Friday, February 13, 2004

Judge gang rape claim: Civil Court?

A Victorian judge today said he believed suspended ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark raped a woman 33 years ago in a gang attack and gave her an extension of time to bring a civil action against him.

County Court Judge John Hanlon today granted Carol Anne Stingel, 48, an extension of time under the statute of limitations to take action against Mr Clark over an alleged gang rape in 1971.

Clark's barrister, Robert Richter QC, said the Aboriginal leader, who denied the claims, would appeal the decision.

He disputed Judge Hanlon's ruling, saying he "could not and must not" rule Mr Clark was guilty of rape because he had not heard the defence case.

"We were never confronted with the position where we could defend the accusation of rape," Mr Richter said.

But Judge Hanlon said he could only operate on the material in front of him.

[Nonsense! How can a civil or subordinate court rule on a criminal matter without a defence and without the standard of proof required for a criminal finding? Does that mean if they can find an applicant to take civil proceeding, after a criminal matter has been dealt with a person can be tried again?]

[Allegedly], Ms Stingel approached police after hearing about Ms McGuinness's allegations in 2000, when a rape charge against Mr Clark in the McGuinness case was dismissed after a committal hearing.

[Two separate witnesses who don't know each other, make claims against the same person in a civil court, after a committal hearing has been dismissed, leading up to the government and police again saying there is a case to answer. This judge knows the rules and if he could make a finding on guilt even without proof, then he's toeing the government line. If he's made a finding in a civil court, where the proof is on the balances, and if the government seeks to bounce it back up to the criminal court for a charge to be laid, based on that finding, then we'd have to agree with Mr Clark.]

Outside the court, Mr Clark vowed to keep fighting.

"I must be the most vilified man in Australia's history, thanks to you people (the media)," he said.

[Even if they didn't seek to prosecute Mr Clark again this persons reputation will be ruined in any case and we would still have to agree with Mr Clark.]

By Friday 13th February 13 04

THE DOG: The authorities can muster up any number of people to make claims against a person after the fact. People can recognise important people and make claims against them whether they are true or not, seeking financial gain.

In this case claims were made but no one really knows where the claims originated. In this case the matter was dismissed after a committal hearing, and to make further claims against a person that could lead to criminal prosecutions, is not our view in any civil judge's jurisdiction, and we're not judges.

We might add a similar position taken in the
Jaidyn Leskie case. Sounds to me like a bit of fiddling and foreplay with the ethics of law.

The government intimating that laws need to be changed will be the next stage I suppose? It is a standard government tactic: choose an unpopular candidate or make one unpopular as a test case (on the basis that the individual concerned will be unlikely to engender any support), then use that case as the basis for what would otherwise be controversial legislation.


If we want to survive we must work at it Indigenous unemployment reaching crisis: welfare group Action to lower Indigenous unemployment rate Govt underspends on indigenous employment: dept Economic development: The outback malaise Call for end to Indigenous welfare cycle.

O'Shane blasts constitution
Controversial New South Wales magistrate Pat O'shane has described the Australian Constitution as flawed and grossly inappropriate.

Demounting Auntie Isabel Coe
The information demountable and Auntie Isabel Coe's demountable were set alight at 3am last Saturday morning. The info demountable was completely destroyed- 31 years of photos and info on the grassroots Indigenous rights movement destroyed! Wilson Tukey (FUCKER)has wanted any excuse to get rid of the embassy for ages. This week he has been using the excuse that the burnt out shell is a danger to the community therefore the embassy must be removed.

Retrospective Laws: Mesmerised like a chook syndrome
What is it? This chook syndrome. Perhaps it is when we allow 800-year-old rule of law to diminish for a dictator like Bob Carr.