[hayleymumof3]

Derryn Hinch has once again gone against court orders and named and shamed a convicted paedophile. I am conflicted about this because while I know he is right in naming and shaming he is going against the law to do so. I admire that he stands true to his convictions.

DERRYN Hinch has done it again. He's named a convicted paedophile in a move that could see him jailed for contempt of court.
Speaking on his 3AW radio show in Victoria yesterday, Hinch named a prominent Sydney property developer convicted of sexually assaulting his 11-year-old step daughter on Sydney’s lower north shore.
The man was sentenced last week to 18 months' jail in the District Court.
During the case the convicted man's barrister, Anthony Bellanto, QC successfully argued to have the defendant's name suppressed in NSW to ''minimise any ongoing damage to his reputation''.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/derryn-hin...0#ixzz1qw21I84c

[SarDonik]

The guy is a moron who courts controversy in a desperate attempt to stay in the media. He doesn't have any credibility.

[dadathome]

It is a difficult one, isn't it. The reporting to date suggests a line that, if you're high profile/rich enough, you can have details suppressed which would otherwise be made public. Surely if details of one are supporessed pending appeal to should be available to all in all cases?

However, Hinch has broken the law again, and I'm a firm believer in the rule of law. So Hinch is wrong in my eyes.

[Leafprincess]

I understand the law is designed to protect the victims.

If a victim signs a release order I don't see why they shouldn't be named.
These people are disgusting, they prey on the most defenseless in our society. Their actions ensure that that victims carry a lifetime of burden and hurt. They get off on the fact that their dirty, disgusting, vile actions are done in 'secret'.

If he has been convicted it means he's been through a through court process that has found him guilty, I have yet to hear of a "reformed" paedophile.

So good on you Derryn, someone has to take a stand and say something.

Because you can bet your bottom dollar I would want to know if a sicko lived in my street or opposite a day care centre. Wouldn't you?

[Sassy Girl]

I completely agree with yipfazel.

I wish there were more journalists like Hinch. One's that care about the truth and the victim not ones that toe the line.

[Bodacious Prime]

Good on him I reckon.
He is quite obviously passionate about this subject and is willing to put his own freedom at stake.
That bit about "minimise any ongoing damage to his reputation'' makes me feel ill.

[Guest_Buy Me A Pony !_*]

Did anyone else read the column written by the victim re the name suppression of the convicted? I don't agree that media should go against the courts but nor do I agree that convicted people should be entitled to this type of privacy.

[gabbigirl]

Why are these people protected? Protect their reputation?? should they have thought of that while they were sexually assaulting an 11 year old???

ETA, just read that names are suppressed to protect victims. OK got it now. victims right shold be supreme in these situations

This post has been edited by gabbigirl: 03/04/2012, 11:25 AM

[Chelli]

I think it cuts both ways. Children deserve the right for privacy if they've been a victim of abuse, which is what I think the law is trying to do. However, I hate the fact that a lawyer can successfully argue for a convicted pedophile's right to keep their professional reputation in tact. It makes me sick that they have any rights to make their lives any easier while their victims are sentenced to a lifetime of ramifications.

[Lainskii]

Does anyone know who it was?