Current Trial Hey Dad

[MisterMarcus]

No worries. Not sure of your pre-existing knowledge, so I'll put it broadly.

Let's say you have seven men who independently allege that, 30-40 years ago, when they were residents at an orphanage, a certain member of the staff sexually abused them.

All male, all around the same age at the time they were offended against, all while under the care of this man at the facility.

No evidence whatsoever that they have colluded, been contaminated by each other's allegations, etc. Some weren't at the facility at the same time as others, none of them had anything to do with each other after they left. There were scattered complaints to their own friends, family, etc over the years, but they only got the strength to disclose to police in recent years (eg. through the Royal Commission, changing attitudes to sexual abuse, counselling, etc).

There are some similar features to the offending, but not anything striking - sexual offending against children tends to be pretty generic, and there are only so many sexual acts a male can commit with a male.

In NSW, a single jury would likely hear all seven of those complainants together as a starting point. Furthermore, they would likely be able to use the fact that all seven made allegations, without the real possibility of contamination or collusion, to assess the credit of each of the complainants. They may be able to use evidence of a pattern of behaviour attributed by the accused by both complainants and other witnesses to inform their decision (as in Hughes, and in the UK for Rolf Harris for that matter). Of course, they must still assess each complainant and each charge individually, must still meet the high bar of beyond reasonable doubt and can entirely reject any or all of the complainants, but the full picture is there for them to assess based on the evidence and the presentation of each complainant.

In Victoria, almost certainly there will be a separate jury for each one of those complainants. Seven separate juries, with no knowledge of any allegations against the accused but the single complainant before them. Men raised in institutions and damaged by sexual abuse tend to make for poor witnesses. Without the broader context and with the passage of time, the prospects of conviction on any of those trials are low. Essentially, trials in such circumstances are almost unable to be prosecuted.

Same provisions, but entirely different approaches from the respective Courts of Appeal (and there's a lot I could say about the Victorian Court of Appeal, but suffice to say that they handed down Getachew, an extraordinarily stupid judgment which ruined countless prosecutions and left the offender free to commit further offences until it was unanimously rejected by the High Court).

Hughes' defence intend (as far as I can tell from media reports, which admittedly are entirely unreliable) to argue that the Victorian approach should be followed in NSW.

A High Court decision, assessing both the NSW and Victorian approaches, could change the course of the law in Victoria and bring it closer to the NSW approach. Of course, it could also restrict the approach in NSW, which would be rather unfortunate, but the NSW approach is certainly the more logical and common sense one.

Thanks, that makes a great deal of sense. I can kind of understand the logic of the Victorian position I guess....but it seems way too tilted in favour of the defense.

I read up on Getachew. Yep, really gives you great faith in the legal system doesn't it.

 

[Shell]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...s/news-story/b45f5372fa214dfda044ffbbe0a2cfc6

 

[Kram]

“Hughes sat on top of a small grassy hill in the activities yard, and he cried”.
During one yard transfer, one inmate yelled out “I’m a celebrity, get me out of here”.

lol.

 

[Thrawn]

Is Trump his lawyer?

 

[2006_Eagles]

The Hughes saga has certainly turned into a shit-show

 

[Donners]

Granted leave to appeal to the High Court.

Looking forward to this; the High Court avoided tackling tendency evidence in another recent case, but it's squarely in issue here.

 

[GROTTO]

Let me begin to say I feel deeply sorry for his victims.

I do also feel sorry for Hughes family. To have someone you love and care about, be abused is also not right. Hughes if he loved his family would spare them of this pain, but then I dont think he was the one to go public about the abuse he is copping.

 

[Shell]

Please please please increase his sentence. Please.

 

[Shell]

Granted leave to appeal to the High Court.

Looking forward to this; the High Court avoided tackling tendency evidence in another recent case, but it's squarely in issue here.

What is that?

 

[Donners]

Please please please increase his sentence. Please.

It's an appeal against conviction, not sentence.

What is that?

The quote in the first post on this page goes through it in detail.

In very simple terms, it's whether multiple allegations against the same person should be heard in the same trial. In this case, they were, which is the basis of the appeal.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Not a popular opinion I know, but he hasn't killed or r*ped anyone.
Some of the so called people that commuted the Sydney gang rapes are already out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes

The whole justice system is a debacle based on who they want to make examples out of.

 

[Donners]

Not a popular opinion I know, but he hasn't killed or r*ped anyone.
Some of the so called people that commuted the Sydney gang rapes are already out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes

The whole justice system is a debacle based on who they want to make examples out of.

And others won't be for quite a while, which reveals the rather obvious point that they had different circumstances and levels of culpability, and thus deserved different levels of punishment.

Not really a direct comparison; indeed, there are few such direct comparisons in sentencing. Every offence and, at least as importantly, every offender, differs.

Given the prolific and insidious nature of child sex abuse, it's reasonable to have an element of deterrence against such offending factored into the sentence.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

And others won't be for quite a while, which reveals the rather obvious point that they had different circumstances and levels of culpability, and thus deserved different levels of punishment.

Not really a direct comparison; indeed, there are few such direct comparisons in sentencing. Every offence and, at least as importantly, every offender, differs.

Given the prolific and insidious nature of child sex abuse, it's reasonable to have an element of deterrence against such offending factored into the sentence.

Yeah but aggravated rape of a minor should be a whole different kettle of fish, even if they weren't the ringleader.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Not a popular opinion I know, but he hasn't killed or r*ped anyone.
Some of the so called people that commuted the Sydney gang rapes are already out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes

The whole justice system is a debacle based on who they want to make examples out of.

He never successfully r*ped anyone. I thought what he was sentenced because rape was his intention?

 

[Donners]

Full bench of the High Court is hearing it on Wednesday. The Victorian DPP is intervening.

Much as the media reports will focus on him being an actor, this is going to be a hugely significant case for criminal law which will change the landscape in either NSW and Vic (with flow-on effects to a few other states and territories).

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I still think there is too much focus on his celebrity status.

Meanwhile the following is a far more harrowing crime ( not for the Squeamish ).
http://www.news.com.au/national/wes...s/news-story/6df990855697479a40569ba916405221

Father: 61 Charges : 22 years.
Nicholas Adam Beer, who sexually abused the girl while she was dressed in bondage gear and shackled to a bed, was sentenced to seven years behind bars, while Troy Phillip Milbourne was jailed for five years and three months.

I would say that their crimes were worse than the Hey Dad dude.

 

[GreyCrow]

Full bench of the High Court is hearing it on Wednesday. The Victorian DPP is intervening.

Much as the media reports will focus on him being an actor, this is going to be a hugely significant case for criminal law which will change the landscape in either NSW and Vic (with flow-on effects to a few other states and territories).

I know its not applicable here but it might be a good example. The Tendency Evidence is currently being used in the Rolf Harris trial ie while on their own each allegation is minor when looked at as a ''tendency'' they show an ongoing state of mind. Is that correct?

 

[Donners]

I know its not applicable here but it might be a good example. The Tendency Evidence is currently being used in the Rolf Harris trial ie while on their own each allegation is minor when looked at as a ''tendency'' they show an ongoing state of mind. Is that correct?

Essentially, yes.

It needs to be more than just the fact that a bunch of people allege sexual abuse; there needs to be some particular similarity or pattern to the behaviour - much of the variance between jurisdictions is just how similar that behaviour must be.

Under UK law that is interpreted very broadly, even more so than NSW, whereas Vic interprets it very strictly (despite being based on identical provisions to NSW).

 

[Run n Spread]

Full bench of the High Court is hearing it on Wednesday. The Victorian DPP is intervening.

Much as the media reports will focus on him being an actor, this is going to be a hugely significant case for criminal law which will change the landscape in either NSW and Vic (with flow-on effects to a few other states and territories).

What element? In is this an appeal? On what grounds?

 

[Donners]

What element? In is this an appeal? On what grounds?

Yes, an appeal by Hughes against his conviction.

You can read all the submissions here if you're so inclined - http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_s226-2016

The short, simple version is that Hughes is saying that the evidence relied upon to join the multiple complainants against him in the same trial wasn't similar enough, and that therefore there should have been separate trials rather than a single one with all complainants.

He says the Court should adopt the more restrictive Victorian approach, rather than the broader NSW approach.

The Victorian DPP is seeking leave to intervene, saying the Victorian approach is wrong, and that the NSW approach should be preferred.

 

[Run n Spread]

Yes, an appeal by Hughes against his conviction.

You can read all the submissions here if you're so inclined - http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_s226-2016

The short, simple version is that Hughes is saying that the evidence relied upon to join the multiple complainants against him in the same trial wasn't similar enough, and that therefore there should have been separate trials rather than a single one with all complainants.

He says the Court should adopt the more restrictive Victorian approach, rather than the broader NSW approach.

The Victorian DPP is seeking leave to intervene, saying the Victorian approach is wrong, and that the NSW approach should be preferred.

To put a different skew on it if tendency evidence can form part of a case why not allow past convictions? That surely goes to tendency in other matters.

But I'm not sure. Take the Claremont Serial killer as populated on here. I'm guessing his will be the one trial on the 3 charges. Yet (tragically) the victims can't testify and thus the evidence will be more forensic and circumstantial rather then an examination of behaviour. In the Hughes case the defence will argue the media were prejudicial and the band wagon effect. Will be interesting to see what the judges rule and their reasons.

 

[Donners]

To put a different skew on it if tendency evidence can form part of a case why not allow past convictions? That surely goes to tendency in other matters.

They can be used in some cases; primarily where the accused has pleaded guilty in the past and the current offending is similar.

It's not done often though.

 

[Perth gal]

Yes, an appeal by Hughes against his conviction.

You can read all the submissions here if you're so inclined - http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_s226-2016

The short, simple version is that Hughes is saying that the evidence relied upon to join the multiple complainants against him in the same trial wasn't similar enough, and that therefore there should have been separate trials rather than a single one with all complainants.

He says the Court should adopt the more restrictive Victorian approach, rather than the broader NSW approach.

The Victorian DPP is seeking leave to intervene, saying the Victorian approach is wrong, and that the NSW approach should be preferred.

What a horrible human being. He abused all those people. Just deal with your sentence you moron.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

What a horrible human being. He abused all those people. Just deal with your sentence you moron.

His sentence is longer than a guy in W.A. got for having sex with an underage girl against her will in front of her father.
To me the issue is that the law is not consistent, and therefore you get all the challenges.
If everyone who committed a crime was sentenced similarly to others with the same crime, there would be much less point to running for a lawyer.

Not saying he's a good guy by any stretch, but not all abuse is as bad as all other abuse.

 

[Donners]

To me the issue is that the law is not consistent, and therefore you get all the challenges.
If everyone who committed a crime was sentenced similarly to others with the same crime, there would be much less point to running for a lawyer

To do so would be a system which ignores rehabilitation, specific deterrence and protection of the community, focusing entirely on retribution.

Sentencing is incredibly complex; every offender is different, and there are few crimes (especislly in sex offences) which are truly the same - each has its aggravating and mitigating circumstances.