Northern Territory shonkey Magistrate

Another dodgy Magistrate exposed!!!!

Royal commission: NT magistrate Michael Carey admits recommendation to drop court action against sex offender did not meet guidelines

By Xavier La Canna

Updated Wed at 9:58amWed 1 Oct 2014, 9:58am

Photo: NT magistrate Michael Carey says he does not know why the decision to drop court action against a sex offender was made so quickly. (Supplied)

Map: Darwin 0800

A Northern Territory magistrate has admitted a recommendation he made in 2002 to drop court action against sex offender Don Henderson was made quickly, and did not meet guidelines.

At the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the NT's Acting Chief Magistrate Michael Carey gave evidence about a memo he sent in 2002 when he worked at the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The memo sent to the DPP recommends dropping court action against Mr Henderson, a convicted sex offender who the royal commission has heard molested several children who were housed at the Retta Dixon home in Darwin.
The note from Mr Carey in 2002 has been described as "pivotal" to the decision to drop action against Mr Henderson, who was never prosecuted for his alleged crimes while working as a house parent at Retta Dixon.
Under questioning from Counsel Assisting the Commission, Sophie David, Mr Carey agreed the memo failed to adhere to prosecutor guidelines.
He admitted the memo did not, as it was supposed to, include reference or analysis to an application for new trials for Mr Henderson, and nor did it include references to Mr Henderson's history as a sex offender.
The memo also did not include the views of the officer in charge or victims, as guidelines direct.
"You would agree that this memorandum does not comply with the the prosecutor guidelines in respect of what should be in a discontinuance report?" Ms David asked.
"Yes," Mr Carey said.
Mr Carey also admitted the decision in 2002 was made within 24 hours of getting the file on Mr Henderson.
"I don't know why it was done in such haste," Mr Carey said.
Mr Henderson has been linked to scores of child abuse allegations, documents tendered to the commission show.
In 1984 he was convicted of molesting two boys at a public swimming pool in Darwin.

Apology from ministry in charge at Retta Dixon

Reverend Trevor Leggott, the head of the ministry that cared for children at Retta Dixon, has apologised for the sexual and physical abuse they suffered, but said his group could not offer money to victims.
"To hear those stories related to the people that I would call family has been extremely painful for me to hear and that is why I offer the most sincere apologies," Reverend Leggott said.
Reverend Leggott is the general-director of Australian Indigenous Ministry (AIM), whose forerunner, the Aboriginal Inland Mission, ran the Retta Dixon home.
The facility housed mainly Aboriginal children between 1946 and 1980.

I know the hurt that has been caused to these people is not going to be fixed by money.

Reverend Trevor Leggott, head of Australian Indigenous Ministries

Last week the inquiry heard often graphic accounts from nine former Retta Dixon residents who suffered physical or sexual abuse, including numerous examples of alleged abuse by Mr Henderson.
Reverend Leggott said his ministry lived a "hand-to-mouth existence" and did not have the funds available to give compensation payments to victims of abuse at Retta Dixon.
"It seems extremely difficult for me that we can offer it," he told the royal commission.
"I know there can be recompense in terms of money, but I know the hurt that has been caused to these people is not going to be fixed by money," he said.

Ministry has 'substantial number of properties'

Under questioning from Ms David, Reverend Leggott admitted his organisation did own a substantial number of properties in New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory.
But he said most of the properties were held by trusts and local churches - AIM did not own them.
He said the ministry did own some properties itself, including an office in Humpty Doo and a home in the Blue Mountains in NSW, so there was some capacity to set up a compensation scheme.
"Only if we were to realise those assets and that meant that we couldn't do the work that we are doing presently," he said.
To heckles from the public gallery at the Darwin Supreme Court, Reverend Leggott also testified he did know of any abuse at Retta Dixon until he received papers from the royal commission.

Standard of kinship care for Indigenous children 'relaxed'

Earlier the royal commission heard Indigenous children looked after by relatives in the Northern Territory do not recieve the same standard of care as children placed with other carers.
NT Children's Commissioner Howard Bath told the inquiry he generally backed a policy of putting Aboriginal children in need of care with relatives, and if that is not possible then into care with people of the same culture.

Photo: NT Children's Commissioner Dr Howard Bath, who told a royal commission meeting in Darwin of a lower standard of care for Indigenous children. (Supplied)

Despite that principle the inquiry heard that the NT had the lowest placement rate for Aboriginal children with Aboriginal carers in Australia.
Dr Bath said that standards of care in general were lower with kinship carers.
"There are some ways to go before you can say the standard of care offered to those kids, and I am talking generally, is the same as for all other kids that need protection," Dr Bath said.
He said in some very remote communities the disadvantaged circumstances meant it was practically much harder to find a suitable placements and because of the larger size of Aboriginal families, often there were fewer adults able to look after children.
"The reality is some of those standards tend to be relaxed," he said.
"Some of the data that we provided say five years ago showed very clearly that more of the kinship carers weren't registered as carers and more of them had difficulty in terms of receiving training for example, were less likely to recieve training that non-kinship carers."
Asked why the policy of putting Indigenous children into the care of relatives was seen as preferable, Dr Bath said it helped preserve a sense of identity for the child and helped address the "historic mistakes of the past".
He said being with someone of the same cultural background also helped protect a child against the trauma and dislocation after they are removed from their family.

Freedom of Expression and the First Amendment

A Texas court has thrown out a law prohibiting ‘up the skirt’ photography, on the grounds the previous ruling violated Texas’ citizens’ constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Another Law that America is using for other purposes other than what it was meant for!!! It is also a case where the press stirred up paranoia without reporting the facts orectly. The Media reports it is the upskirt Law. This is totally shit!!!!

Clearly no violation here just media trying to fuck every stupid American over!!!

Listen to the court before the Media!!!!

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled 8-1 to strike down part of a law which bans taking images of another person in public without their consent and with the intention to “arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person”, criticising the “paternalistic” intrusion into peoples’ private right to be aroused.

Debjani Roy, deputy director of Hollaback!, a New York-based anti-street harassment group, speaking to the Guardian, claimed the decision was “a huge violation and absolutely appalling that the rights of predators are being valued over the rights of women and girls.”

Halie Ricketts, a victim of an ‘up the skirt’ shot in an Austin mall earlier this year, commented: “Currently the law is protecting the criminals and not the victims”.

The individual, who Ms Ricketts claims stuck a camera up her skirt and took a photograph, has not been charged.

The judges’ decision, released on Wednesday, said “photographs and visual recordings are inherently expressive”, as is the process creating them, ensuring their protection under the First Amendment.

Presiding judge Sharon Keller explained: “Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of ‘paternalistic interest in regulating the defendants mind’ the First Amendment was designed to guard against.”

The ruling stemmed from the arrest of a man in his 50s named Ronald Thompson, who was stopped by police officers alerted by concerned parents in SeaWorld, San Antonio in 2011. Officers later found 73 images of children in swimsuits after confiscating his camera.

The prosecution said lawbreakers could not hide behind a freedom of speech defence, claiming photography was a technical process not covered by a constitutional right.

However, lawyers for Mr Thompson argued the above-mentioned law was “the stuff of Orwellian ‘thought-crime’”.

They claimed the legislation failed to distinguish between ‘up the skirt’ photography and taking an image of a girl walking down the street – suggesting it could be used to criminalise paparazzi photojournalists.

Mr Thompson was indicted by a grand jury on 26 felony counts of improper photography.

Freedom of expression Criminal Court Appeal Texas

This man was at a swimming pool taking underwater shots. The "thought police " said he was a pervert. Clearly he was not!!!

This is another example of one law being used for some other purpose other than what it was meant for!!!

In re Thompson

Justia.com Opinion Summary: Appellant was charged with twenty-six counts of improper photography or visual recording. Each count of the indictment alleged appellant, “with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of THE DEFENDANT, did by electronic means record another . . . at a location that was not a bathroom or private dressing room.” Each count further specified the name of an “.avi” file that was recorded. Some of the counts contained additional information regarding the subject matter and location of the recording. Appellant filed a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that the statute on which his prosecution was based was facially unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. The trial court denied the application, and appellant appealed. The “improper photography or visual recording” statute makes it a crime to, among other things, photograph or record by electronic means a visual image of another person under certain circumstances. Subsection (b)(1) of the statute makes such acts a crime if: (1) the person being photographed or recorded is not in a bathroom or private dressing room; (2) the photograph or recording of the person is made without that person’s consent; and (3) the photograph or recording is made with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that, to the extent that it proscribed taking photographs and recording visual images, Subsection (b)(1) of the statute was facially unconstitutional in violation of the freedom of speech guarantee of the First Amendment. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.