Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Rapist dad shocked court set him free (Perth, Australia)

Even UNNAMED DAD (the self-confessed child rapist) is "shocked" that he got off after raping his daughter for nearly a decade?

It's shocking, but not suprising. Australia has an extremely militant fathers rights movement that has terrorized judges, family courts, and protective mothers for years. Harrassment, bomb threats, terrorism, targeted assassinations--it's all there. And this kind of kissy-poo judicial response is the logical result.


Rapist dad shocked court set him free

EXCLUSIVE by Janet Fife-Yeomans•

The Daily Telegraph• July 16, 201310:00PM

THE father who raped his daughter and got off with a good behaviour bond has said even he was surprised by the light sentence.

"I expected to go to jail for what I did," the 55-year-old told The Daily Telegraph yesterday.

In his dark suit, white shirt, tie and wearing glasses, he looked like any other business type around the Supreme Court but the man said he was terrified about his identity being revealed.

He cannot be named because it would identify his daughter, now 19, who was only nine years old when he began abusing her. She has been left suicidal, suffers from depression and is back in hospital for urgent medical treatment.

The man said he was shocked at the reaction from a public angry that he got off so lightly.

"Have you heard what they are saying about me on talkback radio?" he said outside court. "I'll have to live with what I did."

Earlier this year he was put on a three-year good behaviour bond on the condition he attend a residential "treatment program" in Sydney's west for men guilty of incest. He pleaded guilty to four representative counts of aggravated sexual assault and one of aggravated indecent assault.

"I was assessed suitable for the program," he said.

He was on a day out from the treatment centre yesterday to represent himself in the Supreme Court, where his daughter has sued him for compensation to pay her continuing medical bills and for punitive damages.

The father told Justice Peter Garling that he was not defending the case and the only question was how much his daughter would be awarded in damages.

Her lawyers sought an interim payment yesterday of $50,000 and the father said that all he had was $25,000, which he had been blocked by the court last week from spending.

"I don't say that ($50,000) is excessive, I just don't have it," the man said.

He told the court that he thought the case had been "unnecessarily complicated" since his daughter engaged lawyers to represent her and he had been trying to negotiate giving her money.

Justice Garling ordered him to pay $25,000 to his daughter pending the final outcome of the case.

His wife, from whom the man says he is estranged, is still blocked from spending any of the $120,000 he gave her as maintenance for their son pending the assessment of what damages the daughter will be awarded at a later date.

The daughter's lawyers have claimed the "separation" is a sham. There are no Family Court orders in place.

The family home was sold last year, eight months after the man was charged, and the mother now lives in a house owned solely by her.

The man has disputed that he is to blame for all of his daughter's physical and mental problems. Those arguments will be heard before a final decision on damages is made.

Outside court, the man would not comment on The Daily Telegraph's campaign for mandatory minimum sentences for all child sex offenders because he did not want to "jeopardise" anything.

The Office of the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions has not yet decided whether to appeal against the sentence.