No prison for statutory rape??

It pays to be black in this day and age. The idea that a 10-year-old girl is capable of informed consent to sex is thoroughly rejected by the law but that is apparently for whites only. Below is a pic of the stupid female judge concerned



NINE men who pleaded guilty last month to gang-raping a 10-year-old girl at the Aurukun Aboriginal community on Cape York have escaped a prison term, with the sentencing judge saying the child victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them. Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley ordered that the six teenage juveniles not even have a conviction recorded for the 2005 offence, and that they be placed on a 12-month probation order, The Australian newspaper reported this morning.

Queensland's attorney-general is meeting with the state's prosecutions boss to consider the possibility of lodging an appeal against the sentence. The appeal period has lapsed, however it has been reported that the state could apply for an extension.

Judge Bradley sentenced three men over the age of consent of 16 - aged 17, 18 and 26 - to six months' imprisonment, with the sentence suspended for 12 months. Judge Bradley said from her Cairns home yesterday that she considered the sentences "appropriate" in the case because they were the penalties asked for by the Crown prosecutor. "I am not in a position to comment and I refer you to my sentencing remarks," Judge Bradley told The Australian.

Family supporters of the child victim warned that violence and murders could follow the judge's decision not to jail any of the offenders, and they questioned what message the ruling sent to the community. When sentencing seven co-accused on October 24 at Aurukun, Judge Bradley noted: "The girl involved was not forced and she probably agreed to have sex with all of you."

The four juveniles are aged 14 to 16 years. They and the adults come from some of the most prominent and powerful Aboriginal families on Cape York. Two more juveniles pleaded guilty on November 6 to raping the child, and were also given probation with no convictions recorded. The child victim, now aged 12, does not enjoy the elevated family status of her attackers, and has had to be removed from Aurukun and put with foster parents.

News of the non-custodial sentences has added to the violent hatreds that exist in Aurukun between families and tribes and which have played a part in recent brawls involving dozens of assailants, many armed with sticks and spears.

Queensland Attorney-General Kerry Shine said last night he had called for an urgent meeting this morning with state Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare, who, it is understood, was not told of the submissions made by her prosecutor for non-custodial sentences for the rapists. Mr Shine said he needed to receive a clear picture of the circumstances surrounding the sentencing, including the prosecutor's submissions. "I have been made aware of this tragic event this afternoon and have had an opportunity to read the sentencing remarks," Mr Shine said. "I'm truly horrified by the circumstances of these offences. The circumstances of this case have not previously been brought to my attention, and nor has there been any communication with my office with regard to an appeal. "Rape, particularly of a 10-year-old girl, by numerous offenders, is to my mind horrific in the extreme. "It therefore appears to me that what I consider to be a particularly lenient sentence needs explanation."

One of the adult rapists is on the Australian National Child Offence Register following a conviction on March 29 last year for unlawful carnal knowledge of a female child - an offence committed after he was charged with the rape of the 10-year-old girl. Judge Bradley said the man was the oldest and should have known a lot better. "You cannot have sex with anyone under 16," she said. "However, as I said before, I am not treating anyone any differently in terms of being a ringleader, and in your case, again, I will impose a sentence of imprisonment but it will be wholly suspended so you do not go to jail today. "But if you get into more trouble in the next year, you could end up in jail." The man had been arrested on August 7, 2006, and the judge said the 14 days he spent in custody awaiting his sentence was to count as "imprisonment already served".

When sentencing the juveniles, Justice Bradley said: "All of you have pleaded guilty to having sex with a 10-year-old girl and (one of the juveniles) has pleaded guilty to having sex with another young girl as well. "All of you have to understand that you cannot have sex with a girl under 16. "If you do, you are breaking the law, and if you are found out, then you will be brought to court and could end up in jail. "I accept that the girl involved, with respect to all of these matters, was not forced, and that she probably agreed to have sex with all of you. "But you were taking advantage of a 10-year-old girl and she needs to be protected, and the girls generally in this community need to be protected. "This is a very serious matter. It is a very shameful matter and I hope that all of you realise that you must not have sex with young girls. "Anyone under 16 is too young. Some of you are still children yourselves. Others of you are adults but I am treating you all equally in terms of the behaviour. "I am not treating any of you as the ringleader or anything like that."

She asked each prisoner to stand up and said she hoped they would realise it was wrong to have sex with young girls. Justice Bradley then offered them probation and when each agreed to accept that, she said she would not record a conviction. To one of the juveniles, she said: "You are still a child. You have pleaded guilty to one offence of rape. "You have been in a lot of trouble in the past, though, and you still have some community service to do. "You have not been doing that well. I am prepared to offer you probation but you have got to stick with the rules of probation." The juvenile agreed and was then placed on 12 months' probation, with no conviction recorded.

Source





Labor swift to dump Access Card

A sensible move. National ID databases are a recipe for disaster

THE Labor Government has moved quickly to scrap the Howard administration's controversial $1.1 billion Human Services identity card. The federal Government has shut down the Office of the Access Card and closed its website, honouring its election promise to scrap the controversial program. The $1.1 billion project - intended to provide every Australian with a unique health and welfare number and biometric photo on a smartcard - opened a year ago, with two key tenders attracting strong bids from IT and card supply companies keen to secure a role. The project has languished since mid-year, after an all-party Senate committee rejected the draft enabling legislation as wholly inadequate and lacking in protections against the card's use as a de facto identity card.

Bidders are understood to have spent millions on preparing their tenders for systems integration and card issuing; while the department spent more than $50 million on consultants, administration and advertising. The Howard government also spent an undisclosed amount on establishing the Consumer and Privacy Taskforce to manage public consultation; its resulting reports provided recommendations that were ignored by the then minister, Senator Chris Ellison. One participant notes with frustration the "diverted efforts from other agencies' activities, and the time wasted by people responding to the disordered consultation process".

However, the bulk of the cost lay in completing the processing and registration of some 18 million Australians while the card was rolled out over two years to 2010, and Labor plans to use these savings elsewhere. The deadlines for the technical and administrative parts of the Access Card regime were widely seen to be highly ambitious and driven by a political timetable rather than a scheduled nationwide rollout.

The scope of the project and card capabilities also varied wildly as former Employment and Workplace Relations minister, Joe Hockey, talked up plans for the private sector to piggyback applications on the smartcard for secondary, "consumer friendly" purposes.

Source





Do-gooder judge a liar



Former Federal Court judge Marcus Einfeld lied under oath about a traffic infringement as he was in danger of losing his driver's licence, the District Court heard today. Einfeld and co-accused Angela Liati are facing a committal hearing for perjury and traffic matters.

In a statement tendered to court, the Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor Wayne Roser, SC, said that on two separate occasions Einfeld had lied by saying he was not driving his silver Lexus when it was caught speeding in a Mosman Street on January 8 last year. In the statement, Mr Roser also said that Einfeld's long-time friend Vivian Schenker had initially lied to police about the car Einfeld claims to have been driving that day. She later agreed to tell the truth after being given an undertaking by police that any information she provided would not be used against her in any criminal proceedings. The court heard "she made the statement she did on 22nd August 2006 because she thought it would be helpful to Einfeld. And that it was not the truth".

Einfeld's committal hearing has been stood over until tomorrow. However, the committal hearing of Liati, who is alleged to have given a false statement on Mr Einfeld's behalf, will continue today.

The former judge is accused of lying under oath about a friend driving his car when it was caught speeding on Sydney's North Shore. The friend, US university professor Teresa Brennan, was Einfeld's alibi on a number of occasions dating back to February 4, 2003, Mr Roser today told the court. "Unfortunately for Einfeld, Professor Teresa Brennan had died the day prior to that offence ... in the United State of America as a result of a hit and run accident," Mr Roser said.

Einfeld's use of Professor Brennan was uncovered during the widely publicised police investigation of the speeding offence at Mosman. Einfeld swore on oath in August that year that he was in Forster on the NSW Mid North Coast that day and that Professor Brennan had been driving his car. Mr Roser said mobile phone records and credit card receipts show he was in Sydney that entire day and had lunch with Ms Shenker on the city's northern beaches. CCTV footage and E-tag records would support this claim.

Ms Shenker would tell the court Einfeld picked her up that day in his silver Lexus but told her to say he was driving his mother's car prior to her first statement to police, Mr Roser said. "When she did her first statement she knew what she had said in relation to the vehicle Einfeld was in was not true," Mr Roser said . "She made the statement she did ... because she thought it would be helpful to Einfeld. "It was not the truth." Ms Shenker agreed to give evidence in exchange for immunity from prosecution, Mr Roser said.

Einfeld had conspired with Ms Shenker and Liati to avoid penalties which included loss of his licence or a good behaviour bond, Mr Roser said. "He intentionally lied ... and said that not only he was not driving his vehicle but that he was in Forster on January 8, 2006," Mr Roser said. "He was successful in his endeavour because, relying upon Einfeld's evidence that he was in Forster on that weekend and was not driving his vehicle, the magistrate dismissed the charge against him." Einfeld was present in court today but he and his counsel Ian Barker QC were excused until tomorrow.

Liati allegedly swore a statement saying she was in Einfeld's car with Theresa Brennan - a different person to the deceased professor - on January 8. Mr Roser said she did this in support of Einfeld's version of events and it was an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Source





Army can't even supply good boots

How dead in the head can you get? Is there ANY intelligent defence equipment procurement?

THE Defence Department is spending $375,000 on a product review to tell itself what the troops and other experts already know -- their combat boots are substandard. Soldiers are up in arms about inferior boots, with one angry senior Digger this week saying, "Who will we sue over foot damage, the army or the boot maker?"

Some service personnel are paying hundreds of dollars from their own pockets to buy overseas-made boots because of damage and medical downgrading caused by the standard-issue Terra boot made by Redback Australian Boot Company.

In response to questions, the Defence Department revealed that the giant American consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton is being paid $375,000 of taxpayer money to conduct a review of combat boots. Due in October, the review has been extended after several interim reports were returned to BAH by the Defence Materiel Organisation marked "unsatisfactory".

The standard issue Terra boot, which is the subject of many complaints due to the damage caused by its rigid sole and lack of lining, costs taxpayers about $148 a pair. For under $200, the troops could be wearing a world-class boot such as the Australian-designed Crossfire Peacekeeper Plus, which is now the standard infantry combat boot for the US Army. Crossfire has sold 380,000 pairs of the hand-stitched and lined boots, including 150,000 this year alone to the US Army.

Troops damaged by the Terras have bought several thousands pairs of Crossfires, which are lined and made using Goodyear welt technology to help mould to the foot. Unlike other workers, infantry soldiers have to carry heavy loads and run and walk long distances across rough terrain in all weather.

"Why doesn't Defence just buy what works," said one Digger currently deployed to the Middle East. "Boots are the most basic things that we own." As one soldier wrote about the saga on a credible military equipment website, "It is the story of . . . bureaucratic infighting, incompetence, neglect, contempt for soldiers and failure in duty of care."

Source