Derryn / Schapelle Proceeds of crime double standards ???

[colic2bullsgirlore]

Presumably the human headline gets paid for his blog or at least gleans income from the advertising

..... So will the AFP investigate ????

http://www.humanheadline.com.au/hinch-says/free-again

WAS GOING TO START this with the line ‘As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted’ but it’s not original and I have used it when I have been gagged before.

But honestly, now several hours out of prison and a long way from Langi Kal Kal, I  feel  too drained  and too emotional to start with a joke.

Even if I think my $100,000 fine and consequential fifty days in jail with some of Australia’s worst rapist-murderers was a sick joke.

For now, some instant impressions and recollections. I’ll have more to say when I go through the meticulous daily diaries I kept.

The ones the Intel investigators showed so much interest in when searching my cell, and taking photographs yesterday.

Some of these points I aired on Sunrise and at the media conference outside the prison boundaries when freed, after two early morning head counts and a strip-search, this morning.

I spent my first two weeks in custody in solitary confinement under maximum security in the same prison, same floor (and only cells apart) as the man who was responsible for my being there.

The low-life piece of   human flotsam whose name I will never mention again in public or on this blog. A man I will call JMK – Jill Meagher’s Killer.

I got a taste of how he spends his day being let out for only an hour of exercise in a small ground floor yard surrounded by high brick walls and razor wire.

http://www.afp.gov.au/policing/proceeds-of-crime.aspx

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (the Act) was passed on 11 October 2002 and came into operation on 1 January 2003.

The Act provides a scheme to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crime against Commonwealth law.

In some circumstances it can also be used to confiscate the proceeds of crime against foreign law or the proceeds of crime against State law (if those proceeds have been used in a way that contravenes Commonwealth law).

The Act also provides a scheme that allows confiscated funds to be given back to the Australian community in an endeavour to prevent and reduce the harmful effects of crime in Australia.

[lakeland27]

that's the thing, the law isn;t unjust. it's there to protect the potentially innocent also. if a defendant's case is undermined by media before they have their day in court it can bias the case against an guilty defendant which might help them get off. with an innocent defendant it can turn it the other way , putting him/her in gaol. the law exists for very sound reasons.

[cherry*135]

[lakeland27]

---

@am*3 wrote:
That doesn't explain how ( what Section ) he would charged under the Profiting from Crimes Act.

---

 no, its important to allow the judiciary to interpret the law. its quite complex for lay persons to fully grasp.

[azureline**]

He broke the law, he knew he was doing that.

Chopper Read profited from his crime.

[patchoo78]

---

@lind9650 wrote:

The whole scenario gives "Freedom of speach" another meaning.

---

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to say what you like without consequences. Naming pedophiles before they have even been convicted is interfering with the course of justice.

Imagine one of your family members was suspected of child abuse, would you want their name being blabbed everywhere before they had even gone to trial? If someone blabs their name before they have even gone to trial and they're found innocent, their lives could be ruined.. 

[cherry*135]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that he broke the law.The OP's focus appears to be on the profiting from the proceeds of crime?

From the op:

"Presumably the human headline gets paid for his blog or at least gleans income from the advertising

..... So will the AFP investigate ????

http://www.humanheadline.com.au/hinch-says/free-again"


OP on another thread here it says the newspaper donated $10 000 to a charity for what Hinch wrote.

[cherry*135]

Proceeds of Crime - perhaps Chopper Reads gains were an impetus for change and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002?

SMH columinst

Chopper Read:
Maybe the thing to do is not have any bits of paper. Chopper Read seems to have been a pioneer of this process in collaboration with the author and publisher of his life of crime, Andrew Rule. Mind you, this was in the early 1990s, before the Proceeds of Crime Act was tightened up and specifically targeted literary works.
It's understood there was no contract, as such, between Read and Rule, and that any payments were acts of grace, purely at the discretion of the payer.
The hoary old crim did get about $22,000 in rights payments from the producers of the film Chopper. He wanted to give that money to the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, but the hospital was fussy, not wanting to receive ''tainted funds''. Instead, he gave it to a police and emergency services charity called the Bluey Day Foundation, which in turn gave it to the hospital. In this way the money was scrubbed clean.
As far as I can discover, Chopper Read was never subject to proceeds of crime proceedings for his literary collaborations.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

---

@am*3 wrote:
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that he broke the law.The OP's focus appears to be on the profiting from the proceeds of crime?

From the op:

"Presumably the human headline gets paid for his blog or at least gleans income from the advertising

..... So will the AFP investigate ????

http://www.humanheadline.com.au/hinch-says/free-again"


OP on another thread here it says the newspaper donated $10 000 to a charity for what Hinch wrote.

---

Yes I understand that but on his own blog there are these drop down menus at the top

• About Hinch
• Galleries
• Advertise
• Contact Hinch
• Feedback

When you select the advertise option this comes up

"Complete the form below if you are interested in advertising on Human Headline"

I disabled my adblocker but I cannot actually see any advertising around the blog so maybe nobody has taken the

option up.

My point is that if he wants to publish re his incarceration that it should be done on a not for profit (amateur) blog site  (or as he has done in the paper and donated to a charity for print rights) rather than on his own blog that advertises for advertisers where he may profit from it now or in the future.

My post was not designed to be a Hinch headhunt it was more aimed at what he wrote in his blog where he sells (or may sell in the future) advertisng space and its relevance to proceeds of a crime.

[ca04]

am*3

xxxxxxxxxx

 2013 version of the act was an entertaining read.

A typical jumble of work comonplace from the labor lot.

Although the act is enacted over Australia and it's Territories

it in some parts deems itself world domination.

I liked the following entries

Prepared  15 march 2013

Registered  20 march 2013

Started     8 march 2013.

I was much taken in by the following part of the act.

"This act does not make the Crown liable to be prosecuted for an offence."

Amusing but then I am led to belive I have an odd sense of humour.