This Is Justice?

UPDATE: It seems the wallopers have grabbed this nasty piece of work, and because legal sorts regard members of the public as profoundly stupid there are already calls and pleas not to comment on the case. This is supposed to safeguard the defendant, but what it really protects is the bench from being held accountable for not keeping an animal off the street. Can't talk about the defendant? Well, how convenient! Can't talk about the judges and parole system that set him free as well.

This is where the law is poised to make an even bigger ass of itself. The post below, which features an excerpt lifted from the Supreme Court's own website, could do nothing but alert potential jurors to the sort of filth that decency should oblige them to flush. A quick google and it is there for anyone to see.

So is the Supreme Court going to take down its report of the successful appeal? Will it re-publish in Sanskrit or Latin?

As demonstrated by any number of trials in the US, where laws regarding pre-trial coverage are considerably less stringent, jurors are quite capable of making up their on minds on the strength of evidence presented. Just ask OJ Simpson about that.

Here, though, things are different. A judiciary that can't, and won't, sequester scum demands that we trust it. Because, you know, they are so much smarter than the rest of us. Well, much better paid, anyway.

---------------------------------------

FOR THE SECOND time in just a few months, Victoria Police are hunting for a convicted and released criminal wanted in connection with a young woman's murder. It is being widely reported that Stephen James Hunter, the man with whom police wish to speak, was sentenced in 1986 to 13 years for stabbing a girl to death.

Well there is more than that to Hunter's past -- and yet more reasons to wonder why any citizen should have the slightest faith in our legal system. From Victoria's court of Appeal, 2006:

32 Because of the error to which we have referred, the sentencing discretion is reopened. It is necessary, therefore, to describe in brief terms the circumstances of each of the offences for which Hunter falls to be re-sentenced.
Count 1 – theft of a motor car
33 In early 2002, Hunter rented a sports car from a car rental firm. Following the expiration of the rental period, Hunter kept the vehicle and ultimately gave it to a friend, who sold the vehicle and paid him $2,500 from the sale proceeds. Hunter told investigating police that he committed the theft because he was desperate for money at the time. The vehicle has not been recovered.
Counts 2, 3 and 4 – kidnapping, false imprisonment and causing injury intentionally
34 In March 2002, Samantha Smith, who was a friend of Hunter’s, requested that he find and capture an acquaintance, one Scott McCasker. Smith promised Hunter $500 if he would do so. Hunter enlisted the assistance of his trans-sexual partner, Kelly Piers. On the morning of 12 March 2002, Hunter and Piers located McCasker in St Kilda and forced him into their vehicle. They then drove McCasker to Hunter’s premises in Armadale, where he was taken inside. Later, they drove McCasker to Smith’s address in Diggers Rest but she was not at home. Hunter then took McCasker back to Armadale, where McCasker was tied up and gagged. He was secured with tape and electric cord. His head was tied to a beam with a wire coat-hanger. Whilst McCasker was in that position, Hunter punched him to the face and ribs on a number of occasions, and he suffered injuries to the face and head. McCasker was left tied up in this way until he was able to free himself and escape from Hunter’s premises.
Count 5 – trafficking in a drug of dependence
35 On 22 May 2002 Hunter was arrested in relation to the offences committed in March 2002 to which we have referred. When he was searched, police located a number of half gram bags of amphetamine on Hunter’s person. He told police that he had used and sold amphetamines to pay for his board and rent. Other similar bags were located at Hunter’s premises. He explained to the police how he cut the amphetamine with glucose and bagged it in preparation for sale. He informed the police that he wanted to make money and leave Victoria to avoid warrants which he believed had been issued for his apprehension. He also stated that he had purchased a quarter of an ounce per week prior to his arrest and bagged about 20 "small lots". He admitted having sold ten small bags for $100 each before being arrested.

Read the whole thing, especially the stipulated non-parole period.

 

Random Good Fortune

THE PUBLISHER Random House, which is no small business, recently issued Anita Heiss' Am I Black Enough For You? As readers will know, the book has been the subject of much comment, but not lately on Random House's web site, where hundreds of critical, but by no means racist, remarks were erased not once but twice. The same thing happened at the ABC, where a comment thread vanished without trace. There were no calls to burn crosses, distribute blankets contaminated with smallpox or remove dusky moppets from their parents' care. The comments were critical of Heiss and that was enough to see them obliterated. This is the sad state of free speech in Australia, and we can only hope that the soon-to-be Abbott government will do something about it.

With this in mind, there is one other thing the next government might wish to examine. Indeed, given the wreck our current PM has made of the nation's finances, one would think it has an obligation to do so without delay.When she sat down to pen her book, Ms Heiss was in receipt of some $90,000 in government grants reserved for Indigenous writers. Had she lacked the requisite melanin to qualify for such support, Heiss would have gone to Random House, pitched her idea and, if it had been accepted, pocketed an advance against future royalties. When the book came on the market, she would not have received another penny until the publisher had recouped its initial investment.

Instead, she and Random House would appear to be making out like bandits. Paid by the taxpayer to write a book about which taxpayers are not allowed to comment, she is now free to pocket royalties from the very first sale. And executives at Random House must be smiling as well. Very little of the company's own cash went into the book's preparation, as its only expenses were printing and distribution. It, too, will be in the black (so to speak) very soon after the release date, regardless of how well or poorly Heiss' book is received.

If this in an inaccurate summation of the way the grants system works, the Professor would like to know. But that is the way it seems from a quick reading of Australia Council charters and wotnots.

So here is a nifty idea for PM Abbott, one that might save the taxpayer just a little bit of cash and improve both the quality and breadth of Australian writing: Instead of simply handing out money in the form of grants, why not underwrite advances to authors? This would mean favoured authors could not double dip -- once on the grant and again on the sales -- and it would also oblige publishers to invest a little more thought to the commercial and literary appeal of projects they take up.

Or think of it this way: You are an acquiring editor and two proposals land on your desk. One is supported by the Australia Council and guarantees a return, regardless of the merit you might see in it. The other is an unsubsidised pitch, one that may well be the worthier of the pair.

Which is likely to get the nod, do you think?