Steve Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/strike-th...o-1225887510384 What? I get the bit about the bad magistrate but what is the bit about her having to pay the RSPCA? THE victim of a brutal assault was horrified when "wrong way magistrate" Richard Pithouse refused to consider her evidence, ignored her injuries and let her attacker off without conviction, instead ordering the woman to pay the RSPCA $250. Ballarat resident Dennise Ebsary sent a letter of complaint last November to Chief Magistrate Ian Gray about Mr Pithouse after the case last September, which left her feeling outraged at the magistrate's actions. Critics have labelled the incident Mr Pithouse's "third strike" and said judicial authorities must now act. "As I am not a dog, a fine to the RSPCA is utterly insulting," Ms Ebsary wrote in her letter to Mr Gray, dated November 5, which has not been answered. The complaint was the latest in a litany of incidents involving Mr Pithouse - the former Hamilton solicitor appointed to the bench in 2008 by Attorney-General Rob Hulls. In a press release trumpeting Mr Pithouse's appointment, Mr Hulls said he "welcomed Mr Pithouse to the Court as part of the Victorian Government's commitment to improving community access to justice". Richard Pithouse Should wrong-way magistrate Richard Pithouse be sacked over his treatment of victims? Yes No VOTE NOW Related Coverage Wrong way magistrate: Hulls weighs into victim snub Magistrate snub: Fresh court claims Editorial: Bench must pass scrutiny Fresh court claims Herald Sun, 7 days ago Sex assault victim 'denied fair hearing' NEWS.com.au, 19 Jun 2010 No voice, no way Herald Sun, 19 Jun 2010 Nine-year-olds 'sexting' Herald Sun, 10 Feb 2010 Judge defends drink-drive colleague Herald Sun, 10 Feb 2010 Last month the Sunday Herald Sun revealed Mr Pithouse, after driving to Ararat instead of Ballarat, had refused to accept a victim impact statement from a sex assault victim who had flown from Queensland. The story of "Emma" sparked criticism from victims' rights groups. Even Attorney-General Robb Hulls weighed in. And last week this newspaper revealed that Mr Pithouse had also been the subject of two earlier complaints in November, one from a Ballarat welfare organisation and one from a police officer. The two were moved to complain to Mr Gray after Mr Pithouse refused to grant a police application for an intervention order against a violent prisoner who was stalking his wife. Instead, Mr Pithouse accused police of conducting a vendetta against the man - despite threatening letters the prisoner had written from prison. The woman was later attacked by the man after he was released from prison. Ms Ebsary was attacked at her mother's house in front of her horrified 14-year-old son in July 2008 by her sister-in-law, Kylie McKechnie. According to a statement she later gave to police, Ms Ebsary was repeatedly punched in the face, grabbed by the hair and thrown to the ground. She suffered two black eyes and severe bruising and strangle marks across her neck. "Mr Pithouse made comment about it being a family tiff and not that serious. He made me feel like a hysterical bimbo, blowing it all out of proportion and wasting his time," Ms Ebsary said in her complaint. "A women's or children's refuge I would understand, but an animal shelter!" The Chief Magistrate spoke with Mr Pithouse last week. The Brumby Government and Mr Gray have said the matter is closed and Mr Pithouse is free to continue on the bench. Justice Department spokesman Mario Xuereb refused to say how many complaints there were against Mr Pithouse. He also said "the court" had no record of a complaint from Ms Ebsary, despite her insistence that she sent it. The "slap on the wrist" has angered the Opposition and crime victims' groups, who are calling for Mr Hulls or Mr Gray to take action on the growing dossier of complaints. "Rob Hulls can't put his head in the sand about this," shadow attorney-general Robert Clark said. "He has given himself a central role under the Victorian constitution in any decision on removing a judge or magistrate from office. He must not shirk his responsibilities. "Rob Hulls needs to urgently seek a full report from the Chief Magistrate, so he can decide whether to appoint an investigating committee into removing Magistrate Pithouse from office." Justice advocate Steve Medcraft said disciplinary measures rather than "fireside chats" were needed after fresh revelations of another female complainant left shaken by Mr Pithouse's conduct. "This is his third strike. That's good night to the magistrate and it's time the powers that be start to take complaints against him seriously," Mr Medcraft said. "He obviously has no compassion or understanding for women's issues. Ms Ebsary's attacker, McKechnie, was charged with intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, assault by kicking, unlawful assault and using threatening words. The charge of intentionally causing injury was dropped and McKechnie pleaded guilty to the other charges. "Mr Pithouse at no time asked any questions of myself or any witnesses, he never commented on the police photographs or the medical report, both of which were in the file. He made no comment about my son and the effect this has had on him, nor did he comment about the severity of the assault," Ms Ebsary wrote. Mr Gray and Mr Hulls have told the Sunday Herald Sun that the talk between Mr Gray and Mr Pithouse was where the matter would end. And while Mr Hulls indicated nothing further would be done, he was forced to defend the Chief Magistrate's handling of the complaints against Mr Pithouse. "I have full faith in the Chief Magistrate's ability to deal with these matters appropriately," he said. Defending the number of complainants to him who had heard nothing back, Mr Gray said his practice was to provide a response after the matter was finalised. Mr Gray said Mr Pithouse had been counselled over scotching the impact statement of victim "Emma", but refused to discuss all the other complaints laid against the magistrate. "I have met with Mr Pithouse and counselled him accordingly. He has taken the complaints raised seriously and accepted my counsel," Mr Gray said "In my opinion it is not appropriate in this case to invoke the process of an investigating panel. "As Chief Magistrate, I cannot review the judicial decisions of individual magistrates. It is not appropriate for me to discuss the contents of individual cases or complaints." - with Liam Houlihan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 Maybe Liam would care to explain LOL I couldn't understand a word of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frufru Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 (edited) The woman was ordered to pay a fine (as the case was not decided in her favour) in the form of a donation to a charity and the magistrate named the charity as the RSPCA - the magistrate could have named a women's refuge (it would be appropriate to name a charity linked to the case area ) but he chose the RSPCA (the woman feels belittled by this order) - the magistrate described the alleged "brutal assault" as a family tiff. He sounds like an arse wipe!!!!! JMO Edited July 3, 2010 by frufru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 How strange, that people can be ordered to pay money to a charity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 How strange, that people can be ordered to pay money to a charity Another version of 'community service' ,maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 How strange, that people can be ordered to pay money to a charity Another version of 'community service' ,maybe? I guess what I'm thinking about is the thousands of charities out there who are lesser known and would miss out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 3, 2010 Author Share Posted July 3, 2010 The woman was ordered to pay a fine (as the case was not decided in her favour) in the form of a donation to a charity and the magistrate named the charity as the RSPCA - the magistrate could have named a women's refuge (it would be appropriate to name a charity linked to the case area ) but he chose the RSPCA (the woman feels belittled by this order) - the magistrate described the alleged "brutal assault" as a family tiff. He sounds like an arse wipe!!!!! JMO Oh I get it ! Thank You. What an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danois Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 I was about to say the same - the defendant was ordered to pay a fine and for it to be paid to a charity (as opposed to the court coffers which is usual). The court cannot order the fine be paid to the victim (although it can order reparation be paid). Magistrate obviously is an animal fan and chose RSPCA. I have seen the court usually give the victim a say in where it would go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 What a strange Magistrate... Poor lady, I hope her complaint gets her some better attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasMum Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 I think in this case though didnt the victim have to pay the fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 I think in this case though didnt the victim have to pay the fine? I think that's why it's so confusing. Maybe the journo stuffed up? - witnesses dont pay fines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parkeyre Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 If the fine is a donation to a charity, they'll get it back come tax time. That's hardly a punishment, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 If the fine is a donation to a charity, they'll get it back come tax time.That's hardly a punishment, More like "forced savings " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parkeyre Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 If the fine is a donation to a charity, they'll get it back come tax time.That's hardly a punishment, More like "forced savings " Yes, but it's not a fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarope Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 What a crazy world we live in. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frufru Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 (edited) THE victim of a brutal assault was horrified when "wrong way magistrate" Richard Pithouse refused to consider her evidence, ignored her injuries and let her attacker off without conviction, instead ordering the woman to pay the RSPCA $250 Yes, the victim was fined and the attacker got off. Perhaps there was not enough evidence - who knows - what I don't like is the message implied in the "donation" to the rspca - he is clearly trying to trivialise a case concerning assault and domestic violence - makes you wonder!!!!! Edited July 4, 2010 by frufru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 5, 2010 Author Share Posted July 5, 2010 THE victim of a brutal assault was horrified when "wrong way magistrate" Richard Pithouse refused to consider her evidence, ignored her injuries and let her attacker off without conviction, instead ordering the woman to pay the RSPCA $250 Yes, the victim was fined and the attacker got off. Perhaps there was not enough evidence - who knows - what I don't like is the message implied in the "donation" to the rspca - he is clearly trying to trivialise a case concerning assault and domestic violence - makes you wonder!!!!! Doesnt bode well for anyone coming before him on charges from the RSPCA either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fit for a King Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 But what's really really weird is that the attacker pleaded guilty but the magistrate dismissed the charges..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 (edited) I don't think not recording a conviction is the same as dismissing the charges. I think the article is probably wrong when it talks about fining the woman. My take on it would be the man was fined $250 to be paid to the RSPCA and no conviction was recorded - even less than a slap on the wrist. Hence the victim's comment that she is not a dog and paying the fine to the RSPCA, as if it were an animal cruelty offence, is insulting - which it is!! I don't see how they can have fined the victim, that has got to be a typo. Edited July 7, 2010 by Diva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now