I respond to the federal government’s to propose “Sex fiends forced (to stay) home”.
It is necessary to respond to the federal government to introduce legislation which would prevent convicted paedophiles from traveling overseas and even preventing them obtaining a passport. I speak on behalf of rehabilitated ex-offenders – if we are to have faith in our system of justice in which criteria is protection of society, punishment and rehabilitation.
All states of Australia enjoy the spent conviction act where ex-offenders don’t offend for 10 years and they may apply to the court or to the Commissioner of Police free of charge to declare to have their convictions spent. If we don’t back this in reality what chance has a rehabilitated ex-offender got to contribute to society and be still targeted when he or she wishes to travel overseas.
We must accept that our criminal justice system is open to a multitude of innocent people particularly in sexual charges where you don’t have to have proof that they did anything, simply oath against oath, and you don’t need independent verification to convict supposedly beyond reasonable doubt. In fact the NT Supreme Court of appeal found that a person was trialled for child sexual abuse by eight named complainants and they found that, in the trial in the district court, the eight named complainants weren’t even brought to court to give their side of their complaints or to be cross examine. In other words it wasn’t oath against oath, it was oath against nothing…but nevertheless by a majority verdict that poor victim of injustice was convicted and sentenced to five (5) years. Of course the Court of Appeal not only acquitted him but deliberately did not order a retrial which it would normally do. The CoA criticised the system. There are a number of cases in my 40 years watch-dogging that I have observed where people were sentenced to 20 years and some people sentenced to much lesser sentences where I personally know that they are innocent.
When people who are convicted on sexual charges don’t volunteer to do rehabilitation courses the probabilities are that they are innocent, because in our courts you don’t require independent verification to convict anybody of a sexual offence. In my view a judge or a jury cannot distinguish body language where the innocent accused could be in a state of shock or the guilty accused could be in a state of shame, unless the judge or the jurors know them personally. In my mind juries and judges can’t distinguish innocent from guilt and on that basis the conviction percentages for sexual offences where there is no independent verification is high.
I believe we should respect rehabilitated ex-offenders in sexual cases. They should not be subject to passport restrictions.
– Brian G Tennant AM, member of Civil Liberties Australia, Subiaco WA