We've been accused in the past of posting "crime porn", whatever that is. And crime is an area we've largely steered clear of in recent months. But this is one case we feel extremely strongly about, hence this post. And if you are easily offended, we suggest you don't follow the link below.
Stuff reports that "a well-known comedian" was discharged without conviction today after pleading guilty to a charge of committing an indecent act on a child; his daughter. The story gives some pretty graphic details of the case. For that reason, we are not reproducing any of it.
His counsel, Marie Dhyrberg asked for and won a discharge without conviction, despite the fact that the indecent act was admistted by the defendant, who has permanent name supression, and witnessed by the girl's mother, his former partner. Where is the justice in this?
It seems that the main reason for the discharge being granted was the possible effects of a conviction on the defendant's career. What about the trauma that the victim and her mother suffered; does that not count for anything? Apparently not; Judge Phillippa Cunningham ruled that the effects of a conviction "outweighed the gravity of the offending".
We reckon that is absurd. Could there be any offence more grave than a parent, boozed to the eyeballs, committing an indecent act on his own child? We don't think so, and that is why we are so outraged.
We thought long and hard before posting this, but we want to register our outrage at this decision. A child has been violated, a mother traumatised, and the offender walks. It sickens and angers us.
FOOTNOTE: Rightly or wrongly, the defendant's name has been permanently suppressed. As we are going to be offline for a few hours, we're turning moderation on. PLEASE; do not try to identify the offender either directly or otherwise; that's not the purpose of this post.
8 comments:
His counsel, Marie Dhyrberg asked for and won a discharge without conviction, despite the fact that the indecent act was admistted by the defendant
Well, you're certainly not going to get a discharge without conviction if you deny it.
I hope the prosecution will appeal.
This pig should be named.
I was too repulsed by the bare bones of the news reported to even follow it up.
If it was his child there is absolutely no alternative to, 'rest of his natural life', a "step" child maybe a week off after death occurs for the perp.
Pretty difficult to remember any quotes on justice and keep ones mental equilibrium.
Makes "respect" for the rule of law a complete arse.
He must be indeed a very important person with friends in high places.
Travesty does not even come close.
A discharge without conviction for performing a sex act on a child?...actually your own child no less! What kind of sick prick does that even if he is intoxicated? This sentence just demonstrates how soft our justice system has been allowed to become. A conviction and prison sentence would have be far more appropriate.
This is one very sick country. The joke is on the lost the plot justice system, it has gutter mentality!
Poor kiwi kids deserve protection from perverted creeps like this. Shoot the prick offender and nutbar bitch judge!
Joe Average would get 5 years for such an offence.
Now you've got one of the sickest ever produced in Godzone calling the country sick.
When will it end?
I've read the reporets on this case and note the judge was a sheila, the jokester's shyster was a sheila, the kid wants her father back and no one actually involved seems to genuinely believe (The slime would have headlined it if they did, the best they could come up with was some nutter slag "councillor" who was as much an observer as we were.) the act was deliberate.
I admit were I a relative of the kid I would have wandered over to discuss the incident armed but I do think given the reports your reaction is slightly over the top.
'we believe that he will now be judged by the only one who matters'
Hypocrisy within two posts of each other...
No hypocrisy whatsoever Knob; I believe that we will all have to account for our actions one day. Allan Hubbard and The Comedian will both be judged according to their deeds, and their faith or the absence thereof. You may not agree, but that's your prerogative. Just as it's my prerogative to hold the beliefs I hold.
Post a Comment