Sydney Magistrate Terrence Murphy has recently handed down a decision in the Supreme Court of NSW, where he has dispicabbly blamed a mother for her daughter being sexually assaulted. He has used this as an excuse to side with the Department of Community Services Campbelltown Office in stating that the newborn baby of this mother belongs in care - because the mother failed to protect her other child.
It is routinely common these days for DoCS caseworkers to blame mothers for being victims of domestic violence and use this as the reason for removing their children. Little do they know that some of these children are turning suicidal because they have been taken away from the only family that they have ever known, and the mother who has loved and protected them their whole lives.
Magistrate Jarret from the Brisbane Federal Magistrate Courts, has hit our headlines again with yet another matter, where he is refusing to produce the Reasons for Judgement - in a case where he was severely biased toward a mother and young boy. It appeared that the Magistrate worked with the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer to remove the child from his mother, after repeatedly refusing to hear the boys evidence on what his wishes were. This is contrary to all legislation and the fundamental rights of the child.
By Magistrate Jarret refusing to produce the Reasons for Judgement, he is covering his own butt from being dragged across the coals for such an atrocious decision and placement on the boy, but he is also preventing the mother and boy from appealing his decision in a higher court. To appeal the decision the appellants need the Reasons for Removal.
This is not only biased but a clear denial of the mother and child's fundamental human rights and this is the perfect example why Judicial Immunity should never be allowed in our court system.
Written by Michaela Whitbourn - Sydney Morning Herald
A Federal Circuit Court judge at the centre of a series of damning appeal judgments has been blasted by the Federal Court for his "intimidating, aggressive and overbearing" behaviour towards a man he unfairly ejected from his courtroom, raising fresh questions about his fitness to remain on the bench.
Brisbane-based Judge Salvatore Vasta, who has developed a reputation for clashing with litigants, courted controversy this year after he jailed a father of two for a maximum of 12 months for contempt of court in family law proceedings.
He told the man in that case, whose former wife was strenuously opposed to him going to jail, to "bring your toothbrush" after he allegedly failed to hand over all his financial records.
In a scathing judgment in February, the Full Court of the Family Court said Judge Vasta's conduct in the case gave rise to a "gross miscarriage of justice".
Former lawyer Stella Struthridge has been a magistrate in the Victorian Courts for some three years now. Common sense tells us that no lawyer is trustworthy, hence they would make an even more dishonest judge, but common government continues to promote these people regardless.
Today in court, Struthridge reached an all new low, when for the second time, she dismissed an application for Personal Violence Intervention Order, after a DHS worker, Heather Podesta, of Albury / Wodonga DHS assaulted a client in front of multiple witnesses.
The second application by the victim has come with witnesses to the assault - yet Struthridge has refused to even hear the application before setting aside a verdict.
Written by Michaela Whitbourn Legal Affairs and Investigations Reporter with Matthew Knott and Nicole Hasham - SMH NSW
The NSW ICAC has lost its bid to investigate Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen which may have implications for past corruption inquiries like those involving Eddie Obeid, reports Michaela Whitbourn.
A landmark High Court ruling on the powers of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption has "destroyed" a major part of the watchdog's jurisdiction and could lead to corruption findings against previous targets of inquiries being overturned, a former judge and ICAC commissioner has warned.
David Ipp, QC, who presided over historic corruption inquiries into Labor figures including Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald, said Parliament should intervene to give the commission back its powers "but whether it will is open to question".
The High Court ruled on Wednesday the ICAC had no power to investigate Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen, SC, over allegations she perverted the course of justice. The decision, which gave a narrow interpretation to one of the definitions of "corrupt conduct" in the ICAC Act, has far-reaching implications for past and future corruption inquiries.
Judge’s decision to have baby Gammy’s twin Pipah raised by sex offender father ‘appalling’.
Bravehearts founder Hetty Johnston has slammed a judge’s decision to let baby Pipah be raised by a convicted child sex offender.
A JUDGE’S order to have a baby girl raised by a convicted sex offender has been slammed by Australia’s leading child protection campaigner.
In a shocking decision handed down in the Family Court of Western Australia yesterday, Justice Stephen Thackray ordered the twin sister of baby Gammy, the child at the centre of an international surrogacy dispute after being left in Thailand, remain with her sex offender father.
David Farnell, the biological father of the pair, has 22 prior convictions for child sexual abuse.
Former Intellectual Property Lawyer, come Children's Court Lawyer, Darrin Craig Cain, has recently handed down a decision whereby he has sentenced a three year old boy to a further fifteen years confinement with his abusers. The magistrate was presented with irrefutable evidence that he was and always had been safe in his mothers care, however turning a blind eye, even to photographic evidence and sided, yet again, with the Department of Human Services, whom he once represented in proceedings.
The magistrate could not substantiate any fact or allegation the department put forward, regarding concerns of the mothers ability to care for the child, but handed down an order giving the mother only quarterly access with her young son.
Brian Wightman, a gentleman, with his whole life in front of him, is now in the HOT SEAT due to incidents in the Court of Petty Sessions at Devonport on Friday the 9th of December, 2011 when Constable Steven Andrew Jones tried to prosecute Mark Elvin Sharman for "Assaulting Stephen Craig Karpeles a Public Officer in the execution of his duty by hitting him in the chest and shoulder area with his chest", under section 34B of the Police Offences Act 1935 that carries "a penalty not exceeding 25 penalty units or (-) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months" ... something which Mr Elvin strongly denies.
Over a month ago now, three children were removed from their loving mummy and daddy's care because an unregistered docs worker signed a piece of paper say the children were at Risk of Serious Harm. Removing children without prior court proceedings and not giving parents to defend the hearsay of caseworkers is one of the most traumatic experiences a child can have. Children who have been removed from their mothers at birth, are still known to suffer major anxiety and fears well into the child's seventh year, and after the child was returned - meaning they should not have been removed at all.
Children are seen suffering injuries in care because supervision is less than adequate, and crying on phone calls to parents and begging to come home is something no child should suffer at all - unless there are extremely serious reasons to do so. Unfortunately child protection rules the roost these days, and the words accountability and transparency have long been lost to a government who spends more money covering it's ass than actually doing the right thing by its people.
So what does happen when children have been removed on Emergency Care and Protection Orders?
Well, the legal requirements firstly are that the department (child protection) must bring the matter to the attention of the courts within three working days. [i] However if you’re a department lawyer or Rob Hosking from Hosking Lawyers in Goulburn[ii], those rules don’t apply to you.
Six weeks after DoCS took baby "Doc" into "care", they're still breaking every law possible and getting away with it. Isn't it wonderful to have a judge in your pocket.
Magistrate Carney seems only too happy to adjourn this newborns life another three months and into the new year to allow DoCS to entertain the court some more with their shenanigans.
Magistrate Carney may have transpired from the Roads and Traffic Committee, but one would think that before she be allowed to make decisions regarding the life of children, imparticular newborns, that she be knowledgeable on time limits imposed in matters relating to Children's Courts.
Whether she knows or just doesn't care is irrelevant, because the damage being done to newborn children, whom she happily boasts about "taking three babies per week", is not only unforgivable, it is unlawful.
.. So if we start petitioning a decent councillor to put forward the motion on a couple of crappy judges with some good hard evidence, and there is a lot of it floating around, we may just be able to get the Parliamentarians to "pray" for such removal. What I am wondering though is why in bloody hell do they have to "pray" and not just stand up and say "I" or something. Can you imagine the whole of parliament really sitting there praying, i mean seriously. And what about the islamic parliamentarians, will we have to provide blankets so they can get down on their hands and knees to do it also?