death by police sparked in Australia over the weekend.</span></p> <p><span>The One Nation Leader addressed the Senate to denounce the Black Lives Matter protests, and the celebration of Mr Floyd, who died in Minneapolis last month after a police officer knelt on his neck for nine minutes.</span></p> <p><span>“George Floyd had been made out to be a martyr,” Hanson said. “This man has been in and out of prison numerous times. He was a criminal and a dangerous thug.”</span></p> <p><span>Mr Floyd’s death enraged people globally, as they took to the streets to protest against racism and police brutality.</span></p> <p><span>In Australia, 60,000 people joined demonstrations across the capital cities last weekend.</span></p> <p><span>“It sickened me to see people holding up signs saying 'black lives matter' in memory of this American criminal,” Hanson said. </span></p> <p><span>“I'm sorry, but all lives matter... we cannot allow bleeding hearts and those on the left to destroy the fabric of our society and our freedom.</span></p> <p><span>“No one could possibly condone the way in which George Floyd died. But what upsets me is the attitude of many people - black and white.”</span></p> <p><span>Hanson then focused her anger on those Australians who didn’t show the same outrage when Justine Damond – a white Australian woman –died at the hands of a black officer in Minneapolis in 2017.</span></p> <p><span>“There was no protest, no one really cared because she was white,” Hanson said.  </span></p> <p><span>Hanson said politicians should “hang their heads in shame” for not speaking up about the health risks of the protests, which defied ongoing warnings for people not to gather in large groups due to the risk of spreading coronavirus.</span></p> <p><span>“It's a grave insult to all law-abiding Australians. These activists should never have been allowed to march and call Australians racist,” she said. </span></p> <p><span>“Shame on the politicians who were too gutless and too scared of losing votes to stand up to the mob.</span></p> <p><span>“People are furious and I don't blame them. They want to know how this happened when our pubs, clubs and gyms and businesses are still crippled by the full force of COVID-19 restrictions.”</span></p> <p><span>Hanson’s comments prompted backlash on her Facebook page.</span></p> <p><span>“The more you open your mouth the more you reinforce your racist tag. Give us a rest for heaven's sake,” commenter Ken Johnson said.</span></p> <p><span>“Don't speak for me when you say all Australians,” Steven Olive added.  </span></p> <p><span>“Nobody protested when Justine Damond was killed because her killer was immediately arrested, charged, &amp; convicted,” Mike King wrote.  </span></p> <p><span>The Australian protests linked the death of Mr Floyd to indigenous deaths in custody.</span></p> <p><span>At least 432 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have died in police custody in Australia since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report in 1991. </span></p>

News

Our Partners