A former senior NSW public servant, who confessed to being a paedophile, has been granted a suppression order to stop being named in the media for 2 years by NSW Magistrate Jennifer Price.
By itself it is scandalous. But when put together with other similar judicial judgments it shows that a paedophile protection racket by judges is continuing as a national scandal.
The SMH reported (9/10/24):
A man who held senior posts in the NSW government and prominent think tanks has confessed to being a paedophile after officers stopped him at Sydney airport and searched his phone.
The man cannot be named, however, after he convinced a court to suppress his identity because of his mental health.
Australian Border Force stopped the man, who is in his 40s, as he passed through Sydney’s international airport returning from the United Kingdom in August 2023.
The officers searched his phone and found child abuse material stored on the device.
The man was ordered to face court in February this year, but flew under the radar until Tuesday when he appeared in the Downing Centre Local Court to enter a plea.
The man pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing or controlling child abuse material, before Magistrate Jennifer Price.
Price concluded that a link could be made between the paedophile’s mental health and potential publicity. (Click here to read more)
He will be sentenced later this year.
Everyone who is jailed and potentially has media report on it could argue that “a link could be made between” their “mental health and potential publicity”. For Magistrate Jennifer Price to use that as justification for a 2-year suppression order is disgraceful and she should not be a magistrate.
If the average person applied for a suppression order they would be told that Australia has an open justice system, and they will have to deal with it like everyone else.
So why does the Australian judiciary regularly give paedophiles special treatment? Let’s have a quick look at some of my articles over the last few years which shows a pattern.
On the 8th of September 2016 I published an article titled “Paedophile priest gets 3 months jail for raping 3 boys by NSW Supreme Court’s Justice Hoeben” which starts off:
I have seen some scandalous and corrupt judgements, but I can’t remember any worse than paedophile catholic priest Father Robert Flaherty being sentenced in August 2016 to a non-parole period of 3 months jail for abusing and raping 3 boys. It is plainly obvious that the judges involved need to be investigated themselves. (Click here to read the full article)
On the 16th of May 2020 I published an article titled “Supreme Court judges Justice Wilson, Hulme and Hamill give paedophiles a get out of jail free card during the Coronavirus crisis” which starts off:
Convicted paedophile, Robert Crick, who sexually abused his 5-year-old grandson has avoided jail after three Court of Appeal judges in the Supreme Court of NSW felt sorry for him because of his claimed health issues and they were worried he might catch the Coronavirus in jail.
This is a stock standard case where the courts deliberately rewrite the law in favour of paedophiles and come up with any and every excuse possible not to jail them. The problem of judges failing to enforce the law and jail paedophiles is so bad that Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced in September 2019 that the government was introducing new mandatory sentencing laws for paedophiles. (Click here to read more)
Unfortunately, Scott Morrison has failed to follow through with the new laws at this point but if he had then Robert Crick would be in jail right now. (Click here to read the full article)
On the 28th of September 2020 I published my second book titled “Australia’s Paedophile Protection Racket” which deals with true crime, political corruption and judicial corruption.
One example in the book is “Judge John North gave a confessed paedophile who abused two young girls a suspended sentence due to the paedophile suffering high cholesterol, sleeping problems, having had no sex education and then protected his identity with a suppression order in November 2017”. (Click here to read more)
Numerous other articles I have written on paedophiles, the judiciary and government you can read by clicking here.
When I set up this website, I had a focus on judicial corruption and political corruption. But an elephant in the room when you report on judicial corruption is the judiciary continually protecting paedophiles and it can’t be ignored.
Reporting on paedophiles is not a pleasant topic and if the judiciary and politicians did their job I wouldn’t have to report on it as much as I do. But they don’t do their job, so I’ll keep reporting on it.
Having individual judicial officers issuing suppression orders has been abused for years and should not be allowed to continue especially for people who have pleaded guilty or have been found guilty.
Please use Facebook, “X”, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is independent media and is 100% crowdfunded by readers like yourself so please support on the links below. Click on the PayPal button below to donate or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.
Thank you for your support.
For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.
For the Fugitive Clothing t-shirt shop click here
Join the free email subscription below and you will be notified immediately I publish new articles which is normally twice a week.
Discover more from Kangaroo Court of Australia
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: State Magistrates
It’s not only the judiciary covering for paedophiles. Even SACAT refuses to take evidence if it involves uncomfortable information.
Once revealed, it would be of interest to learn the socio-economic status of this person, it being well-accepted that the criminal justice system has a natural bias towards those of high social status and economic means.
Is anybody on the side of human decency any more? Politicians, Judges, Police,…where does this leave us? Domestic laws are manipulated or dispensed with, as are international laws.
So right.
Yet another disgrace we need to know about
Thank you
Robert
My understanding is that law is supposed to be equal for all.
Why is it that if you are a person of high profile, you get preferential treatment?
The P ring & drug supply is so big, it involving persons in high ranking positions, that is why.
Politicians, lawyers, teachers, clergy & many more are in the preferred club.
Judges and Courts boast about open justice but it doesn’t really exist.
The family courts are the among the worst.
That’s why their outcomes are capricious.
This is so depressing. People who are educated and given responsible positions decide to give preference to people who are perpetrators, and do not seem to consider the mental health and other repercussions for the victims. Very disturbing, very disappointing. Thank you so much for reporting this thread of corruption.
Wealth and high ranking have always determined the court’s outcome in this country. Justice is a word that has dollar signs all over it.
This nasty ped has his identity covered up because of health issues?? What about the health issues these poor little innocent kids have? Anyone helping them? No . Too busy feeling sorry for sick vile paedophiles.. these judges need sacking ..
Crikey!!!
Another good piece KCA!
More loose ends and accountability about the judiciary’s handling of cases involving paedophiles. This controversy highlights the ongoing debate about the balance between privacy and public interest in the judicial system. I would like to know …
Why are suppression orders frequently granted for individuals guilty of possessing or creating child abuse material?
Is there a systematic bias within the judiciary that favours paedophiles, and if so, why?
Are mental health claims valid reasons for leniency or suppression orders, and are they applied consistently and with the same frequency across all other crimes?
What mechanisms are in place to ensure judicial accountability, and are they effective in cases involving child abuse?
Just asking! Hmmm!
Hi KCA, do you have standing as a media journalist to contest the suppression Order. Alternatively, is it necessary for a MSM organisation to make the application?
I believe that The Australian had contested a suppression order in the past.
MSM are all controlled and part of the problem. They have been covering up the pedo problem for a very long time. Nothing is as it seems.
What these vile and disgraceful child abusers are not counting on is standing before God and giving an account. There is a day of reckoning coming and they will not avoid that. Their names won’t be suppressed when they stand before the Judge of the Universe and their sentence is eternal in the caverns of the lost.
“It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones (Luke 17:2 KJB)
there needs to be a uproar as this is always gong on and not 1 politician says anything about it ,they just let it happen
The 3 Ms for public servants.
If Public Servants and Judiciary had their duties defined in clear terms in Position Descriptions drafted by MPs but approved by the Voting Public, it would be a simple matter for the application of the following existing Legal Terms and penalty decisions by the same Judiciary. Career politicians need not apply for this task.
Misprision – misconduct or neglect of duty by a public official.
Malfeasance – wrongdoing by a public official.
Misfeasance – doing a Lawful act in an unlawful manner.