HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

JUDICIAL SENTENCING

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:01): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Police, representing the Attorney-General.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I was at the District Court this morning for the sentencing of Chris Niehus, a paedophile who was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. The victim, who is willing to be named, although I will not name her, is now an adult but was 14 years of age at the time of the offending.

She met Mr Niehus on the internet. He lured her to meet him in person and then sexually abused her over a year. He convinced her that she had caused the offending to happen and that it was her fault. They then began a relationship which was sexually, mentally and physically abusive. The sexual abuse was then persistent, occurring some two to three times a week over the period of at least one year.

Police began investigating Mr Niehus on unrelated child pornography matters, and the sexual abuse then ended. Nevertheless, Mr Niehus began stalking her and calling her several times a day, breaching restraining orders and bail conditions on numerous occasions.

In addition to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor on several occasions, some of the more recent incidents included:

continually sending naked images of himself via email to the 14 year old victim;

calling her up to 30 times a day;

emailing her several hundred emails in the period of a few days, some stating what colour cars she was parked between;

damaging both the victim's old and current cars by kicking in the doors and keying them on several occasions;

chasing her and her boyfriend on several occasions;

turning up at her boyfriend's place of work, despite restraining orders to the contrary; and

making a number of complaints about her and her boyfriend to their workplaces, schools and other organisations they had dealings with.

This morning District Court Judge Marie Shaw sentenced the deviant Chris Niehus, whose name is no longer suppressed, to a three year head sentence and one year non-parole period and then wholly suspended the sentence. His only immediate penalty is a requirement to complete 150 hours of community service.

There is a prevailing concern that defence lawyers make soft judges and that Judge Marie Shaw is Adelaide's softest judge. There was public outcry over her November 2006 sentence of home invader Alan Knott which saw her say she was 'entitled to be merciful' because in her view Knott had rehabilitated himself. In November 1998 Knott had tied up and beaten an elderly couple with a hammer for seven hours in their own home, leading to massive outcry via the late campaigner, Ivy Skowronski. She gave the marauder a very light gaol term indeed. The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed and actually quadrupled the sentence she imposed.

She is reported in The Advertiser this week as canvassing the need for shorter prison sentences. Further, freedom of information data received by Family First shows that Judge Shaw did not sentence any persons charged with rape or unlawful sexual intercourse to prison last year, despite hearing 12 cases charged with those offences. I remarked about these deplorable sentencing statistics during debate on the victims of crime bill, but I did not name the judge. I now name that judge as Judge Marie Shaw. My questions to the minister are:

1. Given the government's claim of being tough on law and order, when will the minister call for a joint sitting of parliament to remove Judge Marie Shaw, South Australia's softest judge, from office?

2. If the government will not do this, what possible reason can there be to allow Judge Shaw to continue to hear cases and hand down grossly inadequate sentences to hardened criminals?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (15:05): Just before I came into question time today I saw details of this particular sentence on the internet media reports, and I can understand why anyone looking at that might have concerns that, on the facts given in the reports, the sentence was lenient. I believe the Attorney-General has made a statement in relation to this case; obviously, as the case was handed down just this morning, he would need to examine the sentencing decision of the judge before it would be appropriate for him to take any action in relation to that particular decision—if, indeed, he felt that was warranted.

Our judicial system has the capacity through the appeals system, and there are mechanisms by which the Director of Public Prosecutions has the capacity, to appeal sentences which are believed to be too lenient. I am sure that the Attorney will examine the sentencing decision and the details of the case and will refer it to the Director of Public Prosecutions if that is considered appropriate.

In relation to particular judges, that is a matter for this parliament. There will be judges who will make a range of decisions, and I do not think it prudent to draw conclusions based on one decision in one particular case. As I said, at this stage the government has not had an opportunity to look at the reasons given for the sentence, but I am sure it will do that and will take whatever action on the matter is deemed appropriate.

The PRESIDENT: I remind honourable members of standing order 193, and indicate that without a substantive motion they should be very careful when reflecting on judges of the courts.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT