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

About these ads