The case for state sponsored “9mm” Capital Justice

Andys Rant

Okay – I admit, I have purposely put up a provocative headline, but since you have started to read this piece, please stay with me for a few more minutes and let me explain why we need state sponsored capital justice introduced pronto.

I don’t see the death penalty as capital punishment – I see it as capital justice. It’s justice for the victims family and the community at large.

In my opinion, three unique classes of criminals need capital justice:

Mass murderers like Martin Bryant. Why this scumbag who murdered in cold blood 35 people is still allowed to breathe the air is beyond me. Bryant was sentenced to 35 consecutive life sentences plus additional 1,035 years for attempted murder without the possibility of parole and will die in specially built cell in Hobart’s Risdon prison. Taxpayers of Tasmania shouldn’t have to pay for this psychopath’s continued incarceration.

Terrorists like Bali bomb-maker Umar Patek. Why this radical Islamist Mike Foxtrot wasn’t put to death by the Indonesian authorities for his part in the deaths of 202 people including 88 Australians is just mind blogging (at least Imam Samudra and brothers Amrozi and Mukhlas were shot dead by separate firing squads back in November 2008). Instead, Patek is currently serving a 20 year stretch for his role. Terrorists like Patek, can’t ever be rehabilitated. Locking them up in prison just allows these radical Islamists to indoctrinate other inmates. Why do you think anti-terrorism specialists refer to prisons with high Muslim inmates as Jihad factories? The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

This brings me to the third class of criminals who need capital justice – murdering paedophiles like that human piece of garbage Brett Peter Cowan. Before abducting and murdering 13 year old Daniel Morcombe, Cowan had a long history of preying on and assaulting children. Yet he had served fewer than 6 years in prison, despite two convictions. In 1989, he was sentenced to two years’ jail in Brisbane for the violent molestation of a seven-year-old boy. In 1994 in Darwin, he was sentenced to 7 years, to serve only 3½ years, for the violent assault of a six-year-old boy. Cowan couldn’t help himself – he had to satisfy is perverted sexual desires.

Continue reading

A massive miscarriage of Justice: Scumbag Kieran Loveridge gets 4yrs for the King hit killing of Thomas Kelly

The maximum for manslaughter in NSW is 25yrs so why did this piece of human garbage get 4yrs???

Via NineMSN


Kieran Loveridge has been sentenced to a minimum of four years in jail for the king-hit murder of Sydney teenager Thomas Kelly.

Mr Kelly died when he was randomly punched by Loveridge on a night out in Kings Cross.

Loveridge was sentenced in packed courtroom and a cry of "oh god" could be heard coming from the direction of Mr Kelly's family as the sentence was read out.

Loveridge, 19, had pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mr Kelly, who was king hit in the notorious Sydney party strip on July 7, 2012.

Mr Kelly's life support was turned off two days later.

Loveridge was originally charged with murder but the prosecution accepted the lesser plea of manslaughter.



Follow Andy on Twitter

And on it goes


by Perkin-Warbeck 

here is only one person standing between open warfare between Queensland’s judiciary and the Newman Government on the matter of the new laws to control bikie gangs – the Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey.

CJ de Jersey, both wily and wise, has been a Supreme Court justice since 1985 and got the top job in 1998. He has seen a succession of Premiers and Attorneys-General in his time and will undoubtedly see more before his scheduled retirement aged 70 in September, 2018.

Last weekend he did make some guarded comments about the controversy saying, “The public commentary bears a highly political flavour and thereby the courts should remain detached from that,” he said.

“(And) a challenge to the validity of the new (bikie) legislation could proceed in the Supreme Court, and that’s where challenges to grants of bail will be heard. (I) cannot by any public comment risk compromising the perceptions of the way in which the court discharges its duty in those situations,” he said.

The Chief Justice is first among equals and is not inclined to tell his fellow jurists what they can and cannot say even if he could but, clearly, his measured comments were aimed at them – in effect, he was telling Queensland judicial officers to pull their heads in.

Without a doubt, most if not all magistrates and judges resent governments restricting their independence in sentencing by, for example, imposing minimum mandatory sentences on those convicted. The new bikie laws do exactly that and the Newman Government is in no mood to compromise. They know they are on a winner with the public.

Some judges cannot help themselves from making comments which are easily exploited by the government and others as showing they are woefully out of touch with public sentiment. Judicial officers – unless they commit some horrendous crime – have a job for life and retire at 70 with a vastly generous superannuation. Queensland governments have to face the voters every three years.

Last week when sentencing a paedophile, District Court Judge Milton Griffin said, “I want to make it absolutely clear in this case the sentence I impose is not a sentence affected by any consideration of what might be said the public of Queensland wants.”

And just in case people didn’t get the message loud and clear that judges know best, he added, “Judges won’t be affected by what the public of Queensland want and to do so would be contrary to the oath of office.” 

It wasn’t calculated in the slightest degree to dispel any notion that judges were living in ivory towers.

Meanwhile the second most senior Queensland judge, Court of Appeal President Justice Margaret McMurdo, has written to the Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie urging him not to interfere with judicial discretion.

This letter, which mysteriously found its way to The Courier Mail, was written on 31 July after the government flagged dumping court-ordered parole and suspended sentences but before the new sex offender and bikie laws were introduced. She wrote that, “The interests of justice and the community are best served by arming judicial officers with the widest possible range of options when sentencing offenders. That is the way judicial officers can ensure the punishment fits the crime.”   

Justice McMurdo thoughtfully attached to her letter a clipping from The Economist which highlighted that tougher sentences around the world were not reducing crime.

Bleijie’s tart response, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion” was about as close as he could get without descending to obscenities when dismissing the concerns out of hand.

As this debate rages, the Acting Head of the powerful Crime and Misconduct Commission, Dr Ken Levy, got the legal fraternity, the Opposition and sundry other usual suspects into a lather by expressing his support for the government’s bikie laws.

Dr Levy, who was Director-General of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General during the ALP reign, faced a grilling from the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commission over his statements which he strongly defended saying, “I certainly don’t accept that being in an independent role requires me to disagree with the government on every occasion or that I must remain silent.”  

Opposition Leader Anastacia Palaszczuk – a member of the Committee – said Dr Levy no longer had Labor’s confidence. The Committee chair, Independent MP Liz Cunningham, said she would not support a vote of no confidence in Dr Levy.

Divisions between the Police Union and the Police Commissioner – never far from the surface at the best of times – have also opened up over the bikie crackdown with President Ian Leavers appealing to the Police Minister Jack Dempsey to do more to protect officers from any bikie retaliation.

Leavers claimed that Commissioner Ian Stewart didn’t “have the will” to provide sufficient protection and that officers should be allowed to decide themselves if they could take home their guns to protect themselves and their families.

Stewart responded by saying that, “ … we have policies around this and we are happy to deal with any officer who feels the need to take their weapons home, particularly if it is around personal security.”  

With the Newman Government hoping that bikies would get long jail sentences under the new laws, Queensland’s already crowded jails will be an even tougher environment from next May when smoking is banned.

Prison guards’ union secretary Michael Thomas has warned, “This is just putting more fuel on the fire and we have real concerns there’s going to be a crisis.”

For your average bikie, not being able to light up will be a far more provoking penalty than wearing the suggested pink uniforms.

PINK – Trademark of the macho


by Harley Jamieson

Pretty in pink – dealing with bikies in Queensland

In late September in the most public outbreak of bikie violence on Queensland’s Gold Coast, a violent brawl broke out in a Broadbeach restaurant. It was all caught on CCTV and broadcast later to an understandably apprehensive public.

It was the last straw for the Newman Government and they sprang into action. Previously bikie violence was very largely inter-gang warfare and, to be frank, nobody much cared if they assaulted and shot each other so long as they didn’t put members of the public at risk.

A flurry of announcements from the Government followed. A special police taskforce was set up to target the gangs and all sorts of hairy chested pronouncements made. Leading the charge was Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie who has become something of a poster boy for law and order.

He introduced the beautifully named Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment (VLAD) Bill and it was rushed through Parliament, Yes, young Jarrod is now a latter-day Vlad the Impaler – and like the first Vlad, Jarrod is determined to restore law and order.  

Under his legislation, twenty-six bikie gangs have been declared criminal organisations and their members are barred from their clubhouses, from gathering in groups of three or more, face the prospect of extra jail time on conviction of serious offences, are automatically refused bail and not allowed to work in tattoo parlours.

They should be grateful that they will not actually be impaled. We have come some little way since the 15th century fortunately. 

The Police Commissioner Ian Stewart chimed in telling coppers that they should quit if they didn’t want to be part of the bikie crackdown. “If people aren’t prepared to do that, to step up when the going gets tough, then they really do need to consider another career,” he said.

For that bit of advice, he got a backhander from the Police Union who said officers didn’t need that sort of lecture one bit. To be fair, Queensland Police have a long history of doing their political masters bidding and sinking the boot – both metaphorically and actually – when absolutely necessary to protect civilisation.

The Government’s moves attracted the predictable opposition – from the Labor Opposition which tried to be critical out of habit but didn’t want to go too far and appear as sissy whimps, from the Australian Motorcycle Council which has launched a “fighting fund” to stage court challenges and from lawyers.

The Queensland Law Society tut-tutted that the VLAD legislation “applies to a much broader section of the community, beyond bikie gangs.”

“The principles of the VLAD Bill are so broadly drawn they can apply to any association or business, or anyone out in public with three people or more,” said President Annette Bradfield.

It was the sort of legal purity statement that does the legal profession no public good at all – as if the coppers are going to raid and arrest the Baptist Ladies Knitting Guild for having in their possession needles which they openly share. 

As the Government’s campaign really hit its stride Attorney-General Bleijie bravely confirmed that he has his family had been threatened by bikies saying with a stiff upper lip, “There have been threats made. That’s as far as I am going.”

Then in came the Police and Community Safety Minister Jack Dempsey – himself a former copper.

He announced that he had asked the Corrective Services Department to investigate changing the colour of prison uniforms, possibly to fluoro pink.

“We will start with members and associates of criminal gangs and will look at rolling it out to other inmates over time,” he said.

He got full marks from Premier Newman himself who observed about bikies, “They are bullies – they like to wear scary-looking gear, leather jackets, they have the tattoos, they have the colours. We know that telling them to wear pink is going to be embarrassing for them.” 

We can all imagine, of course, some flabby middle-aged prison inmate who is doing time for fraud sneering at a bikie who is pretty in pink and saying something like, “What a sissy you are, you big girl’s blouse.”

From what I’ve seen of bikies, you could dress them in bras and suspender belts – the full drag in fact – and they would still look and be bloody frightening. And since the Government is planning to reopen Woodford Jail just for bikies, presumably they would be all in pink – so hardly much embarrassment.

Minister Dempsey has asked Corrective Services “to investigate the Arizona model to see if it would have any benefit in Queensland.”

The “Arizona model” is the brainchild of Sheriff Joe Arpaio who, reputedly, is America’s toughest sheriff. We know that because his own book is entitled “Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America’s Toughest Sheriff.” He has been elected five times since 1992 and, whatever else he is, he doesn’t suffer from any painful shyness.

It was he who introduced pink underwear for inmates of Maricopa County Jail and he followed that up with introducing pink handcuffs. His other innovative penal reforms include having prisoners live in canvas tents and work in 40 degree summer heat in chain gangs. And he is an equal opportunity law enforcer – women are treated the same way and it doesn’t faze him one bit that most of these inmates are actually still enjoying the presumption of innocence and are awaiting trial.

This intrepid officer’s service to law and order in the USA includes his investigation into President Obama’s birth certificate – and he is certain that it is a forgery. Gosh, I wish I could see the Briefing Paper Minister Dempsey gets from his Department.

And another really bright idea from the Sheriff for a cash-strapped Government – he now sells customised pink boxers emblazoned with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s logo and “Go Joe”.

Back in 1941, when German General Erwin Rommel had a largely Australian garrison surrounded in Tobruk, the British traitor dubbed Lord Haw Haw broadcast from Berlin that they were the “poor desert rats of Tobruk” 

The Aussies proudly claimed that for themselves and to this day the last survivors are still proud to call themselves the Rats of Tobruk. 

I suspect that any self-respecting bikies who didn’t get to wear pink, if that ever happens, would be the ones who were embarrassed – imagine the shame of knowing that the Government and prison authorities don’t think they are bad enough!

The William Bugmy Case


High Court's William Bugmy ruling 'a good call'

It is always sad when a person's self-worth diminishes into a life of criminal activity or poor mental health but it is somewhat reassuring that the High Court has set a precedent and disagrees with the Criminal Court in that suffering does not diminish in time. Suicide and self harm rates show that mental illnesses which manifest later in life stem from entrenched personal issues—or negative mental tapes. 

In the William Bugmy case before the High Court where lawyers for the defence argued that Mr Bugmy's cultural history should be considered in sentencing him for an assault on a Police Officer, such a conclusive defence was disregarded. The High Court did however agree to take into account Mr Bugmy's ill mental health in the decision making which, and like Mr Bellear ( said to the ABC's Drum blog, the outcome is nothing new in determining sentences as many courts will consider mental illness, however to have the precedent set by a High Court judge means that in all courts the mental health and background of a person should be considered in the present. In respectful contrast to Mr Bellear I believe that this aspect of the case's outcome should indeed be celebrated.

The High Court didn't factor in ancestral, historical or heritage related suffering and rightly so in my view (and yet again in respectful difference to Mr Bellear), while an injustice anywhere is an injustice to everybody everywhere, the right way to go about addressing current or prior injustices to a people is to fight for a better future. Lapsing into criminal behaviour may stem from mental illness but it grows from personal circumstances; heading down a road of crime on behalf of the struggles of our people is not respecting our people and it should never be used as a defence for criminal grievous behaviour. 

Behaviours stemming from poor mental health have a personal catalyst not a cultural one (as in the Bugmy case), behaviours of activism and civil disobedience is a different matter and should be (depending on their severity) able to be defended in a cultural context. Just because you're a First Australian does not mean all your negative actions are defensible by your cultural history. In short, if one's personal background is one of Stolen Generation, forced adoption or missionary abuse and personally directed cultural denigration by the State or Church, then in that sense the "greater" cultural struggle should be relevant in one's sentencing. On the other hand, if one's background is simply of low socio-economic, perhaps a home of substance abuse and misuse, low quality of life due to lack of mainstream education and employment opportunities—as is now the contemporary circumstance by and large, then simply being of Aboriginal heritage should not excuse you over someone of another ethnic background but has similar life circumstances.

Our first priority is to be accountable for our own actions and further to support the healing of those who suffer from poor mental health. I hope that combination of sentiments is what people take away from the High Court's ruling in this case.

Jack Andrew Wilkie-Jans 

A&TSI Affairs Advocate

Gutless sellouts should be remembered

Where are our spineless politicians when Australia needs to stand up, defend democracy, and rail against militant Muslims? Geert Wilbers is an elected member of Dutch Parliament, not a criminal and as such deserves the right to speak in Australia. His audience should be the deciders of his delivery, certainly not commercial enterprises driven by fear. Threats from a handful of rabid militants is not good enough.

The Dutch politician's tour has moved beyond freedom to speak in Australia, it is now a shameful surrender of law and order by our politicians and our police to a violent few who have discovered exactly how to hijack a society of 22.6 million. What will be their next assault upon majority rights? The international media will run with this story and based on Europe's experience of violent Islamists it will be a gutless image of the "fair go" land down under. Shame, shame! GC.Ed.

…What is not contested is that a dangerous Islamic fringe is active in numerous countries. Wilders will be accompanied to Australia by five Dutch police officers. He lives under permanent 24-hour security.

Fear has arrived here before him. On Wednesday, the organiser of the tour, Debbie Robinson, told me yet another venue had cancelled and there had been another act of corporate suppression directed at the tour.

'This morning the venue in Sydney cancelled. There was a meltdown. The events manager at the venue was screaming. Right now we have no Sydney venue.''

It was not her only setback. ''Yesterday PayPal froze the funds in the account that is processing ticket sales. They will not tell me why. All staff keep saying is the account is under review. It's been like an Orwellian nightmare.''

This follows a refusal by Westpac to allow her to set up a payment system and refusal by more than a dozen venues to host a Wilders event, citing security concerns.

Read more:

When to shoot?


Geoff Crocker Ed.

Damned if you do, perhaps dead if you don't. Put your hand up if you want to try your luck at being a cop, even for a day?

The past decade has witnessed a new breed of criminal. They are brazen, ruthless, armed and have no hesitation in killing, including police officers. Not so long ago three scumbags armed with machetes were knocking over a Sydney pub when police intercepted them. The result: One punk shot dead, one wounded and one on the run. The police officers were lucky, they went home to their families that day.

Society is again put on notice that too many police officers don’t go home after their shift. Considering the many hassles police endure while on duty it’s a wonder anybody would want the job.

If only for the time spent reading this column, place yourself in a police officer’s boots, but to understand how they fit, you need to know a few things.

In June 1997, police fired at Frenchman Roni Levi on Bondi Beach. Mr. Levi died in hospital shortly thereafter.

Although circumstances of the incident were not known at the time, that did not stop the do-gooders and bleeding hearts from launching vicious and insensitive attacks against the police involved, to the point of violating privacy and hounding their wives.

Then came unruly mobs armed with ignorance that stormed and occupied Bondi police station (an illegal act) in protest, demanding that the officers involved be publicly exposed as cold-blooded murderers and sacked. Facts of the incident were still not determined.

Add to that the loud and ever-present armchair experts who screamed for official inquiry as to why the two officers who shot Mr. Levi aimed at his body and didn’t simply shoot the knife from his hand. Mr. Levi ignored all pleas by police to drop the weapon. He did not drop the large carving knife but instead, responded with menace. 

As usual, police bashing hit fever pitch via an opportunistic media and do-gooders who have little or no idea whatsoever about firearms, their use and their capabilities, or the realities of police duties. And, you can wager that none of them have ever faced anything more dangerous than an angry worm on an organic apple.

Real life situations of firearm use, particularly those with handguns, are vastly different to the exciting scenarios depicted on TV screens. Movies and television regularly glorify unrealistic, if not impossible use of firearms.

This has taught the public and most media reporters, erroneously, that firearm use can be a thrilling event in which ropes are severed with a single shot from the hip, sparks cascade from ricochets, walls collapse, cars explode and people are thrown through the air like rag dolls by the impact of a single bullet.

Such effects are specially staged and wildly exaggerated for viewers as they stuff their faces with popcorn. Real bullets slamming into objects and human flesh are not an animated event and are generally an anti-climax that leaves most witnesses wondering what actually happened.

Do-gooders squeal about how the police should be disarmed, how they should have an assortment of special bullets, the virtues of pepper sprays and a raft of ideas which are mostly designed to protect the crazy perpetrator at hand, never the police officer. The officer is expected to face armed, hardened criminals, drugged-out lunatics thrusting infected syringes, and the mentally disturbed wielding knives and swords, all without causing them harm.

Despite what do-gooders think, our police don’t play roles in the antiseptic air of a movie set where faked scenes, ballistic effects and collapsible knives entertain us. Our police officers face the unexpected and unimaginable actions from whackos in a violent and mentally disturbed society in which lawbreakers don’t play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Place yourself, if you can, or dare, as a trained police officer confronting a subject who is threatening to kill you. He’s holding a knife—a big one. Do you fumble for the pepper spray or taser, both of which may not work or do you draw your gun? Seconds are passing and if you don’t already have your gun drawn and aimed you may be in serious strife because that subject is capable of charging seven metres and stabbing you through the heart, all before you can release the safety strap, draw your gun, aim and fire. That’s a fact!

Consider the subject is 25 metres away pointing a firearm at you. Your service pistol is drawn and aimed while you scream frantically for them to drop their weapon. You don’t know if the subject will shoot or when. You don’t even know if their gun is real or if it’s loaded. Many factors must be computed within a split second.

You are now shaking with fear because you may be dead in a second having never heard the fatal shot. You begin to pressure the trigger but the several-kilogram trigger-pull causes your hand to shake. You search beyond the subject wondering what might be hit should you miss.

You recall in training that if the foresight trembles more than a hair’s breadth you will not stop your subject at that distance. You wonder how the killing of a person will affect you. Have you followed all department rules of armed confrontation? What about the consequences to your career and the savage inquiry that will follow? It’s a split-second decision; the result is eternal. Do you shoot? 

Until faced with that real-life situation the answer will always be a mystery. Be thankful that you are a civilian and may never have to make that life altering decision.

Mr. Levi’s friends described him as a gentle person who wouldn’t hurt a fly. However, he had a history of mental instability that escalated during days before his death. Those police on the beach that day were not privy to such matters and after exhausting all available options to disarm and subdue Mr. Levi, at 7.30am. two officers who had to make that irreversible decision fired four bullets that changed the lives of all concerned forever.

My mate was a police officer who once told me that his duty as a policeman was to protect the public and preserve law and order. He also said that his first duty was to his wife and child. That meant going home to them after each shift—ALIVE.



Amsterdam leads the way with troublemakers

Geert Wilders is the Dutch politician who has dared to stand against the Islamisation of Holland. He was to speak in Australia late last year but had to postpone because the Gillard government stalled his visa. A far better option for Labor's dwindling political fortunes would have been to take Wilders on board and give McTernin the boot.

Wilders' Australian visit here.

Amsterdam is to create villages where nuisance neighbours and anti-social tenants will be exiled from the city and rehoused in caravans or containers with "minimal services" under constant police supervision.

The new camps have been dubbed "scum villages" because the plan echoes a proposal from Geert Wilders, the leader of a populist right-wing party, for special units to deal with persistent troublemakers.

"Repeat offenders should be forcibly removed from their neighbourhood and sent to a village for scum," he suggested last year. "Put all the trash together."

Read more:

(Thanks reader Abe)