George Pell-Royal Commission to inquire into the Catholic Church and Towards Healing


OMG I have been watching Cardinal Pell’s live evidence all day and seriously, he needs to get to confession. Lying his brain off and justifying everything in favour of the church.

I did want to stay out of these religion relation Royal Commission hearings but can not. AS a survivor of sexual abuse by the catholic church I dry reach listening to him.

LIVE LINK HERE http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/public-hearings/case-study-march-2014/

UPDATE 26/03/14 The Cardinal had a second day in the hot seat and was no better trying to defend the indefensible

George Pell tells sex abuse royal commission case against John Ellis was unfair ‘from a Christian point of view’

Updated 2 minutes ago

Cardinal George Pell says that from a “Christian point of view”, the Church did not deal fairly with former altar boy and sex abuse victim John Ellis.

Mr Ellis was abused by a priest in the 1970s, but lost a legal battle in 2007 when the Court of Appeal ruled the Catholic Church was not an entity that could be sued.

Cardinal Pell, Australia’s most senior Catholic cleric, is giving evidence at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Sydney.

He said although lawyers never acted improperly, he had “moral doubts” and believed the case was mishandled from a spiritual perspective.”Any reservations I might have about particular stands of our lawyers, I would not want to suggest that they did anything improper,” he told the hearing.

“But from my point of view, from a Christian point of view, leaving aside the legal dimension, I don’t think we did deal fairly.”

Cardinal Pell said that he endorsed the aggressive strategies of the church’s lawyers, who were instructed to “resist” Mr Ellis’s claim, despite the fact that he believed Mr Ellis.

“Part of that wording, ‘vigorously’ or ‘strenuously’, was, at least in my mind, an attempt to encourage people not to go into litigation,” Cardinal Pell told the hearing.

Counsel assisting the commission Gail Furness questioned the Cardinal’s stance.

“So by having a vigorous defence, that would show potential plaintiffs that they should think twice before litigating against the church?” she asked.

“That they should think clearly,” Cardinal Pell responded.

Cardinal Pell said victims should settle the matters outside court.

In a statement to the commission, Cardinal Pell apologised to Mr Ellis for the abuse committed by Father Aidan Duggan.

Cardinal Pell admitted endorsing a decision not to enter mediation at the time the legal action began, but now concedes that was a mistake.

“I could have. I regret that I didn’t. As a general rule, though, I handed over the carriage of the case to our legal advisers and I should have been more vigilant,” he said.

Before the case Mr Ellis asked for $100,000 but was offered $30,000.

The court costs far exceeded Mr Ellis’s original request for compensation.

The Cardinal said at the time the legal action commenced in 2004, he was mistaken about Mr Ellis.

“He presented so well. He’s such a senior lawyer; he was represented by two very high-profile lawyers,” Cardinal Pell said.

“I understood insufficiently just how wounded he was.

I understood insufficiently just how wounded he was.

Cardinal George Pell

“We would never have run this case against many of the victims who came forward because they’re manifestly so wounded.

“That was not apparent to me at this stage.”

During the litigation, Cardinal Pell expressed concern to his colleagues about exacerbating the victim’s psychiatric condition.

He was today asked whether he was actually attempting to avoid bad publicity as a result of the case.

“That was always one of my concerns, yes, but it was not my first concern,” he said.

Cardinal Pell has denied being involved in the day-to-day running of the legal battle with Mr Ellis.

A second man came forward with a complaint about the priest during the litigation

Cardinal Pell admits that would have strengthened Mr Ellis’s case, but said he did not discuss it with the lawyers.

The hearing continues.

Cardinal George Pell says he was not involved in discussions on compensation payments

George Pell says Vatican treated abuse accusers as ‘enemies of the church

George Pell says Vatican treated abuse accusers as ‘enemies of the church

Cardinal George Pell has told a royal commission into child sexual abuse he was not involved in discussions about compensation for a victim who sued the Catholic Church and lost.

The former archbishop of Sydney, Australia’s highest-ranking Catholic, is giving evidence in front of a packed public gallery at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Sydney.

Today he was questioned about his part in the Church’s legal battle with John Ellis, who was abused by Sydney priest Father Aidan Duggan in the 1970s.

The former altar boy lost his case in 2007, when the New South Wales Court of Appeal ruled the Church was not a legal entity that could be sued – the so-called Ellis defence.

Catholic officials have said Cardinal Pell knew about Mr Ellis’s compensation request, but say he instructed the Church’s lawyers to defend the case vigorously.

Last week Cardinal Pell’s private secretary, Dr Michael Casey, told the commission Cardinal Pell had directed the legal team to be aggressive in its cross-examination.

Today Cardinal Pell said the legal battle had been “hard fought, perhaps too well fought by our legal representatives”.

“I would now say, looking back, that these legal measures, although effective, were disproportionate to the objective and to the psychological state of Mr Ellis as I now better understand it,” he said in a statement tendered to the royal commission.

“I realise I should have exercised more regular and stringent oversight.”

But Cardinal Pell denied claims from the former chancellor of the Sydney Archdiocese that he was involved in discussions about compensation payments, particularly when Mr Ellis lost his job.

“[Claims that] I would agree to offer him $5,000 extra by way of compensation, I regard as grotesque,” he said.

There was a round of applause in the packed hearing room when Cardinal Pell was challenged to back up his statement that quite a number of abuse cases are never validated.

“You’ve said that in quite a number of cases, for example, in schools, the incidents are found not to be validated,” Counsel Assisting the Commission Gail Furness said.

“I call for the data that supports that evidence.”

Sceptical Vatican gave accused ‘benefit of the doubt’

Before turning to the Ellis case, the commission had questioned Cardinal Pell about the culture of the Church in the 1990s.

Cardinal Pell agreed that before the Towards Healing pastoral and redress scheme was established in the mid-1990s, some priests were moved between dioceses in the event of an abuse complaint.

“Unfortunately that was the case,” he said. “If that happened, it would be very much by way of exception.”

He told the hearing the Vatican took a “sceptical” approach to complaints of abuse and accused priests were given “the benefit of the doubt”.

I think there was more of an inclination to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant, rather than listen seriously to the complaints.

Cardinal George Pell

“The attitude of some people at the Vatican was that if accusations were being made against priests, they were made exclusively or at least predominantly by enemies of the Church to make trouble and therefore they should be dealt with sceptically,” he said.

“I think there was more of an inclination to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant rather than listen seriously to the complaints.”

Cardinal Pell also told the commission that sentiments similar to those in the Vatican were present among some in the Australian arm of the Church in the early 1990s.

“Not to anything like the same degree, I don’t think, but it is a little bit difficult to know what people think on these issues unless they are discussed directly or they are challenged on them,” Cardinal Pell said.

“I never heard – I think in many ways, the English-speaking world made a significant contribution to the universal church in this area.

“In dealing adequately with this, whatever the deficiencies, I think we were ahead of some countries.”

He said when he became Archbishop of Melbourne he “moved very vigorously no improve what was a chaotic situation” surrounding the handling of abuse claims.

Abuse survivors listen closely to Pell’s evidence

The walls outside the royal commission have been covered in placards from victim support groups, calling on Cardinal Pell to be accountable for his actions and detail his role in the Ellis legal proceedings.

Child abuse survivors said they would watch Cardinal Pell’s appearance with great interest.

Dr Cathy Kezelman, the president of the group Adults Surviving Child Abuse, said there needed to be some clarity around the issue.

“We’re all waiting to see what the archbishop’s role was in this case and there’s been conflicting evidence to date. What we know is that John Ellis suffered enormously through this,” she said.

“We had an internal church process that acknowledged he’d been abused and yet when he sought a civil claim that was brought into question.”

Care Leavers Australia Network chief executive Leonie Sheedy said her organisation was eagerly anticipating the Cardinal’s evidence.

“It’s so long overdue,” she said. “I feel so sad about what happened to John Ellis and all those other people who have tried to get justice for the crimes that were committed against them.

“They call it the Ellis defence, but it should be called the Pell defence.

“He’s going to go down in history as the person who denied people justice.”

After his testimony, Cardinal Pell is expected to leave Australia for Rome to take on a new senior role at the Vatican, which includes responsibility for preparing the Vatican’s annual budget, as well as financial planning and enhanced internal controls.

The hearing continues.

About these ads

Federal Election – 7th September, 2013


It would be nice to have Free Speech, Rupert Murdoch:

Wait a minute

As quoted on Youtube:

The TV networks appear to be allowing Rupert Murdoch to again manipulate how people think and vote as he allegedly has an agenda.

New technology, the media and criminal trials – Let’s talk about it


Here is an interesting article folks that I found that comes at a time when the media and the internet are colliding with the long-held protocols of the old school legal system of the last century, who needs to catch up with who I wonder?

Where are we headed with blogs like this? the instant twitter commentary from courtrooms, the insatiable thirst for the information, good bad or ugly. You all know I am a believer of  Major Trials being telecast to those who want to and indeed need to watch them. Just like some have an interest in Question Time in Parliament and some do not. make it available, what is there to hide?

By Peter Gregory

July 06 2012

Are we now behind the times?

On an overseas crime website was the personal and criminal history of a man known to the Victorian public.

At the time, he was before the courts on a serious charge. The trial judge had warned jurors not to look up the internet, because they were to return a verdict only on the evidence they saw or heard in the courtroom.

Put simply, the judge’s warning was part of delivering a fair trial. If accused of crime, you are judged by a jury of your peers.

They base their decision on the material presented to them in the courtroom. Almost always, that means no reference to the previous convictions of the person on trial, or neighbourhood gossip about a case, or the wise pronouncements of media commentators.

The legal system’s assumption is that jurors, not being trained as lawyers, will find it harder to put aside prejudicial information. If you were a juror on a rape trial, and learned that the accused person had been convicted (separately) of rape six months earlier, what would you think about this case?

“Guilty,” said one student when this question was posed during a seminar some years ago. That is why jury members are told not to follow media reports, do their own research, or talk to their families about the case. They are also instructed to be wary of social media, like Twitter or Facebook.

“If your family is like mine, everyone will have an expert opinion,” one judge would say at the start of a Supreme Court trial.

“You can blame me. If they ask about the evidence, you can say the judge told you that you are not allowed to discuss it.”

Journalists would get very nervous about their court stories, fearing they might be fined or worse if they revealed information that the courts believed was likely to be prejudicial.

In one case, five media organisations were fined a collective $670,000 after reporting that a man arrested over three New South Wales murders in 1989 had confessed. The reports were likely to interfere with the administration of justice, it was found.

These were simpler times when a big worry for publishers was the potential to mix up the conservative court story written for local audiences with a more comprehensive account prepared for interstate editions.

If the Victorian jury was protected from prejudice, all was well. If a stuff-up occurred, media lawyers were sent to court to apologise.

More than 20 years later, safety and conservatism sound like foreign concepts.

The crime website which featured the Victorian suspect was not the worst by any means. True, its advertisements for criminal-related merchandise, including DVDs, calendars and magazines, was distracting, but his segment was a fairly sober summary of his court appearances, material from interviews and legal debate about his future.

Numerous other websites talk about criminals and killers. Some are moderate and feature court decisions. Others appear to follow the “hang ‘em high” school, practised with or without a trial.

Still wary of the legal process, mainstream media websites monitor or ban comments being made about court-related stories.

Inflammatory remarks can raise difficulties for many institutions which have embraced social media and the internet to engage with the public.

Bond University professor Mark Pearson recently analysed problems with the Queensland Police Facebook site, which was flooded with hard-nosed commentary following a high-profile arrest.
“I fear it will not be long before a savvy defence lawyer seizes the opportunity to use such prejudicial commentary as grounds for appeal, perhaps resulting in a trial being aborted at great public expense or even a verdict quashed,” he told The Australian newspaper.

So, what can the courts do?

Last month, the New South Wales Criminal Court of Appeal allowed a media challenge to court orders that would have forced news websites to remove thousands of archived stories about a conspiracy to murder trial. The Sydney Morning Herald said the court upheld the argument that the orders were futile because “vast swathes of information on the internet are essentially beyond the court’s control”.

“It is something of an irony that the (media organisations)…are, on one view, the only people against whom an order could properly have been made,” the court said in its published judgment.

While NSW law might let prosecuting authorities seek suppression orders over prejudicial material published online by local media, that permission could not validly apply to the world at large.

Suppression orders might cover material on internet sites beyond the control or awareness of local publishers.

Imagine the SMH finding all the international crime websites, and persuading them to take down some of their murder summaries because an Australian prosecutor was worried about them.

A Law Council of Australia committee, of which this writer is a member, outlined some other problems in a submission made to the Federal Government.

The media and communications committee said information could not be effectively censored or removed once it was available online. Material was often republished or cached on other sites. Monitoring archives for past publications would be costly and a significant exercise, and in many cases would have little practical effect, the committee argued.

Removing mainstream material might also bump the relevant information contained on less reputable websites up the search engine list for determined researchers.

“Suppression and non-publication orders that that operate to censor or remove historical reports by mainstream media organisations can lead to (the other) websites being elevated in lists of search results carried out, for instance, on the names of accused persons, and thus perversely increase the risk of prejudice to forthcoming trials,” the committee said.

If censoring the media does not work, the focus returns to juries. Jurors can be fined for looking up the internet during trials, if they decide to ignore judges’ warnings.

On its website, the Judicial College of Victoria has quoted court decisions describing jury members as “robust and responsible”, not “fragile and prone to prejudice”. But it warns that the availability of internet databases posed new problems for protecting jurors from prejudicial information.

Could that mean sequestering the jury – staying at hotels, not at home – for the whole trial, to keep it away from outside influences? Would that happen at all trials, or just the ones that attracted massive media attention?

One of the court decisions suggested keeping juries together during the proceedings would protect the open court principle and avoid prejudice. The accommodation costs in a long hearing, and the associated pressure to avoid mistrials, would be very likely to create their own problems.

What are your thoughts readers?

New technology, the media and criminal trials – Let's talk about it


Here is an interesting article folks that I found that comes at a time when the media and the internet are colliding with the long-held protocols of the old school legal system of the last century, who needs to catch up with who I wonder?

Where are we headed with blogs like this? the instant twitter commentary from courtrooms, the insatiable thirst for the information, good bad or ugly. You all know I am a believer of  Major Trials being telecast to those who want to and indeed need to watch them. Just like some have an interest in Question Time in Parliament and some do not. make it available, what is there to hide?

By Peter Gregory

July 06 2012

Are we now behind the times?

On an overseas crime website was the personal and criminal history of a man known to the Victorian public.

At the time, he was before the courts on a serious charge. The trial judge had warned jurors not to look up the internet, because they were to return a verdict only on the evidence they saw or heard in the courtroom.

Put simply, the judge’s warning was part of delivering a fair trial. If accused of crime, you are judged by a jury of your peers.

They base their decision on the material presented to them in the courtroom. Almost always, that means no reference to the previous convictions of the person on trial, or neighbourhood gossip about a case, or the wise pronouncements of media commentators.

The legal system’s assumption is that jurors, not being trained as lawyers, will find it harder to put aside prejudicial information. If you were a juror on a rape trial, and learned that the accused person had been convicted (separately) of rape six months earlier, what would you think about this case?

“Guilty,” said one student when this question was posed during a seminar some years ago. That is why jury members are told not to follow media reports, do their own research, or talk to their families about the case. They are also instructed to be wary of social media, like Twitter or Facebook.

“If your family is like mine, everyone will have an expert opinion,” one judge would say at the start of a Supreme Court trial.

“You can blame me. If they ask about the evidence, you can say the judge told you that you are not allowed to discuss it.”

Journalists would get very nervous about their court stories, fearing they might be fined or worse if they revealed information that the courts believed was likely to be prejudicial.

In one case, five media organisations were fined a collective $670,000 after reporting that a man arrested over three New South Wales murders in 1989 had confessed. The reports were likely to interfere with the administration of justice, it was found.

These were simpler times when a big worry for publishers was the potential to mix up the conservative court story written for local audiences with a more comprehensive account prepared for interstate editions.

If the Victorian jury was protected from prejudice, all was well. If a stuff-up occurred, media lawyers were sent to court to apologise.

More than 20 years later, safety and conservatism sound like foreign concepts.

The crime website which featured the Victorian suspect was not the worst by any means. True, its advertisements for criminal-related merchandise, including DVDs, calendars and magazines, was distracting, but his segment was a fairly sober summary of his court appearances, material from interviews and legal debate about his future.

Numerous other websites talk about criminals and killers. Some are moderate and feature court decisions. Others appear to follow the “hang ‘em high” school, practised with or without a trial.

Still wary of the legal process, mainstream media websites monitor or ban comments being made about court-related stories.

Inflammatory remarks can raise difficulties for many institutions which have embraced social media and the internet to engage with the public.

Bond University professor Mark Pearson recently analysed problems with the Queensland Police Facebook site, which was flooded with hard-nosed commentary following a high-profile arrest.
“I fear it will not be long before a savvy defence lawyer seizes the opportunity to use such prejudicial commentary as grounds for appeal, perhaps resulting in a trial being aborted at great public expense or even a verdict quashed,” he told The Australian newspaper.

So, what can the courts do?

Last month, the New South Wales Criminal Court of Appeal allowed a media challenge to court orders that would have forced news websites to remove thousands of archived stories about a conspiracy to murder trial. The Sydney Morning Herald said the court upheld the argument that the orders were futile because “vast swathes of information on the internet are essentially beyond the court’s control”.

“It is something of an irony that the (media organisations)…are, on one view, the only people against whom an order could properly have been made,” the court said in its published judgment.

While NSW law might let prosecuting authorities seek suppression orders over prejudicial material published online by local media, that permission could not validly apply to the world at large.

Suppression orders might cover material on internet sites beyond the control or awareness of local publishers.

Imagine the SMH finding all the international crime websites, and persuading them to take down some of their murder summaries because an Australian prosecutor was worried about them.

A Law Council of Australia committee, of which this writer is a member, outlined some other problems in a submission made to the Federal Government.

The media and communications committee said information could not be effectively censored or removed once it was available online. Material was often republished or cached on other sites. Monitoring archives for past publications would be costly and a significant exercise, and in many cases would have little practical effect, the committee argued.

Removing mainstream material might also bump the relevant information contained on less reputable websites up the search engine list for determined researchers.

“Suppression and non-publication orders that that operate to censor or remove historical reports by mainstream media organisations can lead to (the other) websites being elevated in lists of search results carried out, for instance, on the names of accused persons, and thus perversely increase the risk of prejudice to forthcoming trials,” the committee said.

If censoring the media does not work, the focus returns to juries. Jurors can be fined for looking up the internet during trials, if they decide to ignore judges’ warnings.

On its website, the Judicial College of Victoria has quoted court decisions describing jury members as “robust and responsible”, not “fragile and prone to prejudice”. But it warns that the availability of internet databases posed new problems for protecting jurors from prejudicial information.

Could that mean sequestering the jury – staying at hotels, not at home – for the whole trial, to keep it away from outside influences? Would that happen at all trials, or just the ones that attracted massive media attention?

One of the court decisions suggested keeping juries together during the proceedings would protect the open court principle and avoid prejudice. The accommodation costs in a long hearing, and the associated pressure to avoid mistrials, would be very likely to create their own problems.

What are your thoughts readers?

Time for a REMINDER about behaviour on this site…


BEFORE YOU CONTINUE, I ASK YOU VISIT THIS POST (PRESS ANYWHERE HERE) AND READ IT, AND ACKNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE DONE SO BY MAKING A COMMENT ON THAT POST

Hi folks, It has sadly come to my attention once again that the behavior of some people on this site have shown disregard for the guidelines I have tried to set, and or casually choose to ignore them, in particular, during my many absences of late, as I attended to my young baby son who has been in hospital after being born premature last month. he came home yesterday and we have been getting settled.

I have to say, I started this blog so I could highlight and discuss things that interested me, and of course others. It became successful as many many others popped in and shared the same ideas as I did.

Now having said that, I have to say, unfortunately I do not care whether you have been here for months and made 2 thousand comments, or one day and made 5. I will NOT tolerate the bad language, the bully tactics of some who like to dominate the discussion, and those who are quite  impolite in disagreeing with another contributors point of view.

How often have I politely said, it is how you say something that is important, not so much WHAT you have to say. As far as I am concerned it is not too much to ask on a community blog where we gather with common interests.

Because I want this to be read tonight, I am going to post it now, but shall be adding to it.

Those people I speak of in the above sentences, expect to hear from me over the next 24 hours, because you will find yourself banished from the place and I will block every comment you make to go directly to moderation, where it will sit, until I personally read it. Like a child would be treated who does not know how to behave.

I have put thousands and thousands of hours into this site over 2 years or so, and WILL NOT have anybody, no matter who they are, or what they have done here, to ruin it for everyone else, OR for the people who will come in the future.

This blog is not for “A self selected few” to take some sort of control over what can be discussed and which opinions are to reign supreme. You can always go start your own blogs…

To be frank I am quite upset at the moment because some who have been around for a while should know better. Forcing me to get rid of you is something I will SADLY do if I have to.

Finally, and most regrettably, I also have to add, just because someone has very kindly made a donation to my site, (for which I honestly am very grateful).

It does not give he or she any extra rights or privileges here. We are all equal and any assumed extra power or status or “Weight” on any opinion or topic would be incorrect and unfair  (for want of a better word, I’m not in a good head space ATM). I hope I have conveyed that clearly enough.

PS. I WILL SIT HERE ALL NIGHT IF I HAVE TO AND GO THROUGH ALL THE COMMENTS OF RECENT DAYS

You have all be warned

Sincerely

Owner and operator of Aussiecriminals

Robbo

 

Have criminals got it TOO good in jail?


Every now and then I get a news item or a report on the telly that really spikes my attention. Whenever a story about prisoners either whining about conditions (like a paying renter does to a landlord, who actually have legitimate complaints and pay for the right) or an expose’ on what they get and don’t get in jail comes up, I get really frustrated. 

A  list was revealed from the ACACIA UNIT at Barwon prison, a haunt for the major crims in Victoria down the road from me. The other day we had a story about Fat Tony Mokbel, cooking his own food, as he did not LIKE the prison food…I could swear my head off, but I ask others not to so I wont….grrrrr

What happened to porridge for breakfast, some sandwiches for lunch and some meat and 3 veg for dinner. Dessert a few times a week?

I will tell you why, because surely it cannot just be me who thinks “No wonder they go back for more”. For starters, yes it is a sentence and their freedom is taken away, but bloody hell, not much else is. Just consider the savings on rent, electricity, food, clothes, dental, medical, entertainment, EDUCATION and all the books, materials and computers and stuff. Sports, recreation, pool tables, gym (think of the savings on gym membership!) all the legal aid they need. Transport…I could go on.

If one were unfortunate enough to be on the streets, but NOT commit crimes, maybe they should reconsider their career. I am not joking, think about all the benefits versus the negatives. What are they, let me think, ok you are behind 4 walls, and get locked in your room at night. The cost to the taxpayer is massive, and the jail population is growing. I bet my last dollar they grow by returning crooks who just throw the towel in and say it is too tough on the outside I am going back in…I’m better off inside…Some with money, may even think…Gee maybe even rent out my place for 400 a week while im here…leave jail and not pay back one bloody cent, have a nice kitty when I get out. pay the victim nothing either…I’m a mere poor prisoner…

Driven to court and back, unlimited free calls and correspondence to lawyers etc It makes my blood boil actually. I want the view of all you guys, I’m sure (well I hope) we also get the view from the other side, those who have been in, or have partners on the inside.

I will tell you know, it will take a lot of convincing to tell me that beyond all of the above, these poor people are suffering the lack of freedom etc. Well that IS the point of it all, the committed crimes, and suffer the consequences, my point is most Aussies would have no ides how generous these consequences are! Cheers Robbo

Barwon Prison in Victoria, which contains Victoria’s worst criminals

THE state’s most dangerous criminals are enjoying cut-price junk food and luxury items in our most secure prison.

While working families are struggling to meet grocery bills, our most heinous inmates jailed at Barwon Prison, including serial killers Peter Dupas and Paul Denyer, are living on discount smoked oysters, ice cream, popcorn and cheese.

The Herald Sun has matched prices at an inner-city supermarket chain with the Barwon Prison canteen, finding prisoners are saving up to 22 per cent compared with average consumers.

Overall, 16 items of a basket of 22 were cheaper at the Barwon Prison one-stop shop. The items were taken from 267 listed products available to prisoners.

The biggest win for the crooks was for John West Temptations, a mega-saving of a dollar from a supermarket price of $2.36.

Prisoners were also able to buy Mint Slices for $2.23, well under the supermarket price of $3.10, while Tim Tams were 10c cheaper than the going rate.

Other cut-price items at Barwon canteen included a 25-cent saving on Coon cheese, a 50c cut on a Gillette Mach 3 razor and a pack of Salada crackers down 35c.

But it wasn’t all red-spot specials for the bad guys.

Delicious Chocolate Royals were 20c up on the supermarket, Lipton tea (50s) 12c higher, baked beans 26c dearer while Palmolive shampoo was a rip off at the canteen, with a marked price of $5.41, 42c higher.

A Corrections Victoria spokesman said prison shops were run by each prison and no profit was made.

He said products were purchased directly by the prison, usually at wholesale prices.

“They are allowed to a purchase a basic range of items such as telephone credit, toiletries or food products in limited quantities from the prison shop,” the spokesman said.

“Prisoners pay for these themselves at no cost to the taxpayer.”

RMIT criminal justice advocate Peter Norden said people should be questioning the cost of building and staffing more prisons for more inmates – which is estimated at $500,000 a cell – rather than the price of food.

“They can get cheaper food in the prisons because it’s an expanding population,” he said, tongue in cheek.

“They can buy in bulk.”

Pam Greenbury, the mother of murder victim Tracey, said prisoners should not be getting sweets or any other luxury item, let alone at a discount.

“I wouldn’t like our daughter’s murderer to get any luxuries,” Mrs Greenbury said.

“Luxuries at a discounted price? I’d say no.”

Max Sica GUILTY- Singh Murder-UPDATE-GETS 35 YEARS


UPDATE 06/07/12

ALMOST a decade after her children were murdered, Shirley Singh still lays out their clothes, makes them dinner and lights a candle so they don’t have to sleep in the dark.

They called her their tiger – their ferocious mother who would protect them from the evils of the world.

But she couldn’t protect them from Max Sica.

It is a truth that haunts her every day, a reality that has seen her attempt suicide, blame her only living child and push others away as she descends into the madness of a grief too great to bear.

The tragic life of Shirley Singh was revealed yesterday through victim impact statements read to a packed courtroom as her former neighbour was sentenced to 35 years’ jail for the brutal murders of her three children – the longest penalty in Queensland history.

The jury was discharged on Tuesday but nine chose to return to hear Justice John Byrne lock Sica away.

They stared in shock as the Crown detailed Sica’s life of crime.

Before he murdered the Singhs, Sica and a gang of thugs burnt down police stations, set fire to schools and fired a rifle into a house in a violent “rampage” lasting months, the court heard.

This was information that had been kept from the jury, so as not to skew their view when it came to deciding whether he was guilty of killing his former lover Neelma, 24, her brother Kunal, 18, and sister Sidhi, 12.

The jury’s mouths hung open and their stares of disbelief soon turned to glares.

They folded their arms, shook their heads and waited for him to look up. Sica never raised his eyes.

But it was the story of Shirley that had them wiping away the tears as they shared in her sorrow.

It had been nine years since “that” phone call, Shirley said in her statement to the court.

The children were dead, the caller told her. They’d been murdered.

It was her years of torment that would see most of the court reduced to tears – even Sica’s mother, Anna Maria, a steadfast believer in his innocence.

Sometimes Shirley would take sleeping tablets, drink wine and stumble into the nearby cemetery in the middle of the night, searching for their graves.

On the day of their funeral, she went on a cleaning frenzy, telling her friends that her children were coming home.

Once, she was found passed out in a park. It was Sidhi’s favourite place and Shirley had gone looking for her.

She stopped eating meat after seeing the state of their bodies after having been left in a hot spa for two days.

She was told not to sit with them before the funeral, with others worried the images might haunt her.

“I so much wanted to touch them but was scared as I did not want to hurt them because their skin was burnt,” Shirley said.

She became distraught when they were cremated. She wanted them embalmed and kept with her always.

Later that night, she went into Sidhi’s room and took her pillow. She hugged it as she sobbed for the little girl she’d lost.

“I then wrapped it in a blanket and held it in my arms, asked her for forgiveness for not being there and sang her favourite lullaby song and slept with it.” She did this every night until the pillow was taken away.

Kunal had left half a can of Coke in the fridge. She still has it. Sometimes she kisses it.

She hung pictures of them all over the house so they would always be with her. Some, she placed on their beds, where she lays out their clothes each day. She irons for them, folds for them and cooks for them.

Supermarkets are a nightmare and she tries not to look as she walks down aisles that hold their favourite foods.

The Singh house is a shrine to their dead children. The spa that became their grave is where she lights a candle each night “so they are not in the dark”.

“Even though people have asked me how I am living here, and my answer is, ‘How could I turn my back to my children after what has happened to them? What will they think of me – their tiger and not a coward?’ “

The police telephone call that changed Shirley’s life in 2003 came to Sonia Pathik, too– her eldest and only surviving daughter who no longer lived at the family home.

How tall were her sisters and brother, the police had asked. What were their dates of birth? What did they look like?

Three bodies had been found in the spa of her parents’ ensuite, they said. Her descriptions matched. Could she come and identify the bodies?

She got off the phone, gasping for breath, the shock bringing on an asthma attack.

“I am the oldest and I am the protector,” she told the court through her victim impact statement.

“I hated myself. I know what it feels like to be numb.”

For a long time she blamed herself. But worse – her parents blamed her, too, saying she should have been there.

“I became a forgotten child,” she said.

“My life will never be the same. They will not come back to me.”

THE JUDGEMENT IN FULL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Sica [2012] QSC 184

PARTIES: R V

SICA, Massimo

FILE NO/S: BS68/11

DIVISION: Trial

PROCEEDING: Sentence

ORIGINATING

COURT: Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 5 July 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 5 July 2012

JUDGE: Byrne SJA

ORDER: As per sentencing remarks.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – CUSTODIAL SENTENCELIFE SENTENCE

– GENERALLY – where accused convicted of three counts of murder – where accused on parole when committed the murders –where a non-parole period of 35 years was imposed for the three counts of murder

COUNSEL: B Campbell for the DPP

S Di Carlo for the defendant

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions for the applicant

Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

[1] Massimo Sica,

[2] In the middle of the night of Easter Sunday 2003, you went to the home of the Singh family.

[3] Neelma Singh was expecting you.

[4] Her brother, Kunal, aged 18, and sister, Sidhi, just 12 years old, were also in the house, probably asleep.

[5] Something happened in Neelma’s bedroom between the two of you

[6] Enraged by jealously most likely, you strangled Neelma with both hands, using sustained pressure for about a minute, intending to kill her.

[7] To ensure that Kunal and Sidhi would not tell that you had murdered Neelma, you murdered them too.

[8] You struck their heads with the tines of a garden fork, inflicting multiple blows with severe force.

[9] Neelma was probably dead when you struck, and disfigured, her face with the garden fork.

[10] You put your victims into the spa bath in the master bedroom ensuite.

[11] Your savage attack on Kunal had rendered him unconscious. He drowned after you filled the bath with water and covered the three bodies with bedding.

[12] These are brutal, horrific crimes – in the worst categories of murder.

[13] You set about covering your tracks.

[14] You cleaned up to some extent, using bleach.

[15] You implemented other measures to deceive the police.

[16] The deception you practised included using your own children, taking them to the house on the Tuesday afternoon, when you pretended to discover the bodies.

[17] You are manipulative and deceitful; and the pretences continued.

[18] A couple of examples may be mentioned.

[19] You feigned distress in making 000 calls and later that Tuesday during an interview with the police.

[20] Much the same thing happened when, during a walk-through of the house on Anzac Day, you presented yourself as overwhelmed by grief.

[21] And you lied – often: in particular, when you asserted that you were at your own home that Easter Sunday night.

[22] You were 33 years old at the time, on parole, with a criminal history that includes serious offences.

[23] You have no remorse whatsoever. Your only anxiety is for self-preservation.

[24] Illustrative of the absence of any remorse is this; since the killings, by your deliberate conduct, you have consciously added to the agony of the Singh family; as examples, you had it insinuated that Mr Singh may have instigated the killings, which is despicable; and, at the committal and at trial, your defence raised publicly matters of private concern with, obviously, a significant potential to humiliate Mr and Mrs Singh and Mrs Pathik; matters that, as you well knew, had nothing to do with the murders. Such misconduct tends against leniency.

[25] The murders have had devastating consequences for the Singh family.

[26] The victim impact statements of Mr and Mrs Singh and the surviving sibling, Mrs Pathik, reveal the awful miseries that they have experienced in the last nine years, and point to the suffering that they will endure for the rest of their lives.

[27] I have had regard to the factors specified in s.9 of the Penalties and Sentences Act

1992, including those listed in sub-section (4), in deciding on the minimum non- parole period.

[28] I have also taken into account totality considerations, which require the Court to examine the overall behaviour involved in the three murders in deciding on a just, appropriate non-parole period. Totality considerations operate as an ameliorating factor.

[29] Still, your offending is so very grave that it must be met with condign punishment.

[30] Massimo Sica,

[31] You are sentenced:

  • for the murder of Neelma Singh, to imprisonment for life;
  • for the murder of Kunal Singh, to imprisonment for life;
  • for the murder of Sidhi Singh, to imprisonment for life.

[32] Pursuant to s.159A(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, I declare the 1,299 days spent in pre-sentence custody from 29 October 2008 until 13 November 2008, and from 30 December 2008 until today to be imprisonment already served under each of those sentences.

[33] Pursuant to s.305(2) of the Criminal Code, it is ordered that you must not be released from imprisonment until you have served a minimum of 35 years imprisonment, unless released sooner under exceptional circumstances parole under the Corrective Services Act 2006.

UPDATE 03/07/12

Max Sica faces decades in jail after being found guilty of murdering Singh siblings

Max Sica has been found guilty of brutally murdering his ex-girlfriend and her two siblings.

MASSIMO “Max” Sica is now staring at the prospect of one of the longest non-parole jail terms in Queensland history.

Standing in the dock of Brisbane’s Supreme Court yesterday, he remained motionless, stony-faced, almost uninterested as he was told three times he was guilty of murder each verdict taking him a step closer to spending the rest of his life in prison.

After 79 days of evidence, during which Sica was animated, blowing kisses and greeting his family, his team of supporters gasped, cried, wailed and muttered words of disbelief.

But the 42-year-old simply stood, hands clasped in front of him, as his jury’s foreman said he was guilty of killing his former girlfriend Neelma Singh, 24, and her siblings Kunal, 18, and Sidhi, 12, in April 2003.

The trio were found dead in an overflowing hot spa at their parent’s Bridgeman Downs home in Brisbane’s northern suburbs.

Sica is expected to receive a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for each murder, but it is also expected the Crown will ask he serve a minimum of 45 years in jail, 15 years for each death.

Murder carries a mandatory life sentence in Queensland, with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years for those found guilty of multiple killings.

Max Sica 000 call

Listen to the Triple-0 call Max Sica made to report the discovery of three bodies in a bathtub at the Singh’s Bridgeman Downs home.

The siblings’ mother, Shirley Singh, in the public gallery of Court 1 two floors away, hugged herself as she watched the video feed of the verdict.

After the verdicts Mrs Singh said she still carried “horrible visions” of what Sica did to three of her four children.

Relive the Max Sica trial with our online coverage

Sica, when asked if he wanted to address the court, said: “Well, I didn’t kill no one and the Queensland justice system is corrupt, OK? Sorry. That’s all I have to say.”

Justice John Byrne then invited the jury to remain for the sentence if they wished.

All 12 jurors, weary after four months of evidence and four days of deliberations, elected to stay.

However, Sica’s barrister, Sam di Carlo, was absent, leaving his instructing solicitor Peter Saggers to request sentence be adjourned until 10am tomorrow.

Prosecutor Michael Byrne, SC, said the delay would allow the Singh siblings’ father Vijay Singh, the opportunity to be present for the ruling .

Outside court yesterday, Sica’s enraged mother, Anna Maria, maintained her Max was innocent. “I know my son’s innocent!” she said. “I know my son! You understand?”

Sica’s father, Carlo, wept as he tried to comfort his wife, saying: “Come on baby let’s go.”

Police Assistant Commissioner Mike Condon, outside court, paid tribute to his officers and the Singh family.

“The Singh family are a courageous group … (and) their energy drove us when we were struggling and perhaps starting to second guess ourselves on whether we’d ever solve it,” he said.

Jury retires to decide fate of Max Sica, accused of murdering Singh siblings

UPDATE 27/06/12

THE jury has retired to consider its verdict on the 76th day of the Singh siblings murder trial.

In the Supreme Court in Brisbane, Justice John Byrne finished his summing up to the jury and then sent the panel – eight men and four women – to deliberate.

The panel was minus the three emergency jurors who sat through the entire trial in case they were needed to replace someone on the panel proper.

Follow the Max Sica trial day-by-day here

The jury will consider evidence from 100 witnesses including Sica and Singh family relatives, friends of the victims, forensic experts, Singh family neighbours, workers from nearby building sites, and police.

If found guilty, Sica could face three life sentences each with a minimum 15 years before he is eligible for parole – making 45 years.

Max Sica, 42, has pleaded not guilty to murdering Neelma Singh, 24, Kunal Singh, 18, and Sidhi Singh, 12, at Bridgeman Downs, on April 21, 2003.

At the resumption of the trial on Wednesday morning, Justice Byrne told the jury he had realised that he missed a page while reading his summary.

He then read a passage in which Sica allegedly told witness Andrea Bowman that he would not be stupid enough to take police to where jewellery missing from the house was to be found.

Justice Byrne then told the jury if they needed any assistance for redirection on the law or any matter he would do his best to help them.

Triple murder trial adjourned

May 10, 2012

The trial of accused triple murderer Massimo ‘Max’ Sica has been adjourned as a result of “unforeseen matters”.

When court was due to resume this morning for the 49th day of the trial, Justice John Byrne sent a message to the jury saying “matters had arisen” that would delay proceedings.

Mr Sica, 42, has pleaded not guilty to murdering his ex-girlfriend Neelma Singh, 24, her brother Kunal, 18, and sister Sidhi, 12, at their Bridgeman Downs home in the early hours of April 21, 2003.

The court was due to hear today from Canadian crime scene impression specialist Robert Kennedy who was called upon after the alleged murders to examine bleached foot impressions that were found by police at the base of the staircase in the Singhs’ home.

The jury has previously seen video footage of Mr Kennedy conducting a series of tests with Mr Sica at the Petrie police station in 2004 using a set of replica stairs.

Prosecutors have alleged Mr Sica strangled Neelma and then murdered her two younger siblings with either a garden fork or a heavy long-handled spatula, to prevent them telling police.

The trial will resume on Monday.

The Max Sica Trial-Commenced Jan 31, 2012 – at the Brisbane Supreme Court – Currently on Day 45

Already the Biggest and longest Criminal Trial in Qld History

Scheduled to go for 5 months, over 800 witnesses and a jury pool selected from thousands down to 12 jurors and 3 reserves. They are all there for the Murder Trial of Massimo “Max” Sica, who has been charged with murdering Neelma Singh, 24, (his ex girlfirend) Kunal Singh, 18, and Sidhi Singh, 12, who were found dead in their family home at Bridgeman Downs, in Brisbane’s north, on April 22, 2003.

THE MAIN PLAYERS (hover over each photo for information)

Today

‘Nasty’ police called Sica witness ‘loony’

POLICE investigating murders of the Singh siblings accused of ignoring a witness in the trial of Max Sica because they thought she was “loony tunes”.

Singh detective denies tricking witness

THE lead investigator in the Singh murder trial denied he had tricked a witness out of claiming he saw one of the siblings hours after police believe she was killed.

Yesterday

Cool down, gents, orders Sica trial judge

FIERY scenes in Singh siblings murder trial lead judge to call for “composure break” during cross examination of the chief investigating officer.

Kindnap plot ruled out in Singh case

FOUR men caught before they carried out a kidnap plot on Brisbane’s southside were in jail when the Singh children were murdered, a court heard Tuesday.

2 days ago

‘Cops blamed Sica from the start’

COURT hears lawyers for alleged killer Max Sica accuse police of treating him as the prime suspect in Singh sibling murders from day one.

3 days ago

Murder scene footprint ‘may be Sica’s’

AN expert forensic podiatrist could not eliminate accused killer Max Sica as the person who left a footprint at the Singh family murder scene, a court heard today.

5 days ago

Podiatrist to tell of footprint clue

AN EXPERT podiatrist will on Monday give evidence about whether a footprint found in bleach at the Singh siblings’ murder scene could be linked to their accused killer Max Sica.

Last week

Police built replica staircase in Singh case

POLICE built a replica staircase of the Singh house to test accused killer Max Sica’s feet after a foot imprint was found in bleach, a court has been told.

Police tested whether Sica put foot in it

POLICE experts spent hours examining feet of accused killer Max Sica after an imprint was found in bleach at the Singh siblings murder scene, a court hears.

Last week

Not my car near Singh house, says Sica

ACCUSED killer Max Sica vehemently denied to police it was his car spotted in a street near the home of the Singh siblings on the night police say they were murdered.

Blood of victims on garden fork

THE blood of all three murdered Singh siblings was found on a garden fork that the killer had tried to wipe clean, a court was told yesterday.

Last week

Sica ‘home the night Singhs killed’

ACCUSED killer Max Sica told police he was home the night the Singh siblings died after plans to visit Neelma fell over because she was ill.

Sica’s computer was erased, court hears

POLICE found accused killer Max Sica’s computer was encrypted and its hard drive erased when they went to his house on the day he found the bodies of the Singh siblings, a court heard.

Last week

Sica admits sending nude Singh pics

ACCUSED killer Max Sica changed his story and agreed he had sent nude pics of his ex-girlfriend Neelma Singh to her family and friends to spite her father, a court heard today.

Neelma kept Sica texts after nude photos

MURDER victim Neelma Singh kept phone messages from accused killer Max Sica after she believed he had emailed nude photographs of her to friends and family.

Last week

Mum ‘belted Singh sister’ over cake for Sica

MURDER victim Neelma Singh was once assaulted by her mother because she had given her now accused killer Max Sica a banana cake, a court has heard.

2 weeks ago

Sica used ‘Mad Max’ as online alias

ACCUSED killer Max Sica used a series of noms de plume on the internet that included Psycho Max, Naughty Max, Mad Max and Softservelover, court hears.

2 weeks ago

Alleged kill weapon stashed behind BBQ

POLICE found a garden fork allegedly used to bash the Singh siblings hidden behind a barbecue in their garage two weeks after the children were murdered, a court hears.

3 weeks ago

Video shows Sica crying in Singh home

ACCUSED killer Max Sica broke down and couldn’t continue when police took him on a walk through of the Singh siblings’s murder scene, a court has seen.

3 weeks ago

‘Why would I do such a thing?’

ACCUSED killer Max Sica tearfully denied to police that he had murdered the three Singh siblings, asking detectives why he would do such a thing, a court has heard.

3 weeks ago

Sica cheated on new lover with Neelma

MAX Sica told police he remained in a sexual relationship with Neelma Singh up to the time of her death despite having a new girlfriend, a court hears.

3 weeks ago

Police didn’t ‘drop the ball’ at Singh home

ONE of the first police officers to find the bodies of the murdered Singh siblings has told a court how she didn’t have time to “drop the ball” as she followed procedures to secure the area.

Police officer tells of finding bodies

THE barrister for accused killer Max Sica yesterday clashed with the first police officer to see the murdered Singh siblings bodies.

4 weeks ago

Sica trial stalls as juror takes sick

THE Max Sica murder trial will not sit today after a juror became ill and was taken to hospital by ambulance.

4 weeks ago

Don’t call my girl, Sica warned love rival

ACCUSED killer Max Sica warned off a Fijian rival who lost his virginity to Neelma Singh, telling the love-sick teen to stop ringing her, a court hears.

5 weeks ago

Sica ‘at death house for 30 minutes’

WITNESS says Max Sica arrived at the Singh family’s house 30 minutes before the accused murderer called the police to report that he had found the Singh children’s bodies.

5 weeks ago

Docs know how, but not when Singhs died

FORENSIC experts unable to estimate the time the three Singh siblings were murdered because their bodies were left in a running spa bath, a court has heard.

5 weeks ago

Neelma ‘bashed with garden fork’

ONE of the murdered Singh siblings, Neelma, was bashed with a garden fork before being strangled to death and her body placed in a hot spa bath, a court heard.

5 weeks ago

Singh murders later than thought

A YOUNG girl and a dog were spotted at the Singh house hours after police believed the children were already dead.

6 weeks ago

Flying trestle ‘almost hit Sica children’

FLYING trestle almost hit Max Sica’s children while they were waiting for him at a house where he found the bodies of the murdered Singh siblings, court told.

6 weeks ago

Sica ‘cried’ after deaths, web date claims

ACCUSED triple killer Max Sica was “inconsolable” and often cried following the deaths of the Singh siblings, according to a woman he met on a dating website.

6 weeks ago

‘Scream, shots’ day after Singhs killed

SINGH murder trial takes a twist with witnesses telling of  “blood curdling scream” and “gun shots” day after police say the siblings were killed.

6 weeks ago

Time dispute in Sica murder trial

THE time accused killer Max Sica arrived at a house to discover the bodies of the three Singh siblings was put under the microscope in a murder trial today.

7 weeks ago

Friend’s horror over ‘naked Neelma’ email

A FRIEND has told the Max Sica trial of her distress when she received a photograph of Neelma Singh naked and handcuffed to a bedpost.

7 weeks ago

Singh girl ‘cried after seeing Sica email’

Sidhi Singh was reduced to tears during her 12th birthday party when she saw an email from her accused killer Max Sica, a court has been told.

7 weeks ago

Murder trial told of picnic before death

THE youngest of the murdered Singh siblings, Sidhi, was happily playing with a friend on a picnic only hours before she was battered to death, court hears.

Sica trial: Singh sick before death

ONE of the murdered Singh siblings had declined to go to a party on the night he was murdered because he was feeling ill, a court heard yesterday.

7 weeks ago

Sica warned ‘not to do anything stupid’

MAX Sica’s parole officer told him to “not do anything stupid” when he complained that Neelma Singh might try to have him arrested, the Singh murder trial has heard.

Questions over mystery in Singh case

LAWYERS for Max Sica, the man accused of killing the Singh siblings, have raised questions about the night a mystery car was seen near the murder victims home.

7 weeks ago

Mystery car spotted near Singh house

A MYSTERY car was parked in a street near the home of the murdered Singh siblings on the night they were allegedly killed, a court heard today.

Sica tells of kidnap plot

THE accused killer of the Singh siblings, Max Sica, knew of an unrelated plan to kidnap an Asian businessman and hold him for ransom, a court was told yesterday.

8 weeks ago

Neelma didn’t believe brain tumour claim

NEELMA Singh told her doctor she didn’t trust her ex-boyfriend Max Sica’s claim that he was dying of a brain tumour, murder trial hears.

8 weeks ago

Sica and murder victim had ‘rough sex’

NEELMA Singh allegedly told a close friend that some of her “intimate experiences” with her now accused killer Max Sica had “hurt her”, the Singh sibling murder trial hears.

Neelma Singh fist fight lesbian sacked

LESBIAN French woman who had fist fight with Neelma Singh at airline attendants’ training course in Dubai was sacked, the Singh murder trial heard today.

8 weeks ago

Neelma ‘had fight with French lesbian’

NEELMA Singh had a “physical fight” with her French lesbian flatmate while training to be a flight attendant in Dubai, the Singh sibling murder trial has heard.

8 weeks ago

‘Gay Sica in sham relationship with Neelma’

ACCUSED killer Max Sica claimed to be gay and in a sham relationship with his girlfriend Neelma Singh when he encouraged her ex-boyfriend to rekindle a relationship with her, a court heard today.

Singh ‘feared for daughter’s life’

VIJAY Singh complained to police shortly before deaths of his children that he feared for safety of his daughter after she broke up with accused killer.

8 weeks ago

‘Mystery visitor’ on night Singhs killed

THE identity of a mystery visitor to the Singh home on the night three siblings were murdered had troubled their surviving sister for nine years, a court hears.

‘My sisters were scared’, says Singh

SISTER to murdered Singh siblings said Neelma and Sidhi appeared “frightened” at a family function a few days before both were killed, a court hears.

Singh sister issued warning before slaying

A WOMAN whose three siblings were brutally murdered repeatedly warned her younger sister to stay away from the accused killer, a court was told.

9 weeks ago

Singh sister denies sending sex emails

THE older sister of the slain Singh siblings has denied creating adult sex web pages of herself that were emailed to her extended family and friends, a court has heard.

Singh mum: I won’t look at naked pics

THE mother of the slain Singh siblings threatened to walk out of court if she was shown a naked photograph of her daughter which had been emailed to family and friends.

9 weeks ago

Singh mum ‘argued with husband’s lover’

MOTHER of murdered Singh siblings had heated argument with her husband’s married lover outside a pizza shop in Fiji, court told.

9 weeks ago

‘A wife’s duty to be in threesome’

FATHER of murdered Singh siblings told wife she would be failing in her duty to him if she didn’t take part in three-way sex with strangers,  court told.

9 weeks ago

Accused killer kept visiting us – mother

12:44PM ACCUSED triple murderer Max Sica persistently visited his alleged victims despite being repeatedly told by their parents to stay away, a court has heard.

Nude photos of Neelma sent to family

MURDER victim Neelma Singh was ashamed when emails featuring nude photos of her were sent to a large number of her friends and family, a court heard today.

10 weeks ago

Singh’s sleep haunted on night of murder

FATHER of the murdered Singh siblings had a “horrible dream” and woke screaming on the night they were allegedly killed, a court hears.

Sica trial delayed by traffic chaos

THE Singh sibling murder trial was delayed after a juror failed to arrive on time – almost certainly because of traffic chaos around Brisbane.

10 weeks ago

‘Goody goody’ Sica ‘brainwashed’ Singhs

THE father of the murdered Singh siblings accuses murder accused Max Sica of brainwashing his family by acting in a “goody, goody” way, a court hears.

10 weeks ago

Sica trial reveals sex in the suburbs

SORDID sex in the suburbs, bitter business deals and domestic violence were among the accusations thrown before the jury in Queensland’s biggest murder trial.

10 weeks ago

Singh bashed daughter for talking to boy

FATHER of the murdered Singh siblings once faced court for bashing his daughter with a pool cue because she was talking on the phone with a boy.

Sica trial sex secrets aired

ALLEGATIONS of threesomes, prostitutes and erotic massages arose in the Singh murder trial as the sex lives of the victims’ parents were laid bare.

11 weeks ago

Singh father ‘wanted threesome with Sica’

THE father of the murdered Singh siblings today denied he once asked his wife to approach his children’s accused killer Max Sica to take part in a sexual threesome.

Sica trial hears of three-way sex

THE “dirty laundry” of Vijay Singh, the father of the murdered Singh siblings, was aired in court with evidence of three-way sex and a mistress.

11 weeks ago

Sica ‘threatened to kill father’

ACCUSED triple murderer Max Sica was caught on tape threatening to “put down” the father of the Singh siblings, court told.

11 weeks ago

Singh father tells of row with Sica

FATHER of the murdered Singh children told a trial how he had a heated argument with their alleged killer, Max Sica, when Sica asked to marry his daughter.

Jury hears call of ‘upset’ Sica

THE jury in the Singh siblings murder trial has heard a triple-0 emergency call in which accused killer Max Sica was distraught when reporting the discovery of their bodies.

11 weeks ago

Sica suicide threat over ‘brain tumour’

JURY in the Singh siblings murder trial hears recording  in which accused killer Max Sica claimed he would commit suicide because he had a brain tumour.

Sica called Hindu god on Singh father

THE man accused of murdering the Singh siblings had earlier sent an  email to their father hoping for his divine punishment, a court has been told.

11 weeks ago

Victim ‘sent email wanting her dad bashed’

NELMA Singh once asked her alleged killer to bash her father because she believed he was cheating on her mother, a Brisbane court has been told.

12 weeks ago

Sica ‘confessed’ to Singh killings

A MAN who is accused of strangling his girlfriend and killing her two siblings allegedly “confessed” to killing her to a friend who was writing a book on the murders, a court heard.

12 weeks ago

Sica had complex relationship with victim

MAX Sica allegedly strangled his girlfriend and then murdered her two younger siblings as they were the only potential witnesses to his crime, a court heard.

14 weeks ago

800 witnesses for Sica murder trial

ONE of the biggest murder trials in Australian history under way with 800 witnesses listed to appear as Max Sica pleads not guilty to murdering the Singh siblings.

14 weeks ago

Jury challenge for Sica trial

SEVERAL hundred potential jurors have been told to gather in Brisbane’s Supreme Court on Tuesday for the start of one of the biggest murder trials in the state’s history.

-115 days ago

Sica fails in bid for judge-only trial

ACCUSED triple murderer Max Sica will have his case heard by a jury after his application for a judge-only trial was refused.

 

Legal changes give child sex offenders nowhere to hide-Finally


The Victorian State Government will today announce a reversal of laws that have allowed paedophiles to remain anonymous behind court suppression orders.It has been a long time coming but WE the public are soon to get what we have always wanted and that is protection and disclosure from the courts so these rock spiders cannot hide any more under ancient suppression orders that these animals hid under like rats, to hide and sneak around and gnaw away at our children undetected and unknown. Without doubt the other states MUST FOLLOW SUIT and change their legislation too! VICTIMS AND THE PUBLIC MUST COME BEFORE THE CRIMINAL

Judges considering suppressing publication of the identity of a sex offender will now have to place the interests of any victims first, followed by the protection of children, families and the general public. The change was about protecting the public rather than “these weak individuals” who prey on our children in the shadows.

Remember this bloke I named the other week? That is what this is all about Sex abuser wins right to suppress his name- NOT HERE he doesn’t PETER VERSI

I have a list on known and convicted paedophiles as long as my arm, many with photos of these disgusting individuals, that I have been drafting with the help of a few dedicated concerned participants of this site and via a source or two as well. I will have a dedicated section on the PAEDOPHILES, on what they did, who they are, and if known, where they live, photo and all!

Headlines like these will change forever

A VEIL of secrecy behind which our worst child sex offenders can hide is being torn away.

In a long-awaited win for mums and dads, the State Government will today announce a reversal of laws that have allowed paedophiles to remain anonymous behind court suppression orders.

The overhaul follows a long media campaign to change the law.

Judges considering suppressing publication of the identity of a sex offender will now have to place the interests of any victims first, followed by the protection of children, families and the general public.

The higher threshold will also take into account whether an offender has a history of defying court orders.

Judges must also weigh up the whereabouts of the offender.

“We are trying to protect the community, and we think these amendments will enhance (that),” Corrections Minister Andrew McIntosh said.

The change was about protecting the public rather than “these weak individuals”, he said.

The overhaul comes three weeks after a government inquiry called for the repeal of suppression orders for child sex offenders, saying they comforted paedophiles and undermined confidence in the legal system.

In his report, retired Supreme Court judge Philip Cummins found: “The community has a right to be informed about the functioning of the system in relation to serious sex offenders.

“As a group, paedophiles are the most recidivist of all major categories of offenders.”

Under laws introduced by the former Labor government, courts gained the power to make orders keeping serious sex offenders under lock and key or under strict supervision after their prison sentences expired.

The law, dubbed Jessica’s Law after a brave woman who was attacked by a serial rapist, was aimed at better protecting the public.

But it contained secrecy provisions that meant almost everything said in court hearings concerning a supervision order would be suppressed.

“We have made it quite clear that the purpose of these things are to protect the community, not necessarily do the right thing by these weak individuals,” Mr McIntosh said.

“I think judges will be happy with these changes.

“Many of these offenders don’t have a great history of complying with court orders. For the first time, the legislation will make this a factor in the court’s decision.”

But the changes to the law will stop short of ordering the automatic identification of all sex offenders.

Mr McIntosh said  that some discretion must remain

to allow for cases where expert medical evidence, submitted to a court, showed that a suppression order was in the best interests of public safety

Related articles

“In my own Words” is a section I think is worthy here-Victims and family of victims Have your say!


Update by me 13 April 2012

Hi all, It is great to see all the conversations and sharing of thoughts here. I have posted the very first Impact Statement that has been sent to me and been authorised by the author. Here is the link http://aussiecriminals.wordpress.com/victim-impact-statements/ Remember if you would like to make a statement on that page here is the link to do so! or here http://aussiecriminals.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/in-my-own-words-victim-impact-statements/

Update by me 15 March 2012 

Seems to of opened a can of worms. I expected some debate but I want to get it right up front, rather than make 7 changes over 1 week for various reasons. First and foremost for me is victims of crime.

Whilst I can understand other views and feel they are entitled to them in relation to their own loved ones been punished for years and or life in jail….

The bottom line is most guilty people will lie to the death, to their loved ones and anyone else who wants to hear them over their crimes and or involvement and culpability…

“In my own Words” is a section I think is worthy here-Victims and family of victims Have your say!

Did you get cut off from your say in Court?

Do you folks agree with me. I often receive letters/emails from victims and or the survivors left behind after awful crimes, long after the media has dropped off and moved to the next story. I am very aware that a lot of folks do not feel they get a real say. Now I cannot promise or even to offer that they will here, but I can say is a lot of readers come here every day and feel the same way as I do, and feel for victims of crime.

I propose to allow privately verified victims and family members to have a unique opportunity to have their say and let others know what the courts or media denied them. I think they have a right to be heard and I am having an educated guess that all the readers here and subscribers and other twitter folks etc. would be more than willing to receive, accept and share those so important feelings that often get ruthlessly cut off by media and or courts as if irrelevant or not important.

Well if the victims feelings on a crime is not important than who is. The welfare of the crim inside jail? Whether his or her telly is big enough?

I am not interested in those scum bags but am in voicing the victims and their families.

If I read my audience here correctly I am pretty sure the majority will agree with my view and we can facilitate a way to make this happen for folks. We have a good readership of people who care so please come forward and email me with your stories.

I will always treat you with the respect and PRIVACY YOU DESERVE, but if you wish to announce things to the world things the courts or media did not or wouldn’t cover, here is your chance.

At least here you know thousands of people will be reading your important statement each week. And not be written off as “Irrelevant” by some crusty old JUDGE

You will have the option if you want to allow comments to your statement or Not!

I DON’T LIKE TO USE A COURT TERM, BUT THE CLOSEST THING I CAN THINK OF IS HAVING THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT YOU NEVER GOT TO SHARE IN COURT HERE FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS’ TO READ

With utmost respect

Robbo

"In my own Words" is a section I think is worthy here-Victims and family of victims Have your say!


Update by me 13 April 2012

Hi all, It is great to see all the conversations and sharing of thoughts here. I have posted the very first Impact Statement that has been sent to me and been authorised by the author. Here is the link http://aussiecriminals.com.au/victim-impact-statements/ Remember if you would like to make a statement on that page here is the link to do so! or here http://aussiecriminals.com.au/2012/03/26/in-my-own-words-victim-impact-statements/

Update by me 15 March 2012 

Seems to of opened a can of worms. I expected some debate but I want to get it right up front, rather than make 7 changes over 1 week for various reasons. First and foremost for me is victims of crime.

Whilst I can understand other views and feel they are entitled to them in relation to their own loved ones been punished for years and or life in jail….

The bottom line is most guilty people will lie to the death, to their loved ones and anyone else who wants to hear them over their crimes and or involvement and culpability…

“In my own Words” is a section I think is worthy here-Victims and family of victims Have your say!

Did you get cut off from your say in Court?

Do you folks agree with me. I often receive letters/emails from victims and or the survivors left behind after awful crimes, long after the media has dropped off and moved to the next story. I am very aware that a lot of folks do not feel they get a real say. Now I cannot promise or even to offer that they will here, but I can say is a lot of readers come here every day and feel the same way as I do, and feel for victims of crime.

I propose to allow privately verified victims and family members to have a unique opportunity to have their say and let others know what the courts or media denied them. I think they have a right to be heard and I am having an educated guess that all the readers here and subscribers and other twitter folks etc. would be more than willing to receive, accept and share those so important feelings that often get ruthlessly cut off by media and or courts as if irrelevant or not important.

Well if the victims feelings on a crime is not important than who is. The welfare of the crim inside jail? Whether his or her telly is big enough?

I am not interested in those scum bags but am in voicing the victims and their families.

If I read my audience here correctly I am pretty sure the majority will agree with my view and we can facilitate a way to make this happen for folks. We have a good readership of people who care so please come forward and email me with your stories.

I will always treat you with the respect and PRIVACY YOU DESERVE, but if you wish to announce things to the world things the courts or media did not or wouldn’t cover, here is your chance.

At least here you know thousands of people will be reading your important statement each week. And not be written off as “Irrelevant” by some crusty old JUDGE

You will have the option if you want to allow comments to your statement or Not!

I DON’T LIKE TO USE A COURT TERM, BUT THE CLOSEST THING I CAN THINK OF IS HAVING THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT YOU NEVER GOT TO SHARE IN COURT HERE FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS’ TO READ

With utmost respect

Robbo