http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/judge-acquitted-catholic-brother-despite-being-satisfied-he-had-sexually-abused-schoolboy/news-story/b102b64fdd54769495ff818fbcbda3eb

A judge said he was “well satisfied” that a Catholic brother had sexually abused a boy at school - but then acquitted him of the abuse.

The extraordinary case in the NSW District Court is being examined by the royal commission into child sex abuse but while the victim and the crown prosecutor Lou Lungo will be giving evidence, Judge David Frearson is not being called as a witness.

No judges have been called to the long-running commission to explain their decisions while solicitors have been criticised for the way they have handled cases.

The decision not to call Judge Frearson was made despite the commission being told today that the case “raises a number of issues of importance to the royal commission’s work on criminal justice”.

“This prosecution raises the issue of whether a criminal justice response can be said to be reasonably available to condemn and punish child sexual abuse if an accused is acquitted in circumstances where the judge was ‘well satisfied’ that the accused sexually abused the complainant,” counsel assisting the commission Jeremy Kirk SC said today.

Acquitting Brother Christopher Rafferty, 65, the commission heard that the judge said in his judgment: “I am well satisfied that the accused did sexually abuse the complainant at school and I reject his blanket denial as a reasonable possibility.”

But Judge Frearson said he could not be satisfied of the particular individual incidents beyond reasonable doubt.

The commission is examining whether there should be more joint trials and more coincidence evidence allowed into trials.



a Judge say he is satisfied this monster is a child sex molester then lets him off..

and then the judge isnt asked to front the Royal to please explain..... ::) ::) ::) ::)

the King can be asked to appear in court  what is so special about judges????...



Quote:

In another case being examined as the commission looks at the way the criminal justice system lets down the victims of child sexual assault, a Catholic priest was convicted of sexually abusing six boys, including parishioners and alter boys, but acquitted of sexually assaulting another boy after a NSW District Court judge ruled that boy’s trial be heard separately. That victim felt “angry and abandoned” when he found out his trial had been separated, Mr Kirk said.

Quote:

In a similar case in Victoria, the courts ruled that a member of the Salvation Army be given separate trials, with three victims in one trial and another three complainants having separate trials. The man was convicted by a jury in the joint trial but he was acquitted by juries in the three other trials where only one victim was dealt with. The commission is sitting in Sydney.

I think a bit of explaining is needed...

cods wrote on Nov 28^th, 2016 at 3:04pm:

I think a bit of explaining is needed...

This probably explains it all: "a Catholic brother".

Its simple really'

The judges, lawyers, politicians and senior public servants are all well known throughout history for perversions and perverted practices.

This judge is probably also diddling kiddies like all his brethren and as such see no wrong in the activities.

In addition, why would he set a precedent where he may be punished once/ if he is ever found out.

Power corrupts, in more than just a legal sense.

ALL Judges are corrupt, narcissistic, bombastic know nothing know it all's.

You should see the look on their face when you tell them so.

Freemasons?

cods wrote on Nov 28^th, 2016 at 3:04pm:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/judge-acquitted-catholic-brother-despite-being-satisfied-he-had-sexually-abused-schoolboy/news-story/b102b64fdd54769495ff818fbcbda3eb A judge said he was “well satisfied” that a Catholic brother had sexually abused a boy at school - but then acquitted him of the abuse. The extraordinary case in the NSW District Court is being examined by the royal commission into child sex abuse but while the victim and the crown prosecutor Lou Lungo will be giving evidence, Judge David Frearson is not being called as a witness. No judges have been called to the long-running commission to explain their decisions while solicitors have been criticised for the way they have handled cases. The decision not to call Judge Frearson was made despite the commission being told today that the case “raises a number of issues of importance to the royal commission’s work on criminal justice”. “This prosecution raises the issue of whether a criminal justice response can be said to be reasonably available to condemn and punish child sexual abuse if an accused is acquitted in circumstances where the judge was ‘well satisfied’ that the accused sexually abused the complainant,” counsel assisting the commission Jeremy Kirk SC said today. Acquitting Brother Christopher Rafferty, 65, the commission heard that the judge said in his judgment: “I am well satisfied that the accused did sexually abuse the complainant at school and I reject his blanket denial as a reasonable possibility.” But Judge Frearson said he could not be satisfied of the particular individual incidents beyond reasonable doubt. The commission is examining whether there should be more joint trials and more coincidence evidence allowed into trials. a Judge say he is satisfied this monster is a child sex molester then lets him off.. and then the judge isnt asked to front the Royal to please explain..... ::) ::) ::) ::) the King can be asked to appear in court  what is so special about judges????... Quote: In another case being examined as the commission looks at the way the criminal justice system lets down the victims of child sexual assault, a Catholic priest was convicted of sexually abusing six boys, including parishioners and alter boys, but acquitted of sexually assaulting another boy after a NSW District Court judge ruled that boy’s trial be heard separately. That victim felt “angry and abandoned” when he found out his trial had been separated, Mr Kirk said. [quote]In a similar case in Victoria, the courts ruled that a member of the Salvation Army be given separate trials, with three victims in one trial and another three complainants having separate trials. The man was convicted by a jury in the joint trial but he was acquitted by juries in the three other trials where only one victim was dealt with. The commission is sitting in Sydney.

I think a bit of explaining is needed...[/quote]

Actually, the Crown can NOT be compelled to attend court - for anything.

Unforgiven wrote on Nov 28^th, 2016 at 4:43pm:

Freemasons?

Not just Freemasons.

cods wrote on Nov 28^th, 2016 at 3:04pm:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/judge-acquitted-catholic-brother-despite-being-satisfied-he-had-sexually-abused-schoolboy/news-story/b102b64fdd54769495ff818fbcbda3eb A judge said he was “well satisfied” that a Catholic brother had sexually abused a boy at school - but then acquitted him of the abuse. The extraordinary case in the NSW District Court is being examined by the royal commission into child sex abuse but while the victim and the crown prosecutor Lou Lungo will be giving evidence, Judge David Frearson is not being called as a witness. No judges have been called to the long-running commission to explain their decisions while solicitors have been criticised for the way they have handled cases. The decision not to call Judge Frearson was made despite the commission being told today that the case “raises a number of issues of importance to the royal commission’s work on criminal justice”. “This prosecution raises the issue of whether a criminal justice response can be said to be reasonably available to condemn and punish child sexual abuse if an accused is acquitted in circumstances where the judge was ‘well satisfied’ that the accused sexually abused the complainant,” counsel assisting the commission Jeremy Kirk SC said today. Acquitting Brother Christopher Rafferty, 65, the commission heard that the judge said in his judgment: “I am well satisfied that the accused did sexually abuse the complainant at school and I reject his blanket denial as a reasonable possibility.” But Judge Frearson said he could not be satisfied of the particular individual incidents beyond reasonable doubt. The commission is examining whether there should be more joint trials and more coincidence evidence allowed into trials. a Judge say he is satisfied this monster is a child sex molester then lets him off.. and then the judge isnt asked to front the Royal to please explain..... ::) ::) ::) ::) the King can be asked to appear in court  what is so special about judges????... Quote: In another case being examined as the commission looks at the way the criminal justice system lets down the victims of child sexual assault, a Catholic priest was convicted of sexually abusing six boys, including parishioners and alter boys, but acquitted of sexually assaulting another boy after a NSW District Court judge ruled that boy’s trial be heard separately. That victim felt “angry and abandoned” when he found out his trial had been separated, Mr Kirk said. [quote]In a similar case in Victoria, the courts ruled that a member of the Salvation Army be given separate trials, with three victims in one trial and another three complainants having separate trials. The man was convicted by a jury in the joint trial but he was acquitted by juries in the three other trials where only one victim was dealt with. The commission is sitting in Sydney.

I think a bit of explaining is needed...[/quote]

No explanation required .... the Judge is a kiddy fiddler as well.

After all the shyte that has gone on in SA is it any wonder people believe the Judiciary to be full of "Rock Spiders".

But not just in SA. The country wide.

Gnads wrote on Nov 28^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Nov 28th, 2016 at 4:43pm: Freemasons? Not just Freemasons.

Catholics?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 28^th, 2016 at 7:36pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 28th, 2016 at 7:24pm: Unforgiven wrote on Nov 28th, 2016 at 4:43pm: Freemasons? Not just Freemasons. Catholics?

Judges, Lawyers, Senior public servants and politicians.

Its something about their brain make up.

They just cant help themselves, they are programmed for corruption, greed and narcissism.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 28^th, 2016 at 7:36pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 28th, 2016 at 7:24pm: Unforgiven wrote on Nov 28th, 2016 at 4:43pm: Freemasons? Not just Freemasons. Catholics?

on another thread you were complaining about people not really reading the op..

this is about the ROYAL into child sex abuse..

cases listed .. what I am asking is.. why are these judges who allow a person they have found guilty of having sex with an 8 yr old...yet do not send him to jail...

and other judges changing the rules ....

why are these judges not asked to appear before the Royal....Cardinal Pell was told to front up...

why not these judges???

to me they seem to have some serious questions to answer????????

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337159870/0#0

Quote:

It is no longer permitted to make accusations of pedophilia and similar acts (eg rape, bestiality) against specific politicians, religious leaders etc without corroboration from the mainstream media or claims of personal knowledge (we would expect police involvement in this case).

Don't do it.

These people seem to have no fear of the court of community opinion either

miketrees wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

These people seem to have no fear of the court of community opinion either

I presume you mean JUDGES....of course they are they are also above the LAW as we know from time to time..

however when the leader of a political party is called before a ROYAL to please explain himself...

these JUDGES should face the same accountability

maybe we dont make enough noise about it...

we shouldnt have untouchables in this country....

THE LAW WE ARE TOLD IS NOT SELECTIVE.

cods wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 7:32am:

miketrees wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 7:16am: These people seem to have no fear of the court of community opinion either I presume you mean JUDGES....of course they are they are also above the LAW as we know from time to time.. however when the leader of a political party is called before a ROYAL to please explain himself... these JUDGES should face the same accountability maybe we dont make enough noise about it... we shouldnt have untouchables in this country.... THE LAW WE ARE TOLD IS NOT SELECTIVE.

Well Cods, WE ARE TOLD MANY THINGS, BY MANY GROUPS OF PEOPLE.
Unfortunately, MUCH OF WHAT WE ARE TOLD, IS NOT BACKED UP BY FACTS & REALITY!
And, also unfortunately, there are "untouchables" & that is largely because WE HAVE "CHOSEN" NOT TO ENFORCE THE SAME BASIC RULES FOR ALL! 

PS - Happy Christmas to ALL!

Setanta wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 7:13am:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337159870/0#0 Quote: It is no longer permitted to make accusations of pedophilia and similar acts (eg rape, bestiality) against specific politicians, religious leaders etc without corroboration from the mainstream media or claims of personal knowledge (we would expect police involvement in this case). Don't do it.

Why not incorporate that into the Rules proper.  There are those sort of edicts all over OzPol.  How would anyone know they exist....when they are not included HERE (click) where they belong?

Quote:

these JUDGES should face the same accountability

No Judge is above the Law cods, as many have found out.  No Judge is unaccountable either.  There are processes where they can be keel hauled well and truly.

Aussie wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 11:22am:

Quote: these JUDGES should face the same accountability No Judge is above the Law cods, as many have found out.  No Judge is unaccountable either.  There are processes where they can be keel hauled well and truly.

This is something I have not seen any evidence of.

Valkie wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 11:22am: Quote: these JUDGES should face the same accountability No Judge is above the Law cods, as many have found out.  No Judge is unaccountable either.  There are processes where they can be keel hauled well and truly. This is something I have not seen any evidence of.

Do a Google on Marcus Einfeld, for starters.

We have a legal system,,,, not a justice system.

cods wrote on Nov 28^th, 2016 at 3:04pm:

I just do not understand our law

Well that is pretty obvious.

Anyone who makes an assessment of our legal system based on a Daily Telegraph article has no idea.

miketrees wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 8:44pm:

We have a legal system,,,, not a justice system.

X100

Aussie wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 6:37pm:

Valkie wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:34pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 11:22am: Quote: these JUDGES should face the same accountability No Judge is above the Law cods, as many have found out.  No Judge is unaccountable either.  There are processes where they can be keel hauled well and truly. This is something I have not seen any evidence of. Do a Google on Marcus Einfeld, for starters.

Thats one....

But there are thousands of bombastic, stupid judges.
As percentages go, its virtually insignificant.

They all stick together and look after each other.

But throughout history, judges have been a perverted lot.
Homosexuals, child molesters, pedos, and legal murderers, they have pandered to the wants of the rich and powerful, using draconian punishment where they get their rocks off.

Good judges, about as common as judges who have been put in gaol, virtually insignificant.