In yet another case justifying my repeated calls for ‘Judicial and Bureaucratic Manslaughter’ laws, a judge has let a violent serial sex offender off scot-free, even after he broke into a locked home to molest a sleeping 10-year-old. The would-be paedophile rapist was already on probation for attempted rape.
Yet, despite his clearly escalating predilection for sexual predation, a virtue-signalling judge has turned him loose to prey again.
It was about 10.30pm in mid 2024 when the teen, who cannot be named for legal reasons, entered the “well secured” two-storey Mackay home via a kitchen window after removing a security screen, Mackay District Court heard.
The aspiring rapist’s name is not all that’s being withheld, though there’s nothing legal stopping the media telling you a key fact: as you’ve probably guessed, the offender is Aboriginal.
When the girl screamed and ran to her parents’ room, he fled, stealing two mobile phones on his way out. The lenient treatment started right away: after his arrest, police turned him loose in short order. Tell us again there’s no two-tier policing.
He immediately went back to the house and threatened to kill the victim’s father. With typical self-centredness, he demanded, “Why did you call the police on me?”
Uh, because you tried to rape their child, you sick creep?
After the terrifying attack the little girl slept in her parents’ bed for six months, and suffered nightmares, flashbacks of the assault and fears of an intruder in the house, Mackay District Court heard.
Crown prosecutor Monique Sheppard pushed for the soon to be 18-year-old to receive further detention, arguing the offending was serious, “had a degree of premeditation” and the impact on the child and her family was significant.
But Judge John Allen KC sided with barrister Sean Franklin in opting to give the teen, who has ongoing mental health issues, including PTSD, another chance at rehabilitation and structured a penalty that avoided the teen being sent to an adult jail.
In other words, he’ll be sent on outings at the taxpayer’s expense, while social workers will sympathetically tell him how he’s a poor victim of ‘colonial trauma’ or some such horse-shit.
Maybe if the judge had to board the offender at his house, he wouldn’t be so quick to set him loose to prey on other innocents. Again.
Ms Sheppard said concerningly in 2023 the teen faced the Townsville Children’s Court for assault with intent to rape against a woman as she was walking from The Strand in the early evening.
The court heard he grabbed her wrists and held her while he tried to “thrust his penis against her buttocks” three or four times.
He was given 18 months’ probation with a special condition that he undergo treatment with Griffith Youth Forensic Service and a conviction was not recorded.
That probation order was even extended for another six months because of noncompliance.
Ms Sheppard said at the end of the two-year treatment program the teen’s risk of reoffending was assessed on multiple scales “and on each of them he has got worse”.
“He has increased his risk of sexual offence with recidivism,” Ms Sheppard said […]
The judge also accepted the teen was a “high risk of sexual offence recidivism”.
“It’s clear that level of risk has been maintained if not increased … looking at recent psychological report,” Judge Allen said.
And still he turns him loose to prowl the streets.
When are these judges, not to mention sundry aiders and abetters such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service Mackay who are all-too-ready to spin a tale of woe for the offender, going to be held to account?
After all, most Australian states now have Industrial Manslaughter rules, courtesy of Labor governments. Under these laws, instead of merely fining business owners or company CEOs if a death occurs in their workplace, a boss can be jailed for up to 25 years, whether the death occurred as a result of their direct action or simply by omission. Even if they didn’t actually know that a safety breach had occurred.
The presumption of the law is that they should have known that their actions or omissions would create a substantial risk of serious harm.
If we can have such laws for bosses, why not judges, bureaucrats and activists?
